STEM Project-Based Learning - Aggie STEM PDF

STEM Project-Based Learning Integrated Engineering for a New Era Robert M. Capraro Mary Margaret Capraro Jamaal Young Luciana R. Barroso (Eds.) STEM Project-Based Learning STEM Project-Based Learning Integrated Engineering for a New Era Edited by Robert M. Capraro Aggie STEM, Texas A&M University Mary Margaret Capraro Aggie STEM, Texas A&M University Jamaal Young Aggie STEM, Texas A&M University Luciana R. Barroso Aggie STEM, Texas A&M University College Station, Texas Published by Aggie STEM 1411 Hensel St. Suite 201, College Station, TX 77840 First edition 2021 Copyright © 2021 by Aggie STEM All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval systems, without permission in writing from the publisher, except where permitted by law. ISBN: 978-1-7377198-0-9 (Paperback) ISBN: 978-1-7377198-1-6 (Ebook) Library of Congress Control Number: 2021945023 Table of Contents 1. The STEM Project-Based Learning Paradigm 1 Robert M. Capraro 2. The Project Method in Historical Context 16 Lynn M. Burlbaw, Mark J. Ortwein, & J. Kelton Williams 3. Designing a STEM Project-Based Lesson 32 Robert M. Capraro, Mary Margaret Capraro, Jamaal Young, & Luciana R. Barroso 4. Engineering Better Projects 49 April M. Moon, Jim Morgan, & Luciana R. Barroso 5. Informal STEM Learning 73 Hyunkyung Kwon, Danielle Bevan, & Macie Baucum 6. Classroom Management Considerations in Designing and Implementing STEM 90 Project-Based Learning Jim Morgan, Luciana R. Barroso, & Scott W. Slough 7. Changing Views on Assessment for STEM Project-Based Learning 105 Robert M. Carparo & M. Sencer Corlu 8. STEM Project-Based Learning in Inclusive Settings: Students With and at Risk 124 of Disabilities Denise A. Soares, Allison Oliver, Judith R. Harrison, & Kimberly J. Vannest 9. Retaining Female Students’ Int“her”est in STEM Fields 154 Katherine N. Vela, Luciana R. Barroso, & Mary Margaret Capraro 10. English Learners and Project-Based Learning 168 Zohreh Eslami, Randall Garver, & Haemin Kim 11. Affordances of Virtual Worlds and Virtual Reality to Support STEM 193 Project-Based Learning Trina J. Davis & Monica Hernandez Valencia 12. Using Free and Open-Source Hardware and Software With STEM Project-Based 210 Learning Aamir Fidai 13. Fostering Interdisciplinary STEM Mindsets Through Project-Based Learning 227 Jamaal Young & Mary Margaret Capraro 14. Speaking STEMglish 244 Michael S. Rugh, Jonas L. Chang, Robert M. Capraro, & Mary Margaret Capraro 15. Social Studies-STEM Activities and Resources: Enhancing the Content and 262 Context for Learning Caroline R. Pryor, Rui Kang, & Brandt W. Pryor Appendices 290 v Chapter 1 The STEM Project-Based Learning Paradigm Robert M. Capraro Department of Teaching, Learning & Culture Aggie STEM Texas A&M University Behaviorism reminds us that repetitive tasks can elicit behaviors that look like learning and radical constructivism can elicit behaviors that look like play, but it is the development of a knowledge foundation that separates understanding and performance from memorization and short-term learning. The idea of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics project-based learning arose from a State of Texas challenge to reinvigorate schools from the inside out. Originally, the team that Aggie STEM assembled to meet this challenge consisted of 183 teachers, 45 school administrators, 14 university professors, 11 doctoral students, and 18 business partners. This group was committed to developing the supports and infrastructure teachers needed to allow their teaching to wrap itself in a cocoon and emerge as an elegant butterfly. Each group had a role. The district and school administrators removed barriers to implementation, worked to provide the equipment and materials teachers had committed to using, and purchased the consumables the teachers needed to enact their lessons. This was a massive undertaking across an entire district. The university professors committed to helping align the innovation with state and national standards and to state minimal skills testing. They also were primarily responsible for infusing the types of activities valued in the post-secondary world. The doctoral students were primality responsible for understanding the needs, wants, and hopes of the teachers, building a model for what was happening in the classrooms, and developing a clear understanding of student performance for the two prior years. The business partners were the glue that held the team together; they provided necessary resources, attended meetings, and ensured that the team was working in an authentic business-focused space building the skills valued by employers. We quickly learned that we did not know what the innovation would be or how we would start. After attending several meetings and listening to many prominent national pundits and educational authorities, the teachers proclaimed probably the most important idea: “We are tired of listening to what needs to happen. We already know! We want to do something that STEM Project-Based Learning Paradigm 1 makes a difference.” “No More Lectures – None – No Way,” read the sign they posted on the auditorium wall. A small group of university faculty and administrators were looking at the posting when two business leaders walked up, and one said, “Sounds like we have a new agenda, how about we build circuits today!!” We revised our agenda, he brought in the necessary equipment, and the master electrician started teaching teachers how to build circuits. University faculty and teachers started thinking about and aligning the learning objectives, unpacking the process, and figuring out the mathematics and science. One administrator suggested that the cost was very high, and another suggested having the students keep a budget and identifying the group with the most economical build as having the more efficient product, providing yet another link to learning standards. The rest of that day was not focused on planning, naming the innovation, or trying to figure out what we were going to do. We were committed to building a circuit with two shutoff switches with two bulbs scaled to fit a 20ft hallway. We learned how different switches work, by trial and error mostly, and we learned to calculate current, voltage, resistance, and power and about Ohm’s Law. We learned about potentiometers. When we questioned the master electrician, he was more than happy to give us the right vocabulary word and encouraged us to check the internet. At the end of the day, the teachers said they learned more things in that one day than all the previous days and that this was the kind of learning they wanted for their students. Some were still confused about how this learning would be able to be enacted in the classroom or how we would connect learning outcomes, but the light bulb was lit and it was glowing brightly above the heads of everyone in the room. We discovered STEM Project-Based Learning. We typed up the activity, classified everything we did that day, and set out to codify the best of our experiences. For the next three working meetings, heterogeneous groups of teachers, university faculty, administrators, business leaders, and graduate students unpacked the activity, writing objectives, developing names, and refining our process, creating a recipe that we could follow to build new engaging activities that had meaningful connections to real-world learning and measurable state and national learning outcomes. Eventually, a name was needed. Some suggested “problem-based learning,” others liked “project-based learning,” some preferred “inquiry,” while others opted for naming it after the school district where the team was based. After a lot of discussion, the teachers and administrators came to the conclusion that what they were doing was not really a problem or project; it was different. The components were different, the expected outcomes were different, and it was not inquiry because everything was inquiry. We settled on “STEM Project-Based Learning,” a mixture of several subjects designed in a purposeful way to maximize learning and provide the best possible chance to have students remember what they learned. 2 STEM Project-Based Learning Paradigm Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) project-based learning (PBL) integrates engineering design principles with the K–16 curriculum. Chapter 13 discusses the interdisciplinary STEM connections and mindsets. The infusion of design principles enhances real-world applicability and helps prepare students for post-secondary education, with an emphasis on making connections to what STEM professionals actually do in their jobs. Our view of STEM learning is one in which the fields are all supportive and integrated, where applicable, with the design principles undergirding the problem-solving processes. In this book we discuss the history of STEM PBL (Chapter 2), establish a set of expectations for implementing STEM PBL (Chapter 3), and discuss specifically how to design a STEM PBL lesson (Chapter 4), whether in informal settings (Chapter 5) or in classrooms (Chapter 6). A variety of assessments to implement during STEM PBL lessons are explained (Chapter 7). You may want to skim some chapters, reading only those chapters that hold promise to answer questions you already have while reserving some chapters for when you encounter questions as you implement STEM PBL in your own classrooms with at-risk students (Chapter 8), female students (Chapter 9), and English-language learners (Chapter 10). Technology (Chapter 11) and open-source hardware and software (Chapter 12) can enhance the development of STEM PBL lessons. Chapter 14 emphasizes the importance of the specific language of STEM, and, finally, Chapter 15 demonstrates how social studies can enhance STEM content. Chapter 1 will outline some specific STEM PBL vocabulary, discuss the basic tenets of STEM PBL, and familiarize the reader with what to expect from implementing STEM PBL in their schools. STEM Project-Based Learning Paradigm 3 Chapter Outcomes When you complete this chapter, you should better understand and be able to explain the basic tenets of STEM PBL the differences between STEM PBL instruction and non-STEM PBL instruction When you complete this chapter, you should be able to discuss STEM PBL concepts and terminology communicate using STEM PBL terms make informed decisions about which chapters to read first Chapter Overview This chapter will introduce you to STEM PBL and the concepts explored in this book. It begins by discussing the development of STEM PBL and its core parts. It then describes important considerations when implementing STEM PBL, including unique vocabulary, one’s own entitlement, and where to begin in implementing this instructional style in the classroom. The chapter concludes with definitions of important STEM PBL terms. Overview of STEM PBL Project-based learning is often shortened to PBL, but the acronym is often confused with problem- based learning. The two terms are not synonymous. In this book, we endeavor to keep problem- based learning in lower case and spelled out to help you, the reader, differentiate the two when it is necessary for us to discuss problem-based learning. We also distinguish STEM PBL from typical PBL by always including “STEM” in the term. Why PBL? PBL has been around for many years, and it has been undertaken in many fields, including engineering, education, economics, and business. Therefore, there are many incarnations and many versions. PBL is broad and often encompasses several problems that students will need to solve. It is our belief that PBL provides the contextualized, authentic experiences necessary for students to scaffold learning and build meaningfully powerful STEM concepts supported by language arts, social studies, and art. PBL is both challenging and motivating. It requires students to think critically and analytically and enhances higher order thinking skills. It requires collaboration, peer communication, problem solving, and self-directed learning while incorporating rigor for all students. However, PBL does not build on engineering design, and its cornerstone is the driving question. In its many variations, PBL has the potential to help teachers and students achieve some amazing outcomes. However, in today’s knowledge economy, PBL has experienced stagnation, with accepted models failing to keep pace with 4 STEM Project-Based Learning Paradigm today’s needs, innovations in the field, and modern educational situations. Therefore, we have built on the strong foundation of PBL and added the engineering component and the all potential learning outcomes and affordances it can bring into a synergistic whole. While this is a rather simplified explanation, it will be expanded as chapters progress. It is the core essential component in the revised STEM PBL model. Why STEM? The idea of STEM is not new and has been around with different names. Before the use of STEM in education, there were other acronyms employed to meet the needs of the evolving fields of mathematics and science. Science, engineering, and technology (SET) and mathematics, science, and technology (MST) were other variants of STEM before its official implementation (Wong et al., 2016). In the 1990s, science, mathematics, engineering, and technology (SMET) was the first attempt to bridge all four disciplines together by the National Science Foundation (Sanders, 2008). However, SMET quickly evolved to STEM because of the negative connotation associated with the original acronym (Breiner et al., 2012; Sanders, 2008; Wong et al., 2016). Since the inception of STEM, other variations have cropped up (i.e., STEAM, STEMM, etc.), which adds to the confusion of determining what is STEM education. However, what is new is the emphasis on STEM education and linking secondary education with post-secondary practices through a project-based method. It is common in post-secondary institutions for students to be required to work in groups to solve conceptual problems situated within larger projects. While problems and projects do not necessitate convergent solutions, students are required to explain their solutions and to be able to justify the suitability of a proposed solution to the specifications of the PBL lesson. Commonly, this process has been termed “problem solving” and is often expected to be taught in mathematics classes. However, STEM professionals engage in complex problem solving, and, in most cases, there are multiple possible solutions, each with its strengths and limitations. Therefore, it is important for all students, but essential for secondary students, to develop broad knowledge that allows them to be successful on high-stakes tests but also to develop the depth of knowledge to allow them to reflect on the strengths and limitations of their solutions. Thus, just adding another modification and complicating the PBL landscape even more did not seem reasonable for educators. So, we developed STEM PBL in collaboration with teachers, administrators, higher education STEM professionals, and middle and secondary students. Our primary goal was to make the process easy for teachers to enact, easy for administrators to evaluate, and easy for students to transition into. We believe that developing a new model that draws a clear line between PBL and STEM PBL provides the framework to retain the benefits of PBL while developing a flexible model that accommodates changes in today’s educational landscape and the need to align to post-secondary practices and standards. STEM Project-Based Learning Paradigm 5 STEM PBL The STEM PBL process develops critical thinkers who will be more likely to succeed in post- secondary institutions where these skills are essential. The focus on STEM in this book is different than most definitions that continue to consider STEM as four discrete subjects. STEM PBL acknowledges that learning and job success is interdependent and that expertise is built iteratively across all subjects, even when one has a particular focus on one subject more than others. Therefore, job success is dependent on the interaction of knowledge from within each and also across STEM disciplines. So, student learning settings and expectations should mimic this very complex learning design—at least in part. Therefore, we define STEM as educating diverse people in ways that allow them to be aware of, responsible to, and tolerant of curricular diversity where groups of individuals work collaboratively to address societal needs in work that transcends any one STEM field in isolation. STEM PBL builds on and uses the same language one would encounter in the STEM job market and post-secondary STEM courses. It is clearly distinguishable by replacing the driving question with the project brief that contains both the ill-defined task and well-defined outcome. These two ideas are essential in post-secondary STEM education and the STEM job market. Imagine for a moment you were part of the team working on the first electric transportation project. There are capabilities and standards that are out of reach and current potential options that were just too costly to achieve. If the team focuses on all the potential features, one of three things can happen: they may (1) never get the project finished or (2) the cost of the design is so prohibitive people will not be able to afford to purchase it. Then there is the (3) “sweet spot” when the project meets all the constraints and is both affordable and meets a need. While this may sound convergent, and it may seem that everyone gets to exactly the same place with the exact same design, think about the state of the current cell phone market. Some may argue that Apple is the innovator and others are copying, and some may argue that Samsung is the innovator and others are copying. Regardless, even within the Samsung and Apple phone products, there are different model designs that meet design constraints. Some models are more elaborate and colorful, and some contain leading-edge capabilities that may not be fully realized yet, but those at the highest cost often have capabilities not yet fully achieved. Consider also the electric car market. The first Tesla model was not self- driving, and while the news makes us aware that Tesla still does not make an autonomous self- driving car, the company continues to pursue this goal. Currently, Models 3 and Y have the greatest potential for autonomous driving. Tesla clearly defines what they mean by self-driving and autonomous on the company’s webpage: Autopilot and Full Self-Driving Capability are intended for use with a fully attentive driver, who has their hands on the wheel and is prepared to take over at any moment. While these features are designed to become more capable over time, the currently enabled features do not make the vehicle autonomous. (https://www.tesla.com/support/autopilot#:~:text=Model%20S%20and%20Model%20 X,and%20Full%20Self%2DDriving%20Capability, June 1, 2021) 6 STEM Project-Based Learning Paradigm However, people are still willing to pay more for a car that has the potential to be fully autonomous even if today it is not yet fully autonomous. This differential in payment is really about meeting design constraints. Each model meets the basic requirements while some target a different audience willing to spend more for added features. One might ask if there are designs that did not make it to production. To this I would say, the next model of almost every hit consumer product is already being perfected when the current model is going to market. An additional advantage to integrating STEM and PBL is the inclusion of authentic tasks (often the construction of an artifact) and task-specific vocabulary through the inclusion of design briefs. Authentic tasks have been defined as real-world tasks, or, in other words, the activity can occur in one’s real, lived experience. However, all too often we see these real-world experiences as remote to students and their worlds. For a task to be authentic in STEM PBL, it must be real to the learner and accessible to their world. For example, examining the design of tennis racquet grips may be completely foreign for inner city youth who have never seen a tennis court and never played tennis. My favorite example is the scene from the movie What Women Want. Mel Gibson is tasked to develop a marketing campaign for a women’s running shoe. This real-world task is completely foreign to him, so he takes home products for women to try them out in an attempt to understand the real-world task. If students have to do this much to understand the real-world task, then it is not an authentic STEM PBL task. Once the authentic task is described and explained, we define STEM PBL as an ill-defined task within a well-defined outcome situated within a contextually rich, authentic real-world environment requiring students to solve several problems, which, when considered in their entirety, showcase student mastery of several concepts of various STEM subjects. Well-defined outcomes include clear expectations for learning connected to local, state, and national standards and clearly defined expectations and constraints for the completion of the task. The ill-defined task allows students the freedom to interpret the problem, constraints, and criteria informed by their subject area knowledge to formulate diverse solutions that will meet the well-defined outcome. Those outcomes include several components such as, for example, what the final product must be able to do, evidence of design and or redesign, documentation of learning, evidence of individual and group contributions, and a presentation of the final product that includes how the final artifact meets the design criteria and constraints (use Appendix Y [Rubric for Well- Defined Outcome and Ill-Defined Task (WDO-IDT)] as a resource when developing this important aspect of a STEM PBL activity). After identifying the learning goals, the teacher develops expectations for the authentic task to be completed or the artifact to be constructed along with the necessary constraints to establish boundaries for learning. The constraints are often included in the design brief and are the most STEM Project-Based Learning Paradigm 7 basic of requirements and often considered essential. Therefore, not meeting the constraints would indicate an inadmissible attempt. The design brief contains both the constraints and the criteria informed by knowing exactly which objectives or standards students will be expected to master. The criteria are measurable. These criteria help students know how they are progressing on the tasks, and it is these criteria that inform assessment. In fact, it is the criteria that form the basis of all assessments used throughout the PBL lesson (see Appendix G [Crossing the Abyss: Popsicle Stick Bridge: WDO/IDT] for an example of a complete design brief and how to establish a well-defined outcome and ill-defined task). STEM PBL relies on engineering as the cornerstone and as the foundation on which students bring their compartmentalized knowledge of science, technology, and mathematics to bear on solving and engineering meaningful authentic problems. It affords students the opportunity to build new powerful knowledge on top of their foundational knowledge, constructing a deeper understanding of the concepts and linking concepts across subject areas. Ever wonder why significant digits and units are emphasized in chemistry and physics but in mathematics not so much? Subjects are interconnected and linked with everything else. It was only in chemistry that I learned that a number raised to a power of two represented a special two-dimensional shape (a square) and a number raised to a power of three represented a regular three- dimensional shape (a cube). I should have learned this relationship in mathematics, but my courses were focused on computational proficiency and lacked any connection to the sciences where they were so very important. In physics, I learned that my answer of “five” was wrong not because the calculation was incorrect but because I had converted to ERGS without a unit, and thus the teacher was not sure that I knew the measurement of work was in the centimeter, gram, second world. STEM PBL provides the rich context to integrate learning and to make learning and the process of knowledge accumulation visible. Why Now? As pressure from external constituents forces schools to relegate good teaching to the back burner while putting testing for accountability front and center, there must be an instructional model that provides students with high-value tasks that foster rigorous subject matter engagement. STEM PBL lessons engage students in authentic tasks that result in specific learning essential in the current standards-based educational model while connecting K–12 and post-secondary education and addressing future workplace learning needs. Combine this with the recent health and social pandemic and it will take a monumental effort to set children back on the educational path. The social pandemic has highlighted the huge disparity with which Black Americans are treated by police, and that treatment has an impact on students in U.S. schools. The health pandemic dislocated education, families, and threatened a precariously balanced system and perhaps set students back a year or more educationally. STEM PBL is one 8 STEM Project-Based Learning Paradigm means teachers have for making thinking and learning visible and to scaffold learning while activating prior knowledge. So, we believe there is no time like the present. Building a Common Language It is important to understand what is meant by somewhat common terms in relation to STEM PBL. For example, brainstorming is commonly used to mean “generating ideas and not engaging in the evaluation of any particular one.” In contrast, in PBL, brainstorming is used as a pedagogical technique to establish teams and encourage a common focus. It is during brainstorming sessions that teams develop shared knowledge and a group dynamic that will serve as the incubator for their work together and eventually will lead to their unique solution. The term relevance has to have many meanings: the usefulness of education to life-long learning, meaningfulness to self, importance to society, real-world applicability, and finally the formation of moral decision making. In STEM PBL, relevance is not an oversimplification of these ideas, just a prioritization that is used to align learning with formal standards or student expectations. So, in STEM PBL we talk about if something educationally relevant, and it is this educational relevance that facilitates the development of rigorous and challenging experiences for students. An important consideration when deciding to adopt STEM PBL is that of the interdependent nexus of learning objectives, assessment, and student learning. It is common to refer to student objectives. The phrase student objective has come to be interpreted in behavioristic terms. STEM PBL would be considered the polar opposite of behavioristic paradigms of teaching and learning; therefore, we use the term student expectation (SE). We feel the term SE is not laden with prior notions but still conveys the message that teachers must use some form of objective, national or state standard, learning goal, or performance expectation in order to align teaching, learning, and assessment in this era of accountability. So, rather than be stereotyped into a specific paradigm, the perspective of this book is to accommodate many views, and, regardless of personal perspective, one can fit those views for describing what students will learn in STEM PBL. Given the importance of establishing SEs, it is essential to also use some form of assessment to determine the extent to which students master learning goals. PBL is well suited to assessments using rubrics but NOT to the exclusion of other forms of assessment. It is important to have a mix of assessments and to build student experience with as many forms of assessment as possible. Many schools that adopt STEM PBL also establish a professional learning community (PLC). A PLC can be an important and very productive school-based initiative that provides for and STEM Project-Based Learning Paradigm 9 sustains STEM PBL. The formation of a PLC facilitates teacher discussions about roles and responsibilities, establishes group norms, and sets expectations for everyone involved in the PLC. PLCs provide time for teachers to plan together. Often, PLCs contain stakeholders from across the continuum, but it is just as common for school-based PLCs to have representation from a more limited set of stakeholders. Equity, Entitlement, and Legacy in STEM The ideas of equity, entitlement, and legacy are paramount issues for STEM education. Once one earns credentials or diplomas, or certificates in any STEM-related field, one is bestowed with the greatest of benefits and endowed with a mystique that can be greater than the sum of all the parts that helped forge that credential. Earning a degree in any STEM field receives the same level of prominence. However, this awesome power should not ever devolve into a program of systemic entitlement and legacy. It is the responsibility of the smallest person who might be blessed with great power and influence to use that power to confront entitlement and legacy, providing a consequence of equity that transcends socio-political structures, cultural and religious lines, and languages. Entitlement is one of those things that we cannot often recognize when we possess it. It does not come on a card you can put in your wallet or purse and is not a piece of jewelry you can wear or an article of clothing that can be computer-selected for you. However, we can be doggedly protective of it and not even know we have it. We can wield it with laser-like precision or like a nuclear weapon and create broad and irreparable devastation. Entitlement structures come in many forms—they can be the color of our skin, the language we speak, our gender, our religion or sect within our religion, the university we graduated from, or our field of education. Perhaps the most damaging entitlement is entitlement based on invisible structures. Knowledge was intended to be the great equalizer that would transcend all superficial entitlement structures. However, we are still slaves to base instincts to differentiate, to seek out the miniscule uniqueness that exists within subgroups and then attach artificial distinctions on those that create a legacy that leads to privilege for one group and that leads to neglect, at best, and failure, at worst, for the other. The distinctions are either good or bad—to which one we subscribe depends on how we interpret the distinction’s effect on our standing within a community. As more of the world seeks equity through education, discourse around traditional differences is lost. It is substituted for more insidious and vile forms of transparent entitlement and legacy. These can be so ingrained that those who may feel that they challenge the construction of these structures fail to recognize them or, even worse, provide the raw materials for their construction. 10 STEM Project-Based Learning Paradigm “Being” a STEM educator or STEM professional comes with lucrative capital. This truly intoxicating concoction of recognition for what one knows and intimidation for what others do not is potentially a very dangerous condition. Therefore, one must surround oneself with others who are immune to this concoction to ensure measures are in place to keep those privileges in check. In the book Die Empty: Unleash Your Best Work Every Day, Todd Henry espouses a philosophy that the most valuable land in the world is the cemetery because it is where all the unrealized hopes, dreams, and good intentions are buried. It contains all the greatest dreams that were never enacted, the apologies never given, and the regrets never redressed. It is the repository of friendships lost and the greatest discoveries forgone that we must be certain to share. I encourage you to consume the information carefully, enact it a little each day, and in the end to Die Empty. What Is Engineering Design and Why in K–12? Engineering design has many forms with varying numbers of steps. There is no single foundational model broadly accepted across all engineering schools or practicing engineers. Some engineering design models have as few as three steps, while others can have 10 or more. Some engineering designs are partially Figure 1. The Engineering Design Process linear with iterative portions, but some are completely iterative while others are hierarchical and linear. The steps are often formulated to meet specific needs. Our model depends heavily on its intended purpose, teaching and learning, which in turn relies heavily on problem solving and internalizing or learning new content. This is different from many other models, which have the intended purpose of being quality control, parsimonious of resources, elegant, or applicable. One possible engineering design model is contained in Figure 1; also consider reading Chapter 4 for more information. STEM Project-Based Learning Paradigm 11 How to Start? STEM PBL requires a professional teaching force empowered with the skills necessary for designing powerful learning experiences that maximize student potential. Therefore, effective STEM PBL requires teachers to experience high-quality professional development to learn how to design high-quality experiential learning activities. Not all professional development activities are created equal (Desimone et al., 2001), and not all enactments meet the expectations of high-quality professional development (Capraro et al., 2011; Capraro & Avery, 2011; Han et al., 2012). The Flow of the Book This book is designed to provide a modern STEM approach to PBL that is informed by research. It covers the typical major topics but also includes a historical perspective (Chapter 2), a modern perspective on assessment that works in symbiosis with high-stakes testing (Chapter 7), and insights into the formation of PLCs and their impact on sustaining school change (Chapters 5 & 7). It is not written as a prescription or novel; we hope readers select chapters as they journey from dabbling in STEM PBL to mastery. This new edition is in a new format that allows duplication of the worksheet pages, lessons, rubrics, and an observation instrument located in the Appendices. We hope the new format is helpful to both teachers and workshop providers. Vocabulary for Reading the Book Authentic. A setting that is both real world and directly applicable to the students who will be experiencing the activity. It is carefully matched to their prior experiences and clearly links to the necessary knowledge that is the focus of the STEM PBL lesson. Constraint. Parameters established as part of the project to structure the deliverables of a PBL event. Constraints are placed on the design process and the product. Constraint is not synonymous with criteria. Examples of some constraints could be the following: a presentation must include research and contain a marketing component that lasts no more than three minutes, no two puzzle pieces can be the same, the boat must float for two minutes, or materials cannot be cut. All constraints must be met to have an admissible project. Criterion/Criteria. Item(s) written to support specificity that can be ranked or may demonstrate the continuum between expert and novice knowledge of the learning outcome. Generally, it is these criteria that function as part of the assessment component. Designer-defined criteria are used to select among plausible designs and may address wow factor, personal insights, complexity, novelty, or cost. Some examples of criteria are the following: the overall strongest design at the lowest cost scores higher and the most unique design from among all the designs presented will earn bonus points. 12 STEM Project-Based Learning Paradigm Design Brief. Establishes parameters for a PBL lesson. The design brief contains the constraints, establishes criteria, may establish evaluation standards, clearly communicates the deliverables, and outlines the conditions under which the PBL inquiry occurs. Problem-based learning. The use of a problem statement that both guides the learning and any resultant activities to explore the topic. Generally, problem-based learning is context rich but textually and informationally impoverished. The focus of learning is on individual and groups to (a) clearly identify what information they need to solve the problem and (b) identify suitable resources and sources of information to solve the problem. Professional Learning Community. Communities of practitioners, students, administrators, community stakeholders, and district personnel whose mission is to facilitate the teaching and learning process where the goals are to establish common language, expectations, and standards and to facilitate increased student outcomes. It provides time for teachers to come together to plan educationally sound activities for students. STEM PBL. An ill-defined task with a well-defined outcome situated within a contextually rich task requiring students to solve several problems, which, when considered in their entirety, showcase student mastery of several concepts of various STEM subjects. PBL here is the use of a project that often results in the emergence of various learning outcomes in addition to the ones anticipated. The learning is dynamic as students use various processes and methods to explore the project. The project is generally information rich, but directions are kept to a minimum. The richness of the information is often directly related to the quality of the learning and the level of student engagement. The information is often multifaceted and includes background information, graphs, pictures, specifications, generalized and specific outcome expectations, narrative, and in many cases the formative and summative assessments. Relevance. Refers to the real-world connections that should be fostered in each PBL lesson. It is also associated with facilitating student development of a personal connection to the project and fosters a “buy-in” for solving individual problems presented in the project. Rubric. May be co-developed with the students before the project starts and provides clear criteria that rank the extent to which a team or individual meets the expectations. Multiple rubrics can be developed to assess cooperation, collaboration, presentation, content, completeness, language, visual appeal, and marketing. The evaluator(s) can be the individual, peers, teachers, administrators, or external stakeholders. Small Learning Community. These are formed by ensuring that all the content area teachers (mathematics, science, social studies, reading/language arts) teach the same students and have common planning, behavior management plans, and performance expectations. Small learning STEM Project-Based Learning Paradigm 13 communities afford teachers the opportunity to become better acquainted with students and improve communication among teachers about student progress on common issues. Student Expectations. Specific learning goals where the focus is on the verbs. Clearly defined student expectations facilitate the alignment of teaching, learning, and assessment. Well-Defined Outcome. What students will know and be able to do by the end of the project. The well-defined outcome provides sufficient information to know what the finished product is and provides the constraints by which to judge the final product. It includes the deliverable, constraints, and expected learning outcomes or SEs. Ill-Defined Task. Contains basic information. The ill-defined task provides sufficient information to know how the content (well-defined outcome) comes together but way too little information to ensure that every attempt would look exactly the same and/or the process for getting to the well- defined outcome would be exactly the same. It is important here that teachers provide little specificity and that students can bring their own backgrounds and learning rates so the final deliverables are distinct, show group and individual growth, and foster students to learn at their own rates and depth while mastering the specified SEs. Conclusion STEM PBL was created out of a need identified by teachers, researchers, administrators, and stakeholders to develop an instructional style that is engaging, interdisciplinary, and encourages long-term learning. Specifically, STEM PBL makes use of authentic settings, requiring students to complete an ill-defined task with a well-defined outcome. It makes use of engineering design concepts to encourage problem solving and internalizing learning. STEM PBL also uses a specific set of vocabulary that teachers and students alike must become familiar with. These ideas, and more, are discussed in later chapter of this book. Refer to this chapter’s introduction to review their themes and determine which might be of the most use to you. Reflection Questions and Activities 1. What are the key tenets of STEM PBL instruction? What separates it from PBL instruction? 2. What is an ill-defined task and a well-defined outcome? How important are these to STEM PBL instruction? 3. What is the relationship between engineering and STEM PBL, and what is engineering design? In which chapter can you learn more about this? 4. Think about your familiarity with STEM PBL and the specific needs of your classroom then create a reading strategy for this book, thinking carefully about which chapters will most effectively support your needs. 14 STEM Project-Based Learning Paradigm Further Readings Capraro, M. M., Capraro, R. M., & Oner, A. T. (2011, November 10–12). Observations of STEM PBL teachers and their student scores [Paper presentation]. School Science and Mathematics Association 2011 Annual Convention, Colorado Springs, CO, United States. Capraro, R. M., & Avery, R. (2011, April 8–12). The “wicked problems” of urban schools and a science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) university-school district-business partnership [Paper presentation]. American Educational Research Association 2011 Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA, United States. Desimone, L. M., Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. F. (2002). Effects of professional development on teachers’ instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 81–112. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Collier Books. Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 915–945. Han, S. Y., Yalvac, B., Capraro, M. M., & Capraro, R. M. (2012, July 8–15). In-service teachers’ implementation of and understanding from project-based learning (PBL) in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields [Paper presentation]. 12th International Congress on Mathematical Education, Seoul, Korea. Kwok, M., Vela, K. N., Rugh, M. S., Lincoln, Y. S., Capraro, R. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2020). STEM words and their multiple meanings: The intricacies of asking a clarifying question. Communication Education, 69(2), 176–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2020.1723803 Rugh, M. S., Williams, A., Lee, Y., & Capraro, R. M. (2019). Comparing STEM schools on algebra performance. Proceedings of the Annual IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, 49. Stearns, L. M., Morgan, J., Capraro, M. M., & Capraro, R. M. (2012). The development of a teacher observation instrument for PBL classroom instruction. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 13(3), 25–34. Young, J. L., Young, J. R., & Capraro, R. M. (2020). Advancing black girls in STEM: Implications from advanced placement participation and achievement. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology, 12, 202–222. References 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, 3– 11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00109 Sanders, M. (2008). STEM, STEM education, STEMmania. Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20–26. Wong, V., Dillon, J., & King, H. (2016). STEM in England: Meanings and motivations in the policy area. International Journal of Science Education, 38(15), 2346–2366. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1242818 STEM Project-Based Learning Paradigm 15 Chapter 2 The Project Method in Historical Context Lynn M. Burlbaw Mark J. Ortwein J. Kelton Williams Department of Teaching, School of Education Independent Scholar Learning & Culture University of Mississippi Texas A&M University Project-based learning (PBL) as an instructional method has a long history in education. Emerging in the early twentieth century, the concept of utilizing projects and student self- direction as a means to enhance learning developed and changed over the next hundred years and grew and faded in the public interest repeatedly. PBL as it exists today is certainly distinct from these early practices, which were first developed in agricultural and machining settings, but as life-long learners and teachers, it is prudent to understand where the knowledge we wield today comes from and so be better prepared to understand and make use of what it may come to be in the future. 16 Historical Context Chapter Outcomes When you complete this chapter, you should better understand and be able to explain the origins of the project method how the definition of “project learning” changed throughout the method’s history common criticisms of the project method throughout the twentieth century the importance of having a clear definition of PBL When you complete this chapter, you should be able to identify key figures in the project method’s history discuss major phases in the project method’s history in the United States differentiate the current definition of PBL from early definitions of the project method Chapter Overview In this chapter, we present a brief history of the project method, both before and after Kilpatrick’s (1918) widely read and cited article and some of the issues related to the application of the project method in the public school classroom. We also examine the definition of project and how that definition was applied to the use of the project method in the school. A recent (2021) internet search using the phrase “Project-based learning” returned over 2 trillion hits. The chapter in the Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences by Krajcik and Blumenfeld (2006) is shown to be cited 1034 times. Project-based learning: A Primer by Solomon (2003), a web publication, is cited 531 times. A comprehensive review of research on PBL (Barron et al., 1998) is cited 1749 times. Clearly there is an interest in PBL. PBL has a long history, although recent interest was rekindled in the 1970s with the publication of Morgan’s (1976) article “The Development of Project-based Learning in the Open University” wherein he reported on the United Kingdom’s Open University’s move to projects in learning. In his piece, Morgan acknowledges that PBL has a long history, much of it dating back to the work of John Dewey in the early 20th century, whom he cites (i.e., Dewey, 1916, 1934). Interest in PBL continued to grow from the mid-1970s, with publications related to PBL peaking around 2015 according to the results from a search using Google Books Ngram Viewer and the terms “Project-based learning” and “Project based learning.” A publication from that peak period (i.e., Boss & Krauss, 2014) is titled “Reinventing Project-Based Learning,” acknowledging the changes in the field since the first edition of the book was Historical Context 17 published in 2007. To understand the historical roots of PBL, one needs to return to education practice in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Before looking at the historical roots of PBL, a contemporary definition is useful to ground the discussion. PBL is the ongoing act of learning about different subjects simultaneously. This is achieved by guiding students to identify, through research, a real-world problem (local to global) developing its solution using evidence to support the claim, and presenting the solution through a multimedia approach based in a set of 21st-century tools. Kids show what they learn as they journey through the unit, interact with its lessons, collaborate with each other, and assess themselves and each other. They don't just take a test or produce a product at the end to show their learning. (Wolpert-Gowron, 2015, paras. 7–8) However, at the turn of the 20th century, the commonly used phrase was “project work” or “the project method” rather than “project-based learning.” When William Heard Kilpatrick published “The Project Method” in the Teachers College Record in September of 1918, he started the piece by saying, “The word ‘project’ is perhaps the latest arrival to knock for admittance at the door of educational terminology” (p. 319). With this statement, and the following two preliminary questions he posed, “... is there behind the proposed term and awaiting even now to be christened a valid notion or concept which proposes to render appreciable service in educational thinking? Second, if we grant the foregoing, does the term ‘project’ fitly designate the waiting concept?” (Kilpatrick, 1918, p. 319), Kilpatrick encompassed the whole range of issues related to the “project method,” both its history and its application to practice. Over the next five years, many educational scholars attempted to define and explain the project method and how it would appear in schools. The definitions and results were as varied as the classroom practice the method was intended to clarify. Kilpatrick is frequently cited as one of the most popular professors and often criticized scholars of the Progressive Era; ultimately, his career spanned over six decades (Cremin, 1961; Kliebard, 1986; Ravitch, 2000). At the time that he published “The Project Method,” however, Kilpatrick was struggling to earn a promotion to full professor at Teachers College at Columbia University. Before joining the faculty in 1911, Kilpatrick had been a student at Teachers College, studying under Dewey. Consequently, Dewey pragmatism and experiential learning philosophy shaped Kilpatrick’s pedagogical theories and, more specifically, his approach to the project method. (Cremin, 1961, p. 215). The attachment of pedagogy in the project method in twentieth century educational literature is due to the fact that his article was reprinted tens of 18 Historical Context thousands of times all over the world (Cremin, 1961; Kliebard, 1986). Despite being identified as the father of the modern project method, Kilpatrick readily acknowledged that he was a late comer to the use of the term “project,” that he was unaware of its heritage, but that he saw value in using the term. “I did not invent the term nor did I start it on its educational career. Indeed, I do not know how long it has already been in use. I did, however, consciously appropriate the word to designate the typical unit of the worthy life described above?” (Kilpatrick, 1918, p. 320). Although Kilpatrick was unconcerned with pinning down the beginnings of the project method, other authors have located the origin of the term in agriculture, manual training, and domestic science (Horn, 1922) or with Dewey and others at Chicago and Teachers College (Parker, 1922b). Parker (1922b) also credited Francis W. Parker and C. R. Richards for popularizing the idea of pupil planning as part of the project process as early as 1901. von Hofe (1916) wrote, “The sixth-grade pupils in the Horace Mann School are studying science regardless of every artificial division. The class chooses a project, something that has attracted attention and in which they are vitally interested. The teacher then presents the information to follow not the so-called logical development found in textbooks but the trend of thought of the pupils” (pp. 240–241). While not defining the practice as a method, von Hofe described a practice that would shortly become popularized as the project method. Writing in 1997, Knoll stated Recently, however, historical research has made great progress in answering the question of when and where the term "project"-"progetto" in Italian, "projet" in French, "projekt" in German, and "proekt" in Russian-was used in the past to denote an educational and learning device. According to recent studies, the "project" as a method of institutionalized instruction is not a child of the industrial and progressive education movement that arose in the United States at the end of the 19th century. Rather it grew out of the architectural and engineering education movement that began in Italy during the late 16th century (Knoll 1991a, 1991b, 1991c; Schöller, 1993; Weiss, 1982). The long and distinguished history of the project method can be divided into five phases: 1590–1765: The beginnings of project work at architectural schools in Europe. 1765–1880: The project as a regular teaching method and its transplantation to America. 1880–1915: Work on projects in manual training and in general public schools. 1915–1965: Redefinition of the project method and its transplantation from America back to Europe. 1965–today: Rediscovery of the project idea and the third wave of its international dissemination. (paras. 3–4) Historical Context 19 Others push the origins back to the sloyd system of manual training, which emphasized domestic projects for the purpose of building neatness, accuracy, and carefulness as well as a respect for labor in a social context (Noyes, 1909). Sloyd education first took root in 1865 in Finland under the influence of Uno Cygnaeus, a devoted follower of Froebel and Pestalozzi, but gained widespread popularity at Otto Salomon’s school in Naas, Sweden (McDonald, 2004). During the 1870s and 1880s, teachers and scholars from around the world traveled to Naas to undergo Salomon’s courses in sloyd. According to one such scholar, Evelyn Chapman (1887), Salomon’s educational sloyd was introduced into “France, Belgium, Germany, Austria, Russia, and the United States” and “even far-distant Japan” (p. 269). Given Cygnaeus’s admiration for Froebel, it is perhaps unsurprising that Chapman went on to draw a connection between sloyd and kindergarten: “…in the adoption of the kindergarten system, the very soul of which is its response to the child’s need of activity and production; and sloyd is the same principle at work, only in a form suited to the growing powers of our boys and girls” (Chapman, 1887, p. 269). In the United States, perhaps the most prominent example was the Sloyd Training School for Teachers in Boston, Massachusetts. According to its founder and principal, Gustaf Larsson (1902), approximately twenty-two thousand pupils were receiving instruction from its graduates in the year 1900. Although there are clearly overlapping themes between the project method and educational sloyd, the extent to which sloyd influenced the project method remains unclear. Unconcerned with these historical considerations, Kilpatrick’s goal in his article was to lay out the pedagogical and psychological principles of learning on which the idea of the project was based and provide direction to teachers. He argued that the purposeful act is the basis for a worthy life and that we admire the “man who is master of his fate, who with deliberate regard for a total situation forms clear and far-reaching purposes, who plans and executes with nice care the purposes so formed. A man who habitually so regulates his life with reference to worthy social aims meets at once the demands for practical efficiency and moral responsibility” (1918, p. 322). Kilpatrick, following the idea of Dewey and others that school is not for life but is life, continued to explain the value of a purposeful act: “As a purposeful act is thus the typical unit of a worthy life in a democratic society, so also should it be made the typical unit of school procedure. … education based on the purposeful act prepares best for life while at the same time it constitutes the present worthy life itself” (1918, p. 323). Dewey’s thought is often difficult to pin down, but the roots of Kilpatrick’s ideas are consistently evident in Dewey’s writings of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (see Dewey, 1916, 1934). In fact, in his most notable work on education, Democracy and Education, Dewey quite directly connects education as a purpose of life. In one of his more concise statements on the issue, he said, “The continuity of any experience, through renewing the social group is a literal fact. Education in 20 Historical Context its broadest sense, is the means of this social continuity of life” (Dewey, 1916, p. 2). Morgan (1976), in explaining the origins of PBL, wrote, Many of the origins of project-based learning can be traced to Dewey (1916) who regarded education as a continuous reconstruction of society rather than as preparation for some remote future. He stressed the primacy of the present in the learner's experience. Later, Dewey (1938) reiterated his philosophy that education should be grounded in experience. (p. 55) In his 1997 article, Knoll summarized Kilpatrick's ideas on the project: Kilpatrick (1925) defined the project as a "hearty purposeful act" (not as a “hearty planned act” as the German translation has it; Kilpatrick 1918, p. 320, Kilpatrick 1935, p. 162). "Purpose" presupposed freedom of action and could not be dictated. If, however, "the purpose dies and the teacher still requires the completion of what was begun, then it [the project] becomes a task"-mere work and drudgery (Kilpatrick, 1925, p. 348). Thus, Kilpatrick established student motivation as the crucial feature of the project method. Whatever the child undertook, as long as it was done "purposefully," was a project. No aspect of valuable life was excluded. Kilpatrick (1918) drew up a typology of projects ranging from constructing a machine via solving a mathematical problem and learning French vocabulary, to watching a sunset and listening to a sonata of Beethoven. In contrast to his predecessors, Kilpatrick did not link the project to specific subjects and areas of learning such as manual training or constructive occupations; the project did not even require active doing and participating. Children who presented a play executed a project, as did those children sitting in the audience, heartily enjoying it. (Psychologizing the Project Method by Kilpatrick section, para. 3) Despite Kilpatrick’s efforts to ground the project method in Dewey’s thought, seldom in the many articles and books that followed and explanations of the method of the project does one find either the connection between the purposeful act (the project) and preparation for democratic life or that education is life; the first seemingly is ignored, the second seemingly a given. One difficulty adopters of the project method encountered was, in addition to the attempt to apply a method used in manual training and agriculture to academic subjects and questions of its applicability to non-manual subjects (Ruediger, 1923) was the lack of a concise definition. Several authors questioned the appropriateness of the method for academic subjects. Ruediger (1923) found the project method inappropriate, writing, The fact that the project idea in its original meaning is not applicable to the teaching of academic subjects has given rise to a number of interesting yet confusing developments. As used in agricultural education, the project has reference to the use of productive activities for teaching purposes.... something of objective significance is produced. A genuine vocational activity, somewhat circumscribed perhaps, is used for educative purposes. When we come to the academic subjects this idea of a project is not so easily realized. In reading, in arithmetic, in geography, and in history it is not easy for the Historical Context 21 pupil to produce something of inherent significance, something that society values regardless of personal sentiment. (p. 243) Horn’s criticism of the project method also went to the motivation and appropriateness of the application of the method to academic subjects. The following comment by Horn (1922) showed his concern about the lack of preciseness and relationship to social utility and purpose: “The most serious confusion in recent years has resulted from the teaching of those who define the ‘project’ as a wholehearted, purposeful act project by children” (p. 95). Horn additionally wrote, also in his 1922 article, that the original purpose of the project had been ignored and student interest and choosing had become guiding principles rather than the nature of the project: The worth of such “projects” [referring to traditional projects such as baking a cake, raising a plot of corn, building a bookcase] was measured by the degree to which they duplicated projects and activities found in life, by the degree to which they use the best materials and best methods, and by the degree of success that resulted. These “projects” may be defined as highly practical, problematic activities taken in their natural setting and involving the use of concrete materials, usually in a constructive way. They are to be distinguished, in general, from other school activities in that: (1) they are organized more directly about the activities of life outside the school; (2) they are more concrete; and (3) they afford a better test of working knowledge. (p. 93) Despite his best efforts, Kilpatrick (1918) contributed to the uncertainty of what is a project when he wrote, [T]he richness of life depends exactly on its tendency to lead one on to other like fruitful activity; that the degree of this tendency consists exactly in the educative effect of the activity involved’ and that we may therefore take as a criterion of the value of any activity—whether intentionally educative or not—its tendency to directly or indirectly to lead the individual and others whom he touches on to other like fruitful activity (p. 328). It is the special duty and opportunity of the teacher to guide the pupil through his present interests and achievement into the wider interests and achievement demanded by the wider social life of the older world. … Under the eye of the skillful teacher the children as an embryonic society will make increasingly finer discriminations as to what is right and proper. … The teacher’s success—if we believe in democracy—will consist in gradually eliminating himself or herself from the success of the procedure (p. 329–330). Here, then, Kilpatrick set the stage for the removal of the teacher from the process of choosing activities, but this only occurs after the child has developed skill and knowledge necessary to choose wisely. The developed abilities of the child become less important than the child’s interest in later publications explaining the project method. 22 Historical Context Kilpatrick was true to his ideas when he and his colleagues defined the project “to mean any unit of purposeful experience, any instance of purposeful activity where the dominating purpose, as an inner urge, (1) fixes the aim of the action, (2) guides its process, and (3) furnishes its drive, its inner motivation. The project thus may refer to any kind or variety of life experience which is in fact actuated by a dominating purpose” (Kilpatrick et al., 1921, p. 283). This broad definition thus became the justification for most any type of educational activity that either motivated students or students said motivated them to learn, regardless of the social utility of the product or the ability of students to benefit from the activity or their maturity to allow them to conduct the activity. Parker, in one of his 1922 articles, provided the briefest definition of project teaching by writing, “A pupil project is a unit of practical activity planned by the pupils,” as a way of summarizing his longer definition: The central element in project teaching is the planning by pupils of some practical activity, something to be done. Hence, a pupil-project is any unit of activity that makes the pupil responsible for such planning. It gives them practice in devising ways and means and in selecting and rejecting method of achieving some definite practical end. This conception conforms with the dictionary definition of a project as “something of a practical nature thrown our for the consideration of its being done”... Furthermore, it describes with considerable precision a specific type of improved teaching that has become common in progressive experimental schools since 1900. (1922a, p. 335) Parker thus places the interest of and planning of action by the student as the central tenet of the project method. He defines practical as “not theoretical” but does not ground the practical in utility or social purpose beyond that desired by the student. Parker (1922a) reported, as an example of project teaching, a historical construction project where fifth-grade students constructed a castle from cardboard to illustrate life in the medieval period and wrote a poem and play concerning their work. Here one sees an example for which Ruediger later criticized the project method as producing something with no inherent significance, which Parker justified because he believed it had high motivational value. Freeland, once a student teacher supervisor and principal of the teacher training school at Colorado State Teachers College, made little distinction between problem and project teaching and wrote of their relatedness by first defining the problem method and then the project. The problem is used to appeal to and develop the child’s thought … The project may be defined in relation to the problem as something the child is interested in doing and which may involve thinking, but need not always do so. … If it involves much thinking, it may contain problems (Freeland, 1922, p. 6–7). Historical Context 23 [T]he project is different from the problem in that its essential feature is the provision of something to organize, investigate, or accomplish, rather than to stimulate thought. It may be a problem or part of a problem, and it may embrace problems. The more good problems a project affords the better it is for educational purposes. To afford something to do, the project must necessarily arise from the interests of the children. (Freeland, 1922, p. 45) Freeland then still intended teachers to focus on the nature of the instructional act rather than focusing on the interest or intentions expressed by students. “The distinct advantage of the project method over the old topic or question and answer method is that it provides for continuous work on the part of the pupil rather than assignment from day to day” (Freeland, 1922, p. 46). The idea of definition became, to later authors, less of an issue than the adoption of the philosophy of the project method and its focus on children’s interests. Hosic and Chase, an associate professor at Teachers College and an elementary school principal, respectively, wrote in the Preface to their book, A Brief Guide to the Project Method, “There is a limit to the amount of abstract theory which workers in the schools, and students preparing to join them can assimilate and apply” and “However imperfectly we have interpreted the project method, we believe that it is a fruitful concept of living, learning, and teaching, destined to influence profoundly the educational practices of the future, and that for good” (1924, p. iii). They conclude their introductory chapter with these sentences: [T]he Project Method means providing opportunity for children to engage in living, in satisfying, worth-while enterprises – worth-while to them; it means guiding and assisting them to participate in these enterprises so that they may reap to the full the possible benefits. … The Project Method, then, is a point of view rather than a procedure [emphasis in original] (1924, p. 7). In his 1926 book, Modern Methods in High School Teaching, Douglass devoted separate chapters to problem teaching (Chapter 10, pp. 295–322) and project teaching (Chapter 11, pp. 324–356), making a clear distinction that projects could include problems and that problems could, at some point, become projects. Douglass, while making a distinction, saw the classification of an activity as a “problem” or a “project” as something teachers should not spend a lot of time on. The underlying principles of procedure for problems and projects are essentially the same. Problems and projects possess very much the same values, and the merits of them as teaching procedures are based on the same psychological facts. It is not necessary, ore desirable even if possible, to attempt here to draw a sharp distinction between the two (Douglass, 1926, p. 324). Teachers are inclined to waste much valuable time in quibbling over what technically constitutes ad project and what does not. An activity may technically constitute a 24 Historical Context project and yet be a very inferior educational activity. Merely being a project does not necessarily carry with it merit. A good problem, yes, even a good, old-fashioned, arbitrary, autocratic, daily assignment and recitation, is a much better teaching procedure than a poorly managed project. Not much good can come from merely learning the definition of a project. What is important for teachers is to appreciate the psychological principles which lie behind the project, and which account for its merit and effectiveness. (Douglass, 1926, p. 326) A little over 20 years later, in another version of the text, Douglass and Mills (1948) devoted only 8+ pages to the project method as a part of a chapter on teaching units of learning and 9+ pages to problem teaching as part of a chapter on questions and problems in teaching. The authors cited Douglass’ 1926 definition of project in describing a project: “The project as used in a teaching is a unit of activity carried on by the learner in a natural and lifelike manner, and in a spirit of purpose to accomplish a definite, attractive, and seemingly attainable goal” (Douglass, 1926, p. 325; Douglass and Mills, 1948, p. 209). Although early in his 1918 article, Kilpatrick emphasized the connection between a whole- hearted purposeful activity and the social environment in which the activity takes place (p. 320). The ideas of “whole-hearted” and “purposeful” came to dominate the defining attributes of the activity. While initially emphasizing the necessity or importance of individualized self-directed motivation on the part of the student in choosing the purposeful activity in 1918, by the time he wrote his 1925 book, Foundations of Method, Kilpatrick had accepted the fact that the teacher may have a role in the planning and encouragement of interest in the project. “We have, so far, not based any argument on the child’s originating or even selecting (in the sense of his deciding) what shall be done. So far, all that we have claimed will be met if the child whole- heartedly accepts and adopts the teacher’s suggestion” (Kilpatrick, 1925, p. 207). Douglass adhered more closely to Kilpatrick’s original statement on self-selection, as he defined one of the characteristics that a project must include in the following way: “The learner approaches the task in an attitude of purposefulness; it is a self-imposed task, rather than one imposed arbitrarily by the teacher or the course of study” (Douglass, 1926, p. 325.). Douglass did not, however, ignore the role of the teacher in planning and assisting students in the selection and management of projects. “As in the case with any teaching procedure, the project method in itself does not provide a complete educative situation. Merely having students purposing, planning and executing projects may or may not be good procedure, depending upon what projects are being completed and the nature of the procedure followed” (Douglass, 1926, p. 341). This statement was followed by eight criteria a teacher should use in selecting projects. Historical Context 25 By the mid 1920s, the project method, which seemingly had something for every student and teacher, had been used to justify the child-centered and activity movements where all curricular plans were to begin with the interests of the child, even if the child was not motivated to have interests. These concerns were not missed by those promoting the project method, even as the idea of the project was being developed. In the report on a symposium on project-based education held at Teachers College, Bonser, a professor at Teachers College, wrote, A second danger of misinterpretation is that of assuming that all expressed interests of children are of equal worth. By such an interpretation, that which is trivial or relatively insignificant is permitted to divert efforts from activities which in themselves lead to higher levels of interest and worth. … One very important function of the teacher is to select and direct interests and activities of children so that they may continuously lead forward and upward to higher stages. (Kilpatrick et al., 1921, pp. 298–299) In attempting to use the interests of children, many teachers are tempted simply to “turn the children loose,” and to allow them to follow any interests which they individually express, or to do nothing to stimulate desirable interests if such are not expressed. This results in indulgence rather than direction, in a form of anarchy rather than of orderly procedure. It has already been noted that all interests and activities are not of equal worth. It is the providence of the teacher to select, stimulate, and direct activities whose worth is high n leading forward toward objectives of unquestioned value. (Kilpatrick et al., 1921, p. 302) Of all the speakers in the symposium on the project method, Hosic was the only one to reiterate Kilpatrick’s early emphasis on democracy as his fourth point: The project method is the application of the principles of democracy. Any one who will undertake to put into effect in his school the factors of socialization as set forth by Professor Dewey, namely, common aims, the spirit of cooperation, and the division of labor, will find that he is using the project method. No special devices for socializing the recitation will be necessary. (Kilpatrick et al., 1921, p. 306). Later, in continuing the concern over the overgeneralization of the tenets of the project method, Hosic and Chase (1924), in their chapter “Dangers and Difficulties,” warned against mechanistically turning control of the class over to students: First, let us observe that the project idea should not be interpreted as a doctrine of laissez faire. The fact that the project teacher invites the pupils to assume a large measure of responsibility does not mean that she turns the school over to them. Both the community and the individual are to be served. The school is intended to provide a selected and controlled environment. If this were not so, the education of the children might as well be left to the more or less accidental ministrations of other agencies. (p. 86) The reaction to the student-centeredness of the project method began almost as it was gaining popular acceptance. Curriculum theorists and practitioners were concerned over the lack of 26 Historical Context direction and purpose of the method. “According to Dewey, the method of surrounding the pupil with materials but not suggesting an end result or a plan and simply letting pupils respond according to whim, was ridiculous” (Tanner & Tanner, 1980, p. 295). Rugg and Schumaker, in their 1928 work The Child-Centered School, wrote, “We dare not leave longer to chance—to spontaneous, overt symptoms of interest on the part of occasional pupils—the solution to this important and difficult problem of construction of curriculum for maximum growth” (p. 118). The project method thus led to the notion that activity on the part of students was a measure of success and critical to learning. By the 1930s, the project method, as seen in schools, was under attack by the very person who supposedly was one of the originators of the method, John Dewey. Dewey was concerned that teachers had abandoned their proper role in education. “It is the business of the educator to study the tendencies of the young so as to be more consciously aware than are the children themselves what the latter need and want. Any other course transfers the responsibility of the teacher to those taught” (Dewey, 1934, p. 85). Also, by the 1930s, public schools were under scrutiny and attack for their perceived role in either failing to prevent the Great Depression or not “fixing” the Great Depression once it had begun, and educational innovation began to fade. In summarizing the failure of the child-centered project method, Tanner and Tanner (1980) wrote, … experience had made it abundantly clear to many educational theorists that a curriculum based solely on the spontaneous interests of childhood was an impossibility. Such a program could have no sequence and no predetermined outcomes, not even predetermined psychological outcomes. Even a play school had to have objectives and a program that was planned to meet those objectives. Otherwise, the child might as well stay home. (pp. 296–297) Projects, as a form of child-centeredness, again appeared on the educational scene in the 1930s in the form of the Building America Series, edited by Paul Hanna and sponsored by the Social Frontier group at Teachers College. Rugg, also a member of the Social Frontier group at Teachers College, identified the project method as a useful method in social reconstruction at the national level (Rugg, 1933). In his book, Educational Frontier, Kilpatrick (1933) discussed the social and educational reconstructivism movement of the 1930s. More specifically, Kilpatrick addressed the need to reform the education system to prepare students for life in contemporary society—a society that requires collaborative efforts to solve problems. In this book, Kilpatrick offered a societal justification for using the project method in schools to achieve social reconstruction. Historical Context 27 Later, in the immediate postwar period of the late 1940s and early 1950s, in the form of the life adjustment or continuing life situations movement led by Florence Stratemeyer, another professor from Teachers College, attention was turned to making education more relevant to the needs of the growing number of children entering school, a surge later called the Baby Boom. Just as the project movement had been criticized for its attention to the immediate interests of children, so too was the life-situations curriculum. Although the aim of this curriculum is to meet the needs of children and youth throughout their lives, needs also determine the choices of the problems to be studied. … Like Kilpatrick, Stratemeyer and her associates stressed that not all children’s interests are equally valuable … but, as in the case of Kilpatrick’s project method, it is preferable of the problems to be based on the child’s immediate concerns rather than on adult claims of children’s needs. (Tanner & Tanner, 1980, p. 387) The various teaching innovations of the previous 50 or so years came under attack in the 1950s and soon disappeared from classrooms. The project method had a brief revival in the 1960s in response to the perception that education was failing the nation in science and mathematics. Educators again took an interest in the motivation of children to learn, thinking “that the thrill of discovering scientific concept autonomously would not only result in more effective learning but also instill in children the desire for further, more significant, discoveries” (Tanner & Tanner, 1980, p. 403). However, as Tanner and Tanner (1980) wrote, “this time the model was discipline-focused, not social-problem focused. Discover teaching was a disciplinary effort to teach children to think like scientists instead of children” (p. 403). By the late 1970s, the pendulum in education had swung again, and the child and his/her interests were again being considered in designing instructional strategies. It is only in the last decade or so that significant changes have occurred in the higher education sector. Pressures for change and innovation in universities and polytechnics have come from many directions - from students and teachers as well as employers. In Britain, student demands for autonomy and relevance in their education could be heard in the corridors of students' unions throughout the country. Many of these demands can be answered through project-based learning. (Morgan, 1976, p. 55) Today, the rationale for PBL lies not in its utility in preparing students for the future but in a learning theory. There is renewed enthusiasm for approaches to instruction that emphasize the connection of knowledge to the contexts of its application. Recommendations by nationally commissioned educational boards and teacher-directed publications reflect this enthusiasm. (Barron et al., 1998, p. 252) 28 Historical Context Blumenfeld et al. (1991), summarized the thinking on project-based education in their article on doing and learning. They introduced the article, saying, In searching for organizing principles of instruction and curriculum that attend to critical relations between motivation and thinking, researchers have recurringly returned to the idea of projects: relatively long-term, problem-focused, and meaningful instructional units that integrate concepts from a number of disciplines or fields of study. (Blumenfeld et al., 1991, pp. 369–370) Conclusion The project method for general education was co-opted from agriculture and the industrial arts, and, after first being applied in the elementary schools, was extended to all grade levels. Initially focused on the solution of “real-world” problems with tangible, measurable outcomes, the project method soon was applied to any activity in which students showed interest, however transient and/or insignificant and regardless of the outcome product. The role of society, the teacher, and knowledge was seen as less important than engaging students. Lacking a succinct definition, assessment of the success of the project method was impossible, and the “method” became the “current” model of instruction in all subjects for all students, often failing to meet the needs of children, teachers, or society. Today, researchers, teachers, and curriculum designers attend to those issues so that PBL will not be another soon-to-be discarded instructional strategy. Reflection Questions and Activities 1. What are the origins of the project method? 2. Why was it crucial to create a clear and widely accepted definition of the project method? What difficulties did scholars of the twentieth century encounter in attempting to do so? 3. What major criticisms were levelled against the project method during the twentieth century? In your opinion, were they valid and were they addressed as the instructional method continued to change? 4. What major differences are there between the modern definition of PBL and earlier definitions of the project method? Additional Reading Knoll, M. (1989). Transatlantic influences: The project method in Germany. In C. Kridel. (Ed.), Curriculum history: Conference presentations from the society for the study of curriculum history (pp. 214– 220). University of America Press. Knoll, M. (1991a). Europa-nicht Amerika: Zum ursprung der projektmethode in der pädagogik, 1702– 1875. Pädagogische Rundschau, 45, 41–58. Historical Context 29 Knoll, M. (1991b). Lernen durch praktisches problemlösen: Die projektmethode in den U.S.A., 1860– 1915. Zeitschrift für Internationale Erziehungsund Sozialwissenschaftliche Forschung, 8, 103–127. Knoll, M. (1991c). Niemand weiß heute, was ein projekt ist: Die Projektmethode in den vereinigten staaten, 1910–1920. Vierteljahrsschrift für Wissenschaftliche Pädagogik, 67, 45–63. Schöller, W. (1993). Die "Académie Royale d'Architecture," 1671–1793: Anatomie einer institution. Böhlau. Weiss, J. H. (1982). The making of technological man: The social origins of French engineering education. MIT Press. References Barron, B. J. S., Schwartz, D., Vye, N., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., Bransford, J. D., & The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem- and project-based learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3–4), 271–311. Blumenfeld, P. C., Elliot Soloway, E., Marx, R W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3–4), 369–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1991.9653139 Boss, S., & Krauss, J. (2014). Reinventing project-based learning: Your field guide to real-world projects in the digital age (2nd ed.). International Society for Technology in Education. Chapman, E. (1887). Slöjd. Science, 9(215), 269–273. Cremin, L. A. (1961). The transformation of the school: Progressivism in American education, 1876–1957. Knopf. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. Macmillan. Dewey, J. (1934). Comments and criticisms by some educational leaders in our universities. In G. M. Whipple, (Ed.), The thirty-third yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II: The activity movement (pp. 77–103). Public School Publishing. Douglass, H. R. (1926). Modern methods in high school teaching. Houghton Mifflin. Douglass, H. R., & Mills, H. H. (1948). Teaching in high school. Ronald Press. Freeland, G. E. (1922). Modern elementary school practice. Macmillan. Horn, E. (1922). Criteria for judging the project method. Educational Review, 63, 93–101. Hosic, J. F., & Chase, S. E. (1924). A brief guide to the project method. World Book Company. Kilpatrick, W. H. (1918). The project method. Teachers College Record, 19, 319–335. Kilpatrick, W. H. (1925). Foundations of method. Macmillan. Kilpatrick, W. H. (1933). Educational Frontier. Century. Kilpatrick, W. H., Bagley, W. C., Bonser, F. G., Hosic, J. F., & Hatch, R. W. (1921). Dangers and difficulties of the project method and how to overcome them – A symposium. Teachers College Record, 22, 283–321. Kleibard, H. M. (1986). The struggle for the American curriculum, 1893–1958. Routledge. 30 Historical Context Knoll, M. (1997). The project method: Its vocational education origin and international development. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 34(3). https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JITE/v34n3/Knoll.html Krajcik, J. S., & Bluemenfeld, P. C. (2006). Project-based learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 317–333). Cambridge University Press. Larsson, G. (1902). Sloyd. Sloyd Training School Publication. Macdonald, S. (2004). The history and philosophy of art education. Lutterworth Press. Morgan, A. (1976) The development of project-based learning in the Open University. Programmed Learning and Educational Technology, 13(4), 55–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/1355800760130407 Noyes, W. (1909). The ethical values of the manual and domestic arts. Manual Training Magazine, 11(3), 201–214. Parker, S. C. (1922a). Project teaching: Pupils planning practical activities: I. The Elementary School Journal, 22, 335–345. Parker, S. C. (1922b). Project teaching: Pupils planning practical activities: II. The Elementary School Journal, 22, 427–440. Ravitch, D. (2000). Left back: A century of failed school reforms. Simon & Schuster. Ruediger, W.C. (1923). Project tangentials. Educational Review, 65, 243–246. Rugg, H. (1933). Social reconstruction through education. Progressive Education, 10, 11–18. Rugg, H., & Shumaker, A. (1928). The child-centered school. World Book. Solomon, G. (2003). Project-based learning: A primer. Technology and Learning, 23(6), 20–23. Tanner, D., & Tanner, L. N. (1980). Curriculum development. Macmillan. von Hofe, G. D., Jr. (1916). The development of a project. Teachers College Record, 17, 240–246. Wolpert-Gowron, H. (2105, August 13). What the heck is project-based-learning? Edutopia. https://www.edutopia.org/blog/what-heck-project-based-learning-heather-wolpert-gawron Historical Context 31 Chapter 3 Designing a STEM Project-Based Lesson Robert M. Capraro Mary Margaret Capraro Department of Teaching, Learning & Culture Department of Teaching, Learning & Culture Aggie STEM Aggie STEM Texas A&M University Texas A&M University Jamaal Young Luciana R. Barroso Department of Teaching, Learning & Culture Zachry Department of Civil and Environmental Aggie STEM Engineering Texas A&M University Aggie STEM Texas A&M University Do you remember learning how to skate? Or do you remember teaching someone how to skate? Learning to skate or teaching someone to skate is an iterative process where oftentimes the learner wants to “experiment” too quickly and the teacher tries to impart his/her wisdom so the learner does not make the same mistakes the teacher made when she or he first learned to skate. In the end, the learner probably has to repeat many of those same mistakes regardless, and, most importantly, no one is likely to brand any of their early attempts a failure just because the learner was not able to skate in the Olympics, play hockey, excel at Roller Derby, or even manage to stand up. Learning to teach project-based learning (PBL) effectively requires that an individual practice some of the patience and techniques needed to teach someone to skate. Specifically, they must have the patience to allow the learner to take control and to become more familiar with the techniques that build upon their expanding experience and knowledge base as a catalyst for accelerated learning. Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) PBL has many applications, so learning to do it well can open up many venues one never imagined at the beginning of the journey. Just as in learning to skate—or learning to let the learner learn on his/her own—is not an all-or-nothing process. Learning to learn and learning to teach in a STEM PBL environment are not all-or-nothing propositions. 32 Designing a STEM Project-Based Lesson Chapter Outcomes When you complete this chapter, you should better understand and be able to explain how implementing PBL in the classroom occurs in stages and over time the ways in which PBL is informed by research on the design of learning environments and the learning sciences When you complete this chapter, you should be able to implement PBL components into your teaching use the Teacher PBL Checklist and understand the components of a PBL lesson discuss the underpinnings of PBL with other teachers and administrators Chapter Overview This chapter first discusses the theories that form the foundation of STEM PBL. We then explain which aspects of the learning environment influence the success of a STEM PBL lesson. Different stages of learning in STEM PBL are then discussed as well as how the learner functions during each of these. Finally, we explore the different components of a STEM PBL lesson and provide an example of how a teacher might construct each of these using the Teacher PBL Checklist Theoretical Underpinnings of STEM PBL STEM PBL is a special case of inquiry. Therefore, it is comprised of several theoretical frameworks that all interplay in the design, delivery, and assimilation of the content learned through STEM PBL. Primarily, all inquiry models are deeply rooted in constructivism and to some degree brain-based learning (Jumaat et al., 2017; Kokotsaki et al., 2016). However, STEM PBL adds enactivism, embodied cognition, social constructivism, and behaviorism. These theoretical models all interact to build a complex yet learner friendly experience to maximize learning while honoring individual students’ differences. The two independent, yet related, theories of constructivism and brain-based learning work symbiotically as the umbrella under which the other theories come into play through various components. Constructivism can be simplified as the act of allowing the learner to build their own knowledge, while brain-based learning theory is the understanding that everyone learns differently and that how each individual learn is inextricably connected to brain development, typically governed by age. Building from these two theories, STEM PBL makes use of learning activities where the learner is charged with individual accountability. The activities include tasks to accomplish that are in symbiosis with the learner’s stage of development and are brain friendly. For example, activities incorporate visuals, various ways to demonstrate student Designing a STEM Project-Based Lesson 33 knowledge, scaffolded learning tasks, and regular and predictable formative feedback. These two theories are active to greater and lesser degrees throughout each STEM PBL activity. The four theories that are activated as parts of various components are enactivism, embodied cognition, social constructivism, and behaviorism. Enactivism and embodied cognition are closely related ideas. Enactivism in its simplest form is the active cognitive process that occurs from engagement with the learning environment. This e

STEM Project-Based Learning - Aggie STEM PDF

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript

Upgrade to continue