About
Project Based Learning uses a ‘Contructavist’ approach to learning.
Constructivism is the label given to a set of theories about learning which fall somewhere between cognitive and humanistic views. If behaviourism treats the organism as a black box, cognitive theory recognises the importance of the mind in making sense of the material with which it is presented. Nevertheless, it still presupposes that the role of the learner is primarily to assimilate whatever the teacher presents. Constructivism — particularly in its “social” forms — suggests that the learner is much more actively involved in a joint enterprise with the teacher of creating (”constructing”) new meanings.
We can distinguish between
“cognitive constructivism” which is about how the individual learner understands things, in terms of developmental stages and learning styles, and “social constructivism”, which emphasises how meanings and understandings grow out of social encounters—see Vygotsky below.
In this sense, conversational theories of learning fit into the constructivist framework. The emphasis is on the learner as an active “maker of meanings”. The role of the teacher is to enter into a dialogue with the learner, trying to understand the meaning to that learner of the material to be learned, and to help her or him to refine their understanding until it corresponds with that of the teacher.
- One strand of constructivism may be traced to the writings of John Dewey, who emphasised the place of experience in education.
- Another starts from the work of Piaget, who demonstrated empirically that children’s minds were not empty, but actively processed the material with which they were presented, and postulated the mechanisms of accommodation and assimilation as key to this processing.
Vygotsky
But the most significant bases of a social constructivist theory were laid down by Vygotsky [1896-1934] (1962), in his theory of the “Zone of Proximal Development” (ZPD). “Proximal” simply means “next”. He observed that when children were tested on tasks on their own, they rarely did as well as when they were working in collaboration with an adult. It was by no means always the case that the adult was teaching them how to perform the task, but that the process of engagement with the adult enabled them to refine their thinking or their performance to make it more effective. Hence, for him, the development of language and articulation of ideas was central to learning and development. (See Daniels (1996) for an introduction to Vygotsky.) The common-sense idea which fits most closely with this model is that of “stretching” learners.
It is common in constructing skills check-lists to have columns for “cannot yet do”, “can do with help”, and “can do alone”. The ZPD is about “can do with help”, not as a permanent state but as a stage towards being able to do something on your own. The key to “stretching” the learner is to know what is in that person’s ZPD—what comes next, for them.
Why is Constructavism different to ‘normal classrooms’?
Traditional classrooms tend to be closed systems where information is filtered through layers to students. In general, the use of resources is limited to what is available in the classroom or within the school. Use of technology is focused on learning about the technology rather than its application to enhanced learning. Lesson plans are used to organize the various steps in the learning process for the whole-class approach. On-target questions that would tend to cause deviations from the plan are met with, “We will get to that later”.
In addition to this theory of learning, I am interested in how Web2.0 technology changes the student’s ability to ‘learn’ within the Project Based Learning frameworks.
There are some differences in constructavist approaches to learning, most commonly described as ‘Inquiry’, ‘Problem’ and ‘Project’ based learning. There are obviously similarities and some cross overs, but in this blog I am looking primarily at Project Based Learning (New Technology Foundation, based on the Buck Institute Model), and Web2.0 – the read/write web.
Whilst there are instances of PBL and teachers in classrooms using Web2.0 tools, I am interested in this blog in schools combining PBL and Web2.0 as a core learning method. This is distinctly different from a PBL school using ICTs in the classroom. I am interested in how social networks, collaboration and read/write tools affect the student’s experience when involved in PBL, over and above of ‘using ICTs’
Inquiry Learning
Inquiry learning involves several factors: a context for questions, a framework for questions, a focus for questions, and different levels of questions. Well-designed inquiry learning produces knowledge formation that can be widely applied. Questions, whether self-initiated or posed by others, are at the heart of learning by inquiry. While questions are a part of the traditional classroom, the source, the purpose, and the level of questions are quite different. In the traditional classroom, the teacher is frequently the questioner, and the purpose of questions is often to assess whether or not students have learned and absorbed particular information.
When the teacher poses questions in an inquiry classroom, the questions are more reflective in nature. Appropriate questioning techniques are important in an inquiry classroom – especially in the lower grades where guided inquiry serves as a base for later, self-initiated questioning. Inquiry learning often involves ’stages’ of inquiry within a scaffold.
Problem based learning
Problem-based learning, as the name implies, begins with a problem for students to solve or learn more about. Often these problems are framed in a scenario or case study format.
The approach uses an inquiry model. There is a great deal of variability with respect to how much “exploration” is done relative to solving the problem.
Again, Problem Based Learning has a particular method of delivery
Project Based Learning (Buck/New Technology High)
Project-based learning typically begins with an end product or “artifact” in mind, the production of which requires specific content knowledge or skills and typically raises one or more problems which students must solve. Projects vary widely in scope and time frame, and end products vary widely in level of technology used and sophistication. The project-based learning approach uses a production model. There is a driving question such as “Does the internet develop of destroy the minds of students”, followed by some entry ‘event’ – a scenario such as a video, newpaper article or audio clip, this then provides a framework for the project. Project Based Learning starts with the ‘end in mind’. In order to produce an end ‘product’, students compile a list of things they ‘know’ and ‘need to know’ in order to complete the project. The teacher’s role is to facilitate this learning by scaffolding their learning. Giving away the answer is to be avoided. The skill from the teachers is to get students to solve problems and not give up. In traditional classrooms, the teacher’s role is to deliver content (the answers) and then to test to see if the ‘answers’ can be recited. In Project Based Learning, students learn how to evaluate and reflect on these answers, validating them though authentic discovery in their own right.
Project Based Learning teaches students 21 st century skills as well as content. These skills include communication and presentation skills, organization and time management skills, research and inquiry skills, self-assessment and reflection skills, and group participation and leadership skills.
Project Based Learning is generally done by groups of students working together toward a common goal. Performance is assessed on an individual basis, and takes into account the quality of the product produced, the depth of content understanding demonstrated, and the contributions made to the ongoing process of project realization.
Finally, Project Based Learning allows students to reflect upon their own ideas and opinions, exercise voice and choice, and make decisions that affect project outcomes and the learning process in general.
Combining these considerations, Buck defines Project Based Learning as:
a systematic teaching method that engages students in learning essential knowledge and life-enhancing skills through an extended, student-influenced inquiry process structured around complex, authentic questions and carefully designed products and tasks.
So in this blog, I am exploring what teaching and learning looks like in a PBL/Web2.0 environment. I am not so much interesting in ‘why Web2.0 is better than Web1.0 in teaching and learning’, but how PBL and Web2.0 are vehicles for us, as educators, to shift the student experience from what we experienced, to the media rich world that our students are immersed in today’.
