Learning for the Real World PDF

Chapter 8 Learning for the Real World: Interdisciplinary Challenge Projects to Facilitate Real-World Learning in STEM Jessica Dobrin 8.1 Project-Based Learning While project-based learning is increasingly popular as a means of providing authentic learning experiences, there is much disagreement...

Chapter 8 Learning for the Real World: Interdisciplinary Challenge Projects to Facilitate Real-World Learning in STEM Jessica Dobrin 8.1 Project-Based Learning While project-based learning is increasingly popular as a means of providing authentic learning experiences, there is much disagreement on what qualifies as project-based learning and indeed what qualifies as an authentic learning experi- ence. There exists such a diverse body of literature on project-based learning (Hasni, Bousadra, Belletête, Benabdallah, & Dumais, 2016; Thomas, 2000) that to declare decisively for one definition or another would prove problematic at best, and it is not my intention to do so here. Rather, the point of this work is to discuss one means of making PBL authentic. While this requires a coherent definition for both authentic learning and project-based learning, it is not my assertion that these definitions are definitive. That being said, for the sake of clarity, I will provide a brief introduction to the definitions I am working from, so as to avoid any confusion. It may reasonably be assumed that in project-based learning, regardless of any other particulars, a project of some type must be involved. Such a statement appears initially to be so simplistic as to imply circular logic, but it is dependent on a coher- ent definition of a project. Kokotsaki, Menzies, and Wiggins (2016) suggest that the project is the creation of a tangible artefact, with prior learning being utilised and new learning or new knowledge developed as necessary for the successful comple- tion of the assignment. There seems to be general agreement that the project cannot be peripheral to the curriculum (Bender, 2012; Thomas, 2000), though precisely how central the project must be, and indeed what is considered curricular are more fluid criteria. In the UTC model (more below) the project itself is a component of the school-wide curriculum, with different disciplines as the focus of the project throughout the year. J. Dobrin (*) Dulwich College, Beijing, China e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 129 V. L. Akerson, G. A. Buck (eds.), Critical Questions in STEM Education, Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education 51, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57646-2_8 130 J. Dobrin Once a project has been established, it may be reasonably assumed that the aim is that, through this project, some type of learning is achieved. This is I believe a more functional definition that it might initially appear; it is certainly possible for situations to occur in which learning is complemented by a project, or for a project to be a means of displaying learning that has already taken place. These would not, in my view, constitute project-based learning. This is not to say that all learning must take place exclusively through the project either. There seems to be general consensus between practitioners and researchers (Bender, 2012; Mills & Treagust, 2003; Prince & Felder, 2006) that project-based learning focusses more on the application rather than the ‘acquisition’ of knowledge, though none deny the pos- sibility that some new knowledge might be constructed. Indeed, it may be consid- ered unlikely that any project be completely devoid of opportunities for new knowledge or understanding to be developed, and so new learning of this type must also be considered when discussing the aims of a PBL project. To focus exclusively on the content knowledge applied during the project would also be a disservice to the PBL model; learning encompasses more than just content knowledge. Skills such as communication, teamwork, planning, problem-solving, analysis, and evaluation may be developed during the PBL project (Dobrin, 2020). These skills, alternatively referred to as ‘soft’, ‘transferrable’ (Canelas, Hill, and Novicki, 2017; Carvalho, 2016), or even ‘twenty-first century’, form critical com- ponents of significant learning (Fink, 2013) outcomes for students. Indeed, it might be argued that one of the primary benefits of PBL over other teaching models is that the focus on application of knowledge allows for the development of these skills within a curricular context, which may aide in the transfer of knowledge from the classroom to the real world. If we take these components together, we can define PBL as learning through an authentic project, central to the curriculum, through which students apply or develop knowledge that may be transferred to the real world. The transfer of skills from the classroom to the real world is a component of authentic learning as well. Indeed, much of the literature treats ‘real-world’ and ‘authentic’ as synonymous terms; Herrington and Oliver’s (2000) framework for authentic learning provides a prime example of this in their treatment of elements of situated learning. Thomas (2000) posits that an essential characteristic of the PBL project is that it is ‘realistic’, or provides a feeling of authenticity. Kokotsaki et al. (2016) make reference to authentic problems and questions while defining PBL. A manufactured scenario with no connection to the real world cannot result in a true PBL project. When considered alongside the focus on application rather than acqui- sition of knowledge, the PBL project is a means through which students can apply existing content knowledge and in doing so develop skills that can be utilised in the real world. These are the transferrable, twenty-first century skills considered above. This authenticity relies not on content area, but rather the structure and context of the problem or task around which the project is based. While it is true that authenticity is not limited to a particular discipline, there has been a concentrated push create direct transference of skills from classroom to career in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) subjects. STEM is considered by some to be a meta-discipline (Brown, Brown, Reardon, & 8 Learning for the Real World: Interdisciplinary Challenge Projects to Facilitate… 131 Merrill, 2011) greater than the sum of its parts; if this is so, too will the skills neces- sary for success in the field have to go beyond numeracy, scientific literacy, or think- ing like an engineer. Indeed, some argue that one of the defining features of STEM education is the integration of its constituent parts into work that parallels that of a scientist or an engineer (Breiner, Harkness, Johnson, & Koehler, 2012). STEM-­ based PBL projects may offer students the opportunity to develop these skills in a realistic setting, whether the project is conducted within the syllabus of a single subject, an integrated STEM classroom, or as an addition beyond the core subject areas. In the following sections, I will consider two different PBL projects: a hypo- thetical example based in a standard high school physics classroom, and an example from a STEM-based school in the UK in collaboration with local engineers. I will then discuss the projects in terms of their outcomes, and lay out the instructional implications of each. 8.2 Methodology While the first, hypothetical, example is not the result of a particular school study but rather an accumulation of personal experiences over the years, the second exam- ple, the Challenge project, is the result of targeted research undertaken as part of my doctoral degree. The description of the Challenge project is the result of pre-project meetings with the instructional team, as well as weekly observations for the dura- tion of the project. The opinions of the students are the products of a series of inter- views conducted throughout the year. One student, Student A, was a participant in the hydropower dam project that forms the primary focus. Student A was at the time of the project enrolled in the first year of a two-year GCSE1 Physics course, which would cover forces, energy, eaves, electricity, magnetism, particulate model of mat- ter, atomic structure, and space. The other students, Students B, C, and D, were older students in the same school, referred to here as Riverside College.2 These interviews, conducted one or twice per week for each student, offer valuable insight into student experience within the Challenge project. Students from a second school, referred to here as Parkside College, provided additional input through targeted one-­ off focus groups, but because of the structure of their projects did not participate as regular contributors in the same manner as Students A-D. The entirety of the research, like PBL itself, was constructivist in nature, mean- ing that I as the researcher was constructing meaning from the collected data, and it is this meaning I am attempting to convey in this chapter. The primary research aim had been to make a study of the measurable learning outcomes of students engaged 1 GCSE is a course of study conducted over 2 years, when students are approximately 14–16 years of age, US grades 9–10. Typically, students study Biology, Chemistry, and Physics concurrently over this period. 2 College is used according to the UK tradition, referring to secondary rather than undergraduate education 132 J. Dobrin in these Challenge projects, through the means of semi-structured interviews; that data is primarily presented elsewhere (Dobrin, 2020). While outcomes are certainly addressed within this chapter, the focus is instead on the experience of the individ- ual participants, and their opinions on what works within these projects, as well as what does not. Any attempt to entirely separate outcomes and experience would be to do a disservice not only to the participants, but to the PBL instructional model designed to put students at the centre of their learning. All narratives relating to the Challenge projects will therefore represent a mix of outcomes and experiences, pro- viding a student-centred perspective on a unique STEM-driven PBL model. 8.3 A Hypothetical Example A teacher in a standard high school Physics classroom decides that having students design a hydropower dam model is the best way to allow students to apply several key curricular points regarding energy, motion, and conservation. Because the stu- dents do not have an extensive engineering background, the teacher provides speci- fications for a model of a hydropower dam, which the students will be able to construct using provided supplies. In this way, students are focussed less on the practical design, and more on the targeted concepts meant to be reinforced by the project. Students are placed into groups for this project to minimise the supplies needed, and to help them develop transferrable skills relating to communication and teamwork. In order to increase student autonomy, the teacher provides basic design instructions, but leaves it to the students to determine some specifics such as flow rate and net head. Students use a hydropower equation to make their predictions for power output based on values they are provided or could directly measure from their models. Students have already had introductory lessons relating to electricity and power, so much of this is review for them, though the context is new. Depending on the style of the teacher, the lessons may be delivered as the project progresses, or direct instruction may be front-loaded in an introductory session to allow students to self-regulate later in the project. In total, 6 days are dedicated to this project. The first lesson introduces the proj- ect, establishes the groups, and depending on how the project is structured, students may be provided brief lessons on the power equation, flow rates, energy demands, and other relevant information. Students may then be given a short amount of time in their groups to plan their next steps. Once students take some time, either in class or as homework, to determine the specifications of their dams, they come up with a list of materials necessary for their models, so that the teacher can have enough sup- plies for the following day. The next three lessons are dedicated to the building of the hydropower dam mod- els, and a fifth day is dedicated to testing the models, before then hooking up a multimeter and determining actual power output. This then leads to an interesting discussion-how close are the students’ predicted values, and why do they differ? A discussion about efficiency ensues, and one group asks if they can modify their 8 Learning for the Real World: Interdisciplinary Challenge Projects to Facilitate… 133 original design to improve this. They come in after school that day, and make some small changes to the turbine which produce a moderate change, and so the next day in class they start the lesson by sharing what they’ve learned with their peers. Each group then goes away and writes up a lab report, to be submitted for assessment. In some schools this report is an individual effort, while for others a single group report is submitted. 8.4 The Challenge Project In the hypothetical example above, the instructor is limited primarily by the school’s timetable, and the number of lessons that can possibly be allocated for each topic. While individual schools may have allowances for co-curricular activities or even unstructured time dedicated to enrichment or further study, the notion of dedicating significant blocks of time to project-based learning is simply impossible in many school settings. Even the most well-designed projects are therefore often frag- mented, with individual sessions of perhaps an hour (or less) being pieced together to meet the project aims. For this reason, the teacher may encourage students to get together outside the school day to have longer uninterrupted periods to work. If the aim of instruction is to encourage students to apply content knowledge in authentic circumstances and develop transferrable skills, such a model is still preferable over a lecture-based unit, though some limitations remain. In a second example, I draw on an actual project conducted at a STEM-focussed University Technical College (UTC) in the East of England, Riverside College. The project is fit into a system referred to by the school as Challenge, wherein 1 day per week, regular lessons are suspended in favour of a long-term project, often if not always supported by a local employer in a science or engineering field. Challenge projects are conducted outside the core curricular subjects, often based in one par- ticular STEM discipline, but designed in such a way as to require skills from across STEM to successfully complete each Challenge. The project observed for instance draws not only on a main discipline of Physics, but builds in Maths, Biology, Geology and Geography, and Engineering principles and skills as well. Objectives are designed in such a way as to inextricably link these disciplines in the spirit of STEM education; the engineering elements require the use of Maths and Physics, and decision-making often requires an understanding of local ecology or geology as well. This particular project is, like the previous example, undertaken with the goal of creating a hydropower dam, and is being led by members of a local engineering firm, in collaboration with an internal instructor. The dam being designed for this Challenge was in fact built by this company, and so in that regard this example dif- fers from the previous one in that there is an established “right” answer to the stu- dent work, though students are not immediately made aware of this. The motivation for the project is also based more firmly in the final product than in the application of content knowledge from a particular course, as the main facilitators are not 134 J. Dobrin responsible for covering specific information from the syllabus with these projects. Rather, a collaboration between the school and the employers establishes an appro- priate skill level (as suggested by the school) and target skill areas (suggested by the employers) necessary to complete the dam model. The structure of this project also differs; because there are seven full days (1 day per week for 7 weeks) allocated for this project, there is more time to establish some context. On the first day (Week One), students spend the morning getting a brief introduction to the project objectives. Then, students are asked to consider the need for more sustainable energy production, calculate their own energy usage, and brainstorm ways they could reduce this. An activity involving designing an energy plan for the UK results in some hilarity, as students choose deliberately outrageous solutions before settling in to consider how to best balance energy needs against available resources. This activity led students to then consider the energy needs of the nation of Georgia, where the dam is to be located. This first Challenge day ends with a short recap, where students are encouraged to pull together their ideas. The session in the second week of the project sees students first introduced to the structure of a working hydropower dam, as well as the equation used for calculating power. A brief lesson on topography and map reading leads to students trying to select a best possible location for their dam and turbine. The students are allowed three possible locations, and they then consider the pros and cons of each. Sites are rejected for having too low a flow rate, being too near a town, or having a topo- graphical profile unsuitable for the type of dam they had selected. Students get the chance to explore this further in the afternoon when they are asked to brainstorm solutions to such potential problems as disrupting local tourism, destroying the hab- itat of endangered species, or destroying areas of historic or cultural value. Again the solutions range from flippant to extremely thoughtful; one group has taken the time to research local customs to improve relations with the locals, and their ideas are received with great enthusiasm by their peers and facilitators alike. Students who have less interest or experience with these tasks begin designing an informa- tional website, which will be used to display the findings of each team, as well as detailed models and descriptions of the dams once completed. The third week is split between geotechnical engineering and using computer software to create a 3D model of the dam. Those interested in geotechnical engi- neering remain in the main Challenge area to learn about how soil composition, topography, and building materials may influence the stability of their dams. The students are given data relating to standard penetration test results, which they then graph and use to select a single value to represent the average for their own dams. Students are encouraged to develop arguments based on their data to justify their choices. Some of the students spend the afternoon session writing up their findings from this portion, while the remainder focus on the 3D modelling task. Some stu- dents choose to import the topographical features of their chosen location to add authenticity to the project, while others opt for a more generic model. Those who had been less interested in the calculations in the morning become more interested in learning the features of the software, and some even create additional designs. 8 Learning for the Real World: Interdisciplinary Challenge Projects to Facilitate… 135 The fourth week is focussed on the output of hydropower dams. The morning features presentations of the types of energy involved in hydropower dams, types of dams, and how energy is converted into useable forms. This leads to a discussion about the selection of a type of turbine. Returning to calculations completed in the second week of the project, the groups use their previously collected or calculated data relating to power output to select turbines. Students also consider efficiency of different turbines based on the nature of the dam location (net head, flow rate, etc.). The groups make their selections, and a small model made of popsicle sticks is attempted, but not completed due to time constraints. While this model little serves to reinforce any of the calculations made earlier, it allows the students a chance to experience manipulating materials, rather than focus entirely on the abstract. At this point, the majority of the decisions regarding the group’s dam have been made, and the final details are put on the website they have been designing to advertise their dam’s specifications. Week five is a bit of a stand-alone lesson, in that the students are now considering a different aspect of their dams, the structural integrity of the walkway. One student recalls that a dam burst could flood the area and cost both lives and money, and so the importance is immediately seen. A morning session related to theory and generic calculations leads to the creation of models made primarily of chocolate, which will be tested in the final week of the project. Students are given a set ‘budget’ and cost list for additional materials ranging from barbecue skewers to oat cereal, and attempt to balance out the strength of their materials against a limited amount of funds. Teams differ wildly in their strategy, with some risking pure chocolate for their models, others meticulously planning as accurate a model as possible with the strongest available materials, while others opt for as much of the cheapest materials possible hoping that quantity will win out over quality. Exams in the week following the building of the ‘chocrete’ beams allow them an extra week to harden before students gather for week six, where the models are tested using buckets of water to test the maximum weight they can hold. The testing results in much hilarity as the students attempt to break their chocolate beams, and allows the students to finish the practical portion of the project on a high note. Students are also given a presentation on the real dam project, and given the chance to compare their dams to the one built by the engineers who guided them through the project. Several of the issues they considered are also revealed to have come up during the construction of the actual dam, and at least one group is pleased to dis- cover their solutions matched the ones used out in the ‘real world’. Students are also offered feedback on their websites, as well as their dam designs, with some groups then asked to present their projects at a college open day later in the term. 136 J. Dobrin 8.5 The UTC Concept The Challenge project is one of several employer-facilitated project models being used at University Technical Colleges (UTC’s) across the UK. A relatively recent (2009) addition to the UK education system, UTC’s were conceived as a means of addressing a shortage in skilled labour in industry, particularly science and engi- neering (McCrone, White, Kettlewell, Sims, and Rush, 2019). Graduates attending university chose STEM-related subjects at a rate of 74% (compared to a national average of 46%), and UTC leavers gained apprenticeships at rates nearly four times the national average (University Technical Colleges (UTC), 2019), suggesting that the model is effective in meeting its goals. UTCs each have a primary focus area, often in STEM, but UTCs are not exclusively STEM training institutions. Rather, the UTC model is based in the belief that participation from the local community, particularly local employers and universities, is critical for preparing the students for the next stage of their learning. Students choose to enter a UTC because they have a commitment to the focus of that particular school, and are seeking out learn- ing for the real world they will enter upon completion of their programmes. Industry involvement in these schools may take many different forms, depending on the school focus. The two UTCs I observed form a perfect illustration of this. Riverside College in the example above has a broad science and technology focus, with an aim to introducing students to the biotech or engineering industries preva- lent in the area. Due to an increasing number of local employers with a focus in computer sciences, these are also common projects as well. Students in years 10 and 11 complete a number of Challenge projects that over the course of a year will be based in a number of different main subject areas, while sixth form students are given the chance to select from a range of projects each cycle according to their interests. In all cases, projects are approximately 9 weeks in duration and have one full day per week dedicated to their completion. Depending on local interest, these projects are designed either in close collaboration with a local employer, or inter- nally by staff with experts in the field making guest appearances. Many of the proj- ects also involve site visits to research facilities, local waterways, etc. A second UTC, ‘Parkside College’, located in the South East of England, has a primarily engineering focus due to demand in the area. The school benefits from several partnerships with nearby universities and employers, notably automotive engineering and manufacturing in the area. As such, there is a strong emphasis on engineering, though students generally consider themselves to be either an “engi- neering student” or a “science student” and approach the projects accordingly. Both science and engineering are represented in the projects run, here called Employer Led Projects. Unlike the previous UTC, students here are assigned their projects into sixth form as well, though care is given to ensure a variety of disciplines and interests are catered to. Less time is dedicated to projects here, only a few hours per week on a given morning, but because in most cases all students within a year group participate in the same project, there is more potential for teachers to reference these projects during regularly scheduled class time. Many of the projects at this UTC 8 Learning for the Real World: Interdisciplinary Challenge Projects to Facilitate… 137 contain a competition element, where students work in teams to win prizes or indus- try experiences. Panels of judges from the employer-partner mean that students receive feedback not just on their presentation, but on how what they have done fits within the industry itself. One project for example was judged by a panel of industry experts in engineering, including an apprentice who had entered the field through his own exposure to the industry as part of the same programme years before. This afforded the students feedback from an individual closely acquainted with both the student and the industry perspectives, which several students reported finding valu- able. This and other student experiences and perspectives are presented below. 8.6 Key Findings The following sections outline many of the key findings of the research, primarily features of the PBL project, their impact on the students, and the outcomes that result. The first of these is autonomy and student agency, and the impact these have on the students. Next, I consider the authenticity of the projects, and their applica- bility both to the core curriculum and to the students’ futures. Finally, I will con- sider the impact of real-world experts on the projects, both in terms of student motivation and career networking. While Student A forms the primary focus of this report, Students B, C, and D also offered insights from their own projects that prove useful here, either as support for Student A’s perspective or as an equally valuable contrast. 8.7 Student Agency and Autonomy Among the most critical characteristics of PBL, as a constructivist teaching method, is the agency of the students. Students treated as active agents in their own learning make choices, with guidance, about how to best reach their goals. Student A’s Challenge project, the hydropower dam project, was explicitly and thoughtfully designed to incorporate an element of student agency: most sessions featured two or more different tasks suited to the interests and abilities of the different learners, something Student A was quick to notice and appreciate: Student A: I think we had a lot of flexibility to do what we wanted and the fact that we had the freedom to do what we wanted and the way we could do this on our own was great yeah Student A felt that even within the project criteria provided to him, he and his group were able to do things in a way that made sense to them. That he and each of his teammates were able to have such differing roles was a frequent topic of discussion, nearly always in a positive light. Student A felt he was making positive contribu- tions to his group because he was able to utilize his strengths. This same sentiment 138 J. Dobrin was found in the Computer Science Challenge project, with one participant sharing the following insight: Student B: …all of them do Computer Science A Level and I was quite like I guess I was quite good at doing like the report and the Power Point and everything and it all just worked out we all just kind of fell in to our own places in the end anyway like I don’t know it was just nice yeah Student B was placed outside her comfort zone for her project but, due to the nature of her assignment, she was able to play a direct and valuable role in her group’s performance. The importance of her position as a non-programmer in a project based on programming was reinforced by her teammates, her instructors, and the professional mentors who came in to support them. This was due in large part to the team’s understanding that in the industry, such differentiation is common, and the task was such that the marketing and presentation carried as much weight as the final code. Not all teams took such a differentiated approach; in this case it was pos- sible due to the backgrounds and skills of the team members. What was quite important in these projects was the deliberate design of chal- lenges that allowed for this student-driven differentiation to take place. In the case of the hydropower dam project, part of the purposeful overhaul from the previous year was the move from a paper report and poster session to an informative website, including a 3-dimensional digital model. It was believed that this would allow stu- dents who did not feel comfortable in the engineering aspects of the project to work in building a website according to their abilities. In some groups, students chose to rotate through the roles depending on the engineering task, while others opted to stick to differentiated roles throughout. Likewise, in each case it was intended that the students determine this for themselves, with one instructor remarking that “you know that project learning is working because I don’t have anything to do”. In terms of outcomes, this student agency very much allowed students to develop skills in problem-solving, planning, inner-group communication, even argumenta- tion. Students found it necessary to consider the tasks before them, math the tasks up with the abilities of one or more teammates, set a course of action for themselves, and then justify the choices that were made. Student A took on the role of Lead Engineer for his group because he had a great deal of interest in Engineering and Maths, so he found the idea of calculating energy output for his dam to be enjoy- able. His teammates with more interest in the design elements were happy to take his calculations and use them to complete the digital design of the team’s hypotheti- cal dam. Not all groups chose such a differentiated approach; while Hamish and his team split the project into Engineering tasks, Maths tasks, and Design tasks, other teams worked more collaboratively on each task. Not all projects feature the same level of agency, however. Student C, involved in a Water Management Challenge project at approximately the same time, was acutely aware of the lack of agency in his project: Student C: well I mean hand-holding there’s too much of it there’s too much not there’s not enough free choice provided for the students and so I feel like you can just increase the 8 Learning for the Real World: Interdisciplinary Challenge Projects to Facilitate… 139 amount people will gain from these projects just by giving them more of a free choice to do things Student C found himself in a more strictly regulated project. The project was again developed with an authentic end product in mind (in this case a water management plan for a local water source), but the breakdown of activities was predetermined, and there was little differentiation in roles. While in some teams this led to a col- laboration element that was valued, Student C and his team felt restricted, and quite early in the project began to rebel in subtle ways. Rather than investing in the proj- ect, they chose to cut corners with their work to meet the minimum standard, but not to make meaningful advances to their understanding or skills. Because of this, Student C and his team were far less likely to describe themselves as scientists, or to feel they were gaining skills relating to authentic scientific investigation. A sense of autonomy does not exclusively derive from the design of the project, however; environments conducive to student autonomy have links to student per- ception of competency in the learning environment (Hatlevik, Throndsen, Loi, & Gudmundsdottir, 2018) and so it is perhaps unsurprising that there was ample evi- dence that when students felt less capable, they also felt less able to control the outcome of their projects. Student A for example had expressed relatively high Physics and Maths related self-efficacy before the start of his project and also more regularly reported feeling his choices were impacting the outcome of his project. I do not mean to imply that it is necessarily the self-efficacy that feeds into the auton- omy, or that the reverse is true. Challenge project observations suggest the flow was multidirectional, with autonomy and self-efficacy sustaining each other with sup- port from multiple sources. As in the case of autonomy above, sources that tend to detract from self-efficacy tended to have negative effects on student perceptions of the project and of them- selves. Student D, who started her Computer Science project. She had been informed early on in the project by her instructor that the majority of their work would be copy-paste, and that she would finish with enough time to pursue expansions to the project. A particular issue, relating to the way in which the data offered to them was converted for use with the software, meant that for several weeks, students were stuck trying to troubleshoot through a single issue. Under most circumstances, these students were accustomed to request assistance from their instructor, or perhaps one of their more adept peers. In this instance, none of these measures brought a solu- tion, and the frustration was notable: Student D: it’s kind of frustrating at the minute we can’t do anything with it even [instruc- tor] doesn’t understand, the mentors obviously don’t really understand so it’s not as if any- one who’s there can really help us In this instance, the perceived lack of support was the biggest detractor from student attitudes towards the project. The students had until this point been able to make use of documentation, advice from their peers, help from industry mentors, and a healthy dose of trial and error to complete their tasks. Because of the specific nature of the task, such strategies were not successful in this case. As students became increasingly aware of their own limitations in this area, the majority of the class 140 J. Dobrin grew impatient and began to question their abilities to complete the project indepen- dently. When the developers offered a solution and work continued, there was a rapid return to optimism and language in general improved, as did the sense of autonomy and agency. 8.8 Applicability Another key element of a successful PBL project is that it provides experience and knowledge that is applicable outside the project space. While the authenticity described earlier suggests that this should focus mainly on the transferrable, twenty-­ first century skills necessary in industry, this does not mean that the project need not connect to current course content as well. While many STEM-based PBL projects may take place as part of the instruction for an individual subject such as Physics, Chemistry, or Maths, the Challenge project exists as a separate learning opportunity for the students, many of whom may be enrolled in different ranges of courses. This makes designing projects that are truly interdisciplinary and applicable across STEM subjects a necessity. The Hydropower dam project for example required each team to gather evidence relating to stream conditions, topography, and soil content, calculate potential power output for various options, and design a final product base. Student A in particular found this project quite relevant to his interests and his studies: Student A: I would say it’s um a bit more a bit better because it’s more realistic and like for example our [previous] project we were building the perfect mouse house which I don’t really see how it it’s going to affect us to much it’s going to if anything it’s going to affect the company so their mice is fine but for example this [company’s] if we were building a dam which any dam company would do and the fundamental basics are actually building a dam is stretching into other topics as well which I really like so R: What other topics? Student A: So other topics as in life so for example Physics or like uh when we were doing the angle of the sand so like how much do we press down until it crumbles down so that was a it was like it was about the dam project but like we learned many more other things from it so R: Okay kind of jumping on that Physics idea, if you’d been taught a lot of those con- cepts in a Physics class so you’re just in a Physics classroom doing that um how does the way that you feel about this compare you think you’d feel? Student A: I think it would be tough to understand and definitely more boring because like it’s we most of us are going to think ‘well when am I going to use this when am I going to press it down blah blah blah’ when we’re building our dam project we wouldn’t ask ourselves that because we know we’re doing this to build a strong base for the dam but so it’s it it I think it’s better to use I think this Challenge was a great way to put lessons and other stuff together Across all three projects observed at Riverside College, the students were unani- mous that connections between the projects and their coursework or career aims was a critical factor in determining their enjoyment. 8 Learning for the Real World: Interdisciplinary Challenge Projects to Facilitate… 141 This does not mean that the project should be limited to the content contained within the course syllabi for any of the related subjects. While the ability to take knowledge from the Challenge back to the classroom was universally welcomed, Student B (from the Computer Science project) felt that one of the benefits of the Challenge project was that it was “greater than lessons”: R: Yeah um if you were to be put in charge of designing these for next year let’s say [Challenge coordinator] comes to you and says ‘you’re running this’ um what would would you design them specifically to be separate from the lessons or would you want some of that overlap? Student B: I would want some of that overlap actually because you don’t want to go into it not knowing anything you want to go into it knowing a little bit of something and then expand so I think I’d have like a little bit of overlap but not too similar to like anything you do in lessons cause otherwise it’s kind of like repetition obviously kind of gets into your head but for exploring I feel like Challenge is for exploring new ideas and new themes What overlap occurs course depend not only on the project, but on the subjects in which the student is enrolled. The experience of Student A, at GCSE (14–16), is different from those of Students B, C, and D enrolled in A Level or BTEC (16–18) courses. All of these will differ from students following other national curricula or the International Baccalaureate as well. The number of subjects, or the ways in which they are structured, may go a long way in determining how student experi- ence impacts the project or vice versa. Student D for example felt that certain courses prepared students for the type of thinking necessary in successful program- ming, suggesting that “…if one of them does like Maths maybe and Physics it would be a lot easier maybe to kind of get that logical thinking cause they kind of already have it”. This would seem to reveal a more established awareness of the importance of interdisciplinary thinking, possibly as the result of previous projects. Student A felt similar, believing a diverse STEM background from his coursework would make him better able to cope with the project, stating that “the energy of Chemistry and Physics is more like the world energy and how we can like produce it for our welfare,“which would be the focus of his hydropower project. 8.9 Exposure to Industry/Experts An extension of the applicability feature discussed above, the ability of a project to act as a catalyst for the careers of its participants is also highly valued. When speak- ing with the Parkside College students, I was unsurprised to learn that each of the participants in the focus groups stated that they felt more invested in a project that involved useful industry contacts in an area of interest to them. One of the projects I observed there, held in conjunction with a local group of engineers, featured a competitive aspect with a judge panel of engineers from the company, including one judge who was an alumni of the school in question completing an apprenticeship with the company. His apprenticeship had been the result of his team winning the 142 J. Dobrin same competition a few years previously, and so the students were able to see for themselves the direct link from their project to their career paths. Returning to Riverside College, students had fewer direct examples of their proj- ects leading to careers, but the possibility was still an attractive one to many of the students. Student D for example was highly interested in pursuing a career in the industry surrounding her project, and thus the collaboration was for her not just about completing the project, but about networking and displaying her skills as well. She maintained determination throughout the project to implement a particu- lar feature in her project because it “…was their new feature so I really wanted to try and get that in be able to use it kind of show it off cause I knew that would impress them…”. Other groups abandoned certain goals because of their difficulty level, but Student D’s strategy was to successfully implement something “they were still trying to get the hang of it and because if we managed to do it in eight weeks not even that like four umm that would be really impressive”. Her strategy in the end paid off, with her team receiving multiple compliments from the expert judges’ panel, and as she also pointed out, an award for her CV that showed she was capable of high achievement in the field. Even students who did not plan on careers related to their specific projects found the opportunity to work with industry experts an appealing one. Student C for exam- ple found that his ability to consider evidence was tested by his water management project: Student C: He [Conservationist] was giving this great passionate good speech about why we should save [local waterway] and I got to the end and I was like ‘I’m totally with this guy has completely got my support, I’m going to go home and research this’ and then the [Water Company Representative] got up and she started talking she’s like ‘it’s not that I don’t care about this but I also have these other priorities on my plate’ at which point I was able to be like ‘oh. Okay right’ and then I got a bigger understanding…personally on a wider scale Student C was faced with two experts with different focuses, and given the task of determining what his priority would be, and to come up with a compromise if pos- sible. This required listening, taking careful notes, some verification and research, and then argumentation skills as he debated with his peers in a panel discussion later in the day. Though his project featured fewer sessions with external experts, each time he interacted with one he expressed an appreciation for the new perspectives they offered him, and over time began to communicate more as a scientist than as a student of science. 8.10 Implications for Teaching Just as each project is different, so too is every learner engaged in the completion of them. This makes the task of determining an effective strategy for developing a suc- cessful project a challenge. There are certain elements that each of the projects had that resonated well with the students, and elements that tended to detract from their 8 Learning for the Real World: Interdisciplinary Challenge Projects to Facilitate… 143 experience. I offer these here as a list of elements to consider in the design of an authentic PBL project. 1. Authenticity. This may seem the obvious point, but consider again for a moment the hypothetical dam project. A project that is truly authentic will often allow for greater student autonomy, the differentiation of roles, and memorable experi- ences that students can use to connect the classroom to the real world. Students are also more likely to make links from subject to application if an effort is made to allow for the application of classroom-based skills and understandings. Authenticity in STEM in particular will mean considering the skill sets expected once the learners enter industry, and designing a project that allows them to develop these. This was particularly evident in the Hydropower dam and Computer Science projects at Riverside College, but elements of authenticity could be seen in all projects observed. 2. Flexibility. Students across all observed projects felt that having goals that could be adapted to suit their interests and abilities was a key to their enjoyment and success. For some, this meant an open-ended problem to be solved in a number of different ways. In Riverside’s hydropower project, it meant allowing students to set the specifications and then deal with the hypothetical real-world conse- quences as they saw fit. It was only in projects where students perceived that their input was being disregarded that significant disinterest was seen. As was discussed in the introduction, PBL is most often concerned with the creation of a tangible artefact, so allowing students some ownership of that artefact may greatly enhance their enjoyment of and engagement with the project. 3. Autonomy. Beyond just a sense that they were in control of the final product, the students universally expressed desires to be in control of the tools they would need to meet their goals. For Student C, this was as simple as being given a syl- labus in advance so he could plan for his final product. For Students B and D, in the Computer Science project, this was information on how to manage and pro- cess the data. Student A felt that he had been given not only the tools to succeed, but the flexibility to use them as he wished, and expressed the greatest confi- dence in his ability to self-regulate throughout the project. It was when students felt empowered by the resources available to them, they expressed a greater sense of autonomy, and usually also an increased appreciation for the project as a whole. Autonomy also means students have more of an opportunity to develop skills relating to planning, problem-solving, teamwork, and communication. 4. Relevance. While it was noted in the introduction that projects need be central rather than peripheral to the curriculum, the degree to which this is so matters to the success of the project. In Riverside College, where the Challenge projects are designed and marketed as a way for students to develop transferrable, STEM skills that can be brought back into any classroom subject, students were recep- tive even to projects outside their defined areas of study. Where a PBL project has more direct ties to a single subject, the priority is to balance the inherent value of the project as a way to reinforce curricular concepts with the ability of the project to broaden the skill set of the learner. 144 J. Dobrin 5. Interdisciplinarity. Underpinning all of the previous elements, and the projects themselves, is the interdisciplinarity that allows for students engaged in them to collaborate and apply their knowledge from their diverse backgrounds to develop creative solutions to real-world problems. Interdisciplinarity can also in itself lead to authentic learning contexts (Ledoux & McHenry, 2004) and fits quite comfortably within the constructivist frameworks that support project-based learning as a teaching and learning method. Interdisciplinarity in these projects does not have to be forced; in several of the observed projects, it was the students who chose to incorporate an interdisciplinary approach to solve problems and complete their tasks. As mentioned previously, a STEM education is more than the sum of its parts, and so is this true of the interdisciplinary nature of the STEM project. The nature of a well-designed STEM project task will require students to draw on skills and knowledge that span the STEM disciplines and interlink them in order to succeed. It is worth noting that the schools discussed in this chapter are exceptional cases themselves; from their inception they were intended to facilitate interdisciplinary, STEM-focused projects with collaboration from local industry. While UTC’s in England, and initiatives such as the Harmony Public Schools (Sahin, 2015) in America, may continue to be the exceptional standard, this does not mean that exist- ing projects cannot be modified to focus on learning for, rather than learning from, the real world. Lessons from these models can be used to adapt projects within single subject classrooms. Returning to the hypothetical dam project, a prompt such as ‘consider the social, economic, and environmental implications of building a large-scale hydropower dam’ would require students to access information from multiple disciplines. An instructor need not have specialist knowledge in every area to be able to offer meaningful guidance either; where industry collaboration is not possible, peer collaboration almost certainly is. I recall an incident from my own classroom days where my teaching team was running a project on animal migration, only to discover through chance that at the same time the social sciences department were focusing on complementary issues. 8.11 Final Thoughts This is not meant to be an exhaustive how-to guide for project-based learning nor is it meant to define it, or even to clarify what it means for an assignment to be PBL. It is instead meant to convey the student experience in a variety of PBL projects, beyond their measurable learning outcomes. The students represented here, like the schools, may be considered outlier cases due to their deliberate enrolment in a pro- gramme that includes these PBL components, but this does not diminish the value of their stories. Each student came into these UTC’s with academic and career aspi- rations, and thus their perspectives still represent a diverse range of students and interests. These perspectives were not the aim of the interviews; the primary focus 8 Learning for the Real World: Interdisciplinary Challenge Projects to Facilitate… 145 had been on learning outcomes. The degree of agreement regarding experiences across unconnected projects, between students who had no interactions and little in common, made it impossible to ignore this angle, and thus this chapter was born out of a desire to relate the stories of the students as people as well as learners. What all these stories had in common was that when students were given the chance to be creative, to think collaboratively and interdisciplinarily, and to assert their auton- omy over their outcomes, they were both motivated and engaged. PBL projects will take many forms, some more authentic than others, but by considering the elements described in this chapter, it is possible to ensure that students are given the opportu- nity to work in ways that connect their learning to their lives in meaningful and productive ways. References Bender, W. (2012). Project-based learning: Differentiating instruction for the 21st century. United States: Corwin Breiner, J. M., Harkness, S. S., Johnson, C. C., & Koehler, C. M. (2012). What is STEM? A discussion about conceptions of STEM in education and partnerships. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 3–11. Brown, R., Brown, J., Reardon, K., & Merrill, C. (2011). Understanding STEM: Current percep- tions. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(6), 5. Canelas, D. A., Hill, J. L., & Novicki, A. (2017). Cooperative learning in organic chemistry increases student assessment of learning gains in key transferable skills. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(3), 441–456. Carvalho, A. (2016). The impact of PBL on transferable skills development in management educa- tion. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 53(1), 35–47. Dobrin, J. (2020). Investigating learning in secondary science students engaged in project-based learning. [PhD thesis]. University of Cambridge Fink, L. D. (2013). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Hasni, A., Bousadra, F., Belletête, V., Benabdallah, A., Nicole, M.-C., & Dumais, N. (2016). Trends in research on project-based science and technology teaching and learning at K–12 levels: A systematic review. Studies in Science Education, 52(2), 199–231. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/03057267.2016.1226573 Hatlevik, O. E., Throndsen, I., Loi, M., & Gudmundsdottir, G. B. (2018). Students’ ICT self-­ efficacy and computer and information literacy: Determinants and relationships. Computers & Education, 118, 107–119. Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning envi- ronments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 23–48. Kokotsaki, D., Menzies, V., & Wiggins, A. (2016). Project-based learning: A review of the litera- ture. Improving Schools, 19(3), 267–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480216659733 Ledoux, M., & McHenry, N. (2004). A constructivist approach in the interdisciplinary instruction of science and language arts methods. Teaching Education, 15(4), 385–399. McCrone, T., White, R., Kettlewell, K., Sims, S., & Rush, C. (2019). Evaluation of university technical colleges. Slough, UK: NFER. Mills, J. E., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Engineering education—Is problem-based or project-based learning the answer. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 3(2), 2–16. http://www. aaee.com.au/journal/2003/mills_treagust03.pdf 146 J. Dobrin Prince, M. J., & Felder, R. M. (2006). Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, com- parisons, and research bases. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 123–138. https://doi. org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00884.x Sahin, A. (2015). STEM students on the stage (SOS): Promoting student voice and choice in STEM education through an interdisciplinary, standards-focused project based learning approach. Journal of STEM Education, 16, 3. Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. San Rafael, CA: Autodesk. http://www.k12reform.org/foundation/pbl/research University Technical Colleges (UTC). (2019). The UTC story. Retrieved from https://www.utcol- leges.org/the-utc-story/ Jessica Dobrin is a teacher of Science and Chemistry, and a researcher in oject-based learning PBL. She completed a PhD in Education at the University of Cambridge, where her research focused on schools using PBL to facilitate real-world learning in STEM. She currently teaches at Dulwich College, Beijing.