One of the pleasures of reading professional journal articles about effective ways to motivate middle-school learners through inquiry and project-based learning is the References/Works Cited page. I realize as I am writing this that the joy of digging into sources that support the thesis of the author is probably a "very librarian" thing to do. I do find this page a rich treasure trove for further research and reading providing new ideas and a map to more meaningful learning and challenging curriculum. After finishing a well written and researched piece, I am drawn to the back page to see who inspired the writer. With that "following the breadcrumbs" frame of mind I came across the following article: Lattimer, Heather, and Robert Riordan. “Project-Based Learning Engages Students in Meaningful Work.” Middle School Journal, vol. 43, no. 2, 2011, pp. 18–23.
I continue to work with thoughtful teachers who are revising past projects and creating new ones as the "catalyst for an engaging learning experience." We sometimes place too much emphasis on the "project" part of project-based learning. Working through two recent IBL/PBL ideas, the question came up about student sharing of new learning. In each case, the teacher wanted to be faithful to the choice element of sharing. After discussing how "big" to go with the project the decision was made to keep it simple and meaningful. Both teachers considered the developmental stages of the students and where they are in their learning journey. Each considered the cognitive load which is part of choosing and learning about a new presentation app while digging into important questioning skills and inquiry. They decided to focus on the learning goals. While one required a recorded interview and the other a TED Talk like presentation for science research, they did not lose sight of what they wanted the students to learn.
I have referenced in past posts to my own learning experience at the Summer Institute for Digital Literacy at URI. We were given choices to delve into our own areas of interest, organizational tools and presentation technology. There were required pieces that had to be submitted as part of the project work but we were allowed time to investigate, revise and think about our work over the course of a week. We were also asked to create an elevator pitch, short and to the point, about our change management plan using the tools we learned about in the more structured class sessions.
The course was an important mix of "lecture" and inquiry/studio time. Most beneficial were the informal conferences with faculty and other leaders to set next steps, keep questions and goals in mind and not be overwhelmed by the prospect of a deadline. I found myself struggling for traction and focus until one of the conferences with a teacher in the program on the day before the pitch was due helped clarify and simplify my thinking. The emphasis became more about learning and less about the finished product. What I needed to do was effectively communicate my thinking, ideas, and plan. While the technology/product needed to organize and support the ideas I was presenting, it needed to be clear and nearly self-explanatory in case I was not right there at my presentation point when someone stopped by.
The Lattimer, Riordan article addresses this project dilemma. In a quote from Wiggins and McTighe the authors support the idea that "when teachers focus on what the students can make and do instead of what they can investigate and uncover, projects are guilty of the "activity oriented sin of design." The article further introduced Steinberg's six A's of design. They are Academic Rigor, Authenticity, Applied learning, Active exploration, Adult Connections, and Assessment practices. We will look more closely at these in another post.
Seeing the various interpretations of IBL/PBL based on the wisdom of the teachers who know their students' ability to manage multiple elements in an inquiry-based process is compelling. Students are often asked to consider a topic, generate questions, decide on their information needs, find credible sources that meet those needs, turn the notes into new learning and understanding and share that new knowledge and possible action plan in a technology format and through oral presentation. Any of these elements of the process could de-rail a student due to the cognitive load of understanding the importance of each step to reach the goal. The goal cannot simply be the project, the goal should help the student share discoveries, make connections, think creatively and perhaps spark an interest to know more and continue the search on their own. What I was reminded of in these two planning sessions is to trust the wisdom of the teachers and their knowledge of just where their students are in their learning journey.
I continue to work with thoughtful teachers who are revising past projects and creating new ones as the "catalyst for an engaging learning experience." We sometimes place too much emphasis on the "project" part of project-based learning. Working through two recent IBL/PBL ideas, the question came up about student sharing of new learning. In each case, the teacher wanted to be faithful to the choice element of sharing. After discussing how "big" to go with the project the decision was made to keep it simple and meaningful. Both teachers considered the developmental stages of the students and where they are in their learning journey. Each considered the cognitive load which is part of choosing and learning about a new presentation app while digging into important questioning skills and inquiry. They decided to focus on the learning goals. While one required a recorded interview and the other a TED Talk like presentation for science research, they did not lose sight of what they wanted the students to learn.
I have referenced in past posts to my own learning experience at the Summer Institute for Digital Literacy at URI. We were given choices to delve into our own areas of interest, organizational tools and presentation technology. There were required pieces that had to be submitted as part of the project work but we were allowed time to investigate, revise and think about our work over the course of a week. We were also asked to create an elevator pitch, short and to the point, about our change management plan using the tools we learned about in the more structured class sessions.
The course was an important mix of "lecture" and inquiry/studio time. Most beneficial were the informal conferences with faculty and other leaders to set next steps, keep questions and goals in mind and not be overwhelmed by the prospect of a deadline. I found myself struggling for traction and focus until one of the conferences with a teacher in the program on the day before the pitch was due helped clarify and simplify my thinking. The emphasis became more about learning and less about the finished product. What I needed to do was effectively communicate my thinking, ideas, and plan. While the technology/product needed to organize and support the ideas I was presenting, it needed to be clear and nearly self-explanatory in case I was not right there at my presentation point when someone stopped by.
The Lattimer, Riordan article addresses this project dilemma. In a quote from Wiggins and McTighe the authors support the idea that "when teachers focus on what the students can make and do instead of what they can investigate and uncover, projects are guilty of the "activity oriented sin of design." The article further introduced Steinberg's six A's of design. They are Academic Rigor, Authenticity, Applied learning, Active exploration, Adult Connections, and Assessment practices. We will look more closely at these in another post.
Seeing the various interpretations of IBL/PBL based on the wisdom of the teachers who know their students' ability to manage multiple elements in an inquiry-based process is compelling. Students are often asked to consider a topic, generate questions, decide on their information needs, find credible sources that meet those needs, turn the notes into new learning and understanding and share that new knowledge and possible action plan in a technology format and through oral presentation. Any of these elements of the process could de-rail a student due to the cognitive load of understanding the importance of each step to reach the goal. The goal cannot simply be the project, the goal should help the student share discoveries, make connections, think creatively and perhaps spark an interest to know more and continue the search on their own. What I was reminded of in these two planning sessions is to trust the wisdom of the teachers and their knowledge of just where their students are in their learning journey.