A basic underlying theory to Project Based Learning is Constructivism. Constructivism has it roots in the early works of an eighteenth century philosopher Glambattista Vico who believed that people only value and learn from activities which they construct themselves. Contemporary thinkers who translated this thinking into the classroom were Jean Piaget, John Dewey and Lev. S. Vygotsky. All three thinkers postulated that students needed to be involved in the construction of the project, call upon prior learning, work in a social context, discover relationships and ideas, benefit from the tension of conflicting data and concepts, link the learning to real world situations and stay actively involved in the learning experience (Classroom Compass).
One way to increase student self-motivation to learn is to employ powerful and effective learning strategy called Project Based Learning. As a developmental and constructivist approach to learning, it provides students with intrinsic motivation, higher quality efforts and increased probability of success. One example of this strategy in action is a class of 5th graders run by Steven Wolk in an Illinois school. Based on the work of William Heard Kilpatrick, and W. Glasser the program provides students an opportunity to be the architects of their own learning. Students must develop a written learning plan and have it approved by the teacher. The projects must reach beyond the school walls through contact with experts in their fields of study. Tasks are conducted by a community of learners with a central purpose and collaborative atmosphere. This can only be accomplished through effective teacher guidance (Wolk, 1994).
A charter school in Minnesota uses project-based learning as its exclusive learning modality. A non-profit public charter school established in 1994, they serve approximately 100 students. They have no proscribed curriculum, no classes, no grade levels and no bells. The model there is for students, parents and teachers to work together to develop projects of five to seven weeks designed to relate to Minnesota’s performance standards. They present each of their projects to an audience of advisors, parents and community members for evaluation. Technology is infused throughout the school and students take full advantage of it. They have unlimited access to a wide variety of technology tools, but have no classes on how to use it. Students look to other students or a teacher/advisor for individualized help and then complete the learning on their own. Technology is “invisible” at the school. “It permeates each student’s day just like pencils used to a hundred years ago.” The satisfaction rate of students and parents runs between 96% and 99%. Students go in early and stay late, with teachers having a difficult time getting them to go home. Overall this is a positive experiment in an alternative application of project-based learning (Moyer, 1994).
An unexpected aspect of constructivist and Problem Based Learning is the emerging need to make physical changes in the way schools are designed. As teaching styles evolve, it requires architects to rethink the way they create student learning spaces. What educators, students and citizens want from their school buildings will impact design standards. For the first time since the 1960s there is a rethinking of how to use school spaces to best facilitate learning. However there needs to be caution in adopting changes in that pedagogies rarely last as long as the physical buildings, making it essential to balance current thinking with long term architectural designs. It is important to avoid the problems of the open-plan schools of the 1960s. Project Based Learning has caused a need to use spaces differently. Moving to rectangles over squares maximizes the use of space. Creating offset areas, subspaces and private corners to create a variety of workspaces increases spatial efficiency. Another aspect for consideration is more use of common spaces which are used by more than one classroom. Computer labs and other common workspaces could be examples. The integration of computers has changed the way spaces are used as well. Since more traditional furniture and equipment is not being abandoned, the inclusion of computer work space has squeezed available resources and caused people to rethink the use of classroom space. Whether computers are spaced on tables throughout the room or need storage space for laptops, space is at a premium. To accommodate the computers designers need to also include spaces to house networking equipment and wiring. As teachers implement project based learning with computer technologies collaborative workspaces and individual study spaces need to be accommodated. Overall project-based learning and constructivist pedagogies will continue to have an impact on how schools use space, and those uses affect the way architects design schools. Likewise the way schools are built can impact how easily teachers and students can implement project-based learning into the curriculum. It is a shared goal (Branch, 1994).
The U.S. Department of Education instigated a Panel on Educational
Technology in 1998. They were
charged with the task of developing policy and reviewing procedures to
“identify educational programs that work” (1) with the inclusion and
enhancement of technology. Among
other standards, they were to include the National Educational Technology
Standards (NETS) as guidelines. A
set of key issues were to be evaluated as
part of the review process.
Defining technology and terminology was an important first issue.
They determined that “all forms of computers and their peripherals”
(4) along with more traditional technologies (telephones, video cameras,
televisions, VCRs, fax machines, cable, personal digital assistants) would be
included in the category of technology. They
went on to use the inclusion of “electronic tools that help people work faster
and/or better by helping them create, store, and access information and interact
with others in dynamic ways” (4). They determined that it would be challenging
to develop criteria to determine effectiveness in lieu of the continual change
in technologies. Therefore they
stated that effective educational programs should not be tied to specific
technology but must allow for evolution in response to technology changes.
Technology should not be assessed in isolation, but as an invisible
component of good teaching and learning. It
is a facilitator of learning rather than an end in itself. It should always fit
the project rather than being imposed simply because it is available. It is the
application rather than the use of the tool which is important. “technology
should be the servant and not the master of instruction” (6).
Determining the appropriate level of analysis of projects needs to be
flexible and to determine effectiveness within the scope and purpose of
individual projects. They also found that as teachers include technology as a
teaching aid reported that their “teaching practice has changed
substantially” (7).
In evaluating the effectiveness of technologically enhanced projects it is
important to learn from past projects and past evaluations.
Within that context they decided that it is important to study
technology’s role in education reform.
It should encourage and implement curricular changes.
Rather than simply enhancing what is already being doing, it should
provide opportunities for students to learn material which was previously
thought of as unreachable. It need
to move students into new areas of creativity and connect curricular studies
into the real world. The result
would be enhancement through additional resources, scaffolding and new ways of
organizing and displaying content and concepts.
“When classroom activities are structured around long-term projects
with an authentic purpose, the value of the project tasks is apparent, students
are challenged by more complex content, and the so-called basic skills are dealt
with in context, providing a motivation for mastering the mechanics of writing,
computation, and so on” (8).
The roles of both teachers and students should be altered, as good
practices of technology integration are included.
Teachers begin to move out of the lecturer role, encouraging students to
take more leadership in their own education.
Teachers become guides, mentors and resources for student learning.
It is no longer necessary for the teacher to be the expert in everything.
The teacher helps students become the experts and to share their
expertise with their peers. Teachers
will learn to steer the learning environment, set the goals and provide
evaluation criteria.
The entire classroom environment will change. It will become more
investigatory, with students exhibiting more higher order thinking.
Cooperative skills will increase, enhancing the types of skills required
in the modern workplace. Students
will demonstrate increases in their communication skills and find innovative
ways of sharing their information and ideas.
Student motivation will increase dramatically.
As students value the work they are doing, and gain ownership in the
process, they will do more and strive to do a better job.
That builds confidence and a desire to accomplish even more.
It is very important that the changes become systemic and sustained over
time. Student writing will become
more effective and fluid. They will
complete units of study more quickly than when using traditional techniques. -- More collaboration
and motivation will be evident, resulting in students who are more socially
aware and more confident in their own abilities.
Students ability to communicate effectively about complex process will
increase. They will become
independent learners and self-starters who can evaluate what technology to use
to get a job done and when to use it.
A set of four criteria were identified for determining the quality of
educational programs.
The quality of effective technology integration is measured by its
transferable usefulness to other teachers and students. The intellectual
substance of the project and challenging learning goals are the first criteria.
It must be meaningful to students. The
curriculum must take students outside of their classroom to draw upon experts in
the field. It is equally important
that the content be current and relevant and free of bias and stereotyping.
Projects must move beyond automating existing practices and move students
beyond what they are already doing. They should help students do entirely new
things and use technology to do things that would not have otherwise been
possible or feasible. It should significantly change classroom practice and
interactions.
Is the project replicable and sustainable?
Can other teachers do the same thing in their classrooms.
Is there a framework that would last beyond particular teachers or
individual students? Is it a new
way of doing business or a short term experiment?
What evidence of success can be identified?
How has the inclusion of technology changed student performance?
The use of surveys, case studies, interviews, student work samples, video
records, grades and test scores need to be evaluated to determine the success of
programmatic changes. Some desired
outcomes to document this success are:
Complex content is mastered earlier in the curriculum by a broader range
of learners
Groups bypassed by traditional teaching approaches thrive using this
strategy.
Students are able to master material or develop skills that would not
otherwise be taught.
Achievement gains can be documented.
Student attitudes and motivation are impacted.
Teacher’s teaching styles are impacted.
Teachers experience personal and professional impacts.
School environments are positively impacted.
School and community interactions are improved.
Overall it is important to remember that technology is in constant change and
curriculum must be designed to take this into account. Effective
technology integration focuses on the problem or the learning opportunity rather
than the technology itself. Process is as important as the outcomes. A
variety of evaluation techniques and tools must be developed to measure success.
The inclusion of technology in the curriculum is changing the way teachers teach
and the way students learn. There is an important link between technology and
learning. Understanding why, how and methodologies for increasing the
efficacy of education in the technological setting is the challenge to be met
(Fulton & Pruitt-Mentle, 1998).