It's not the Project that matters. It's the Thinking.

When I first started this blog on incorporating Project-Based learning (PBL) and developing those kinds of projects, I started off with the usual suspects: distinguishing between projects and PBL, emphasizing authenticity and “real world” applications, and so on. Then I stumbled upon a video on Socratic Questioning from the Foundation for Critical Thinking with Richard Paul. 

Within the first two minutes of that video, I was blown away by Paul’s premise as it pertained to thinking. He posits: 

The main goal is to help students think in some way (e.g., historically, geologically, anatomically, chemically, philosophically, mathematically) or to think like an artist, a writer, an analyst, a researcher, an historian, etc.  (Paul, 2013)

I paused the video at that point to marinate. Then, I started it over at the beginning again, just to be sure I got it. I thought:

 Isn’t this kind of thinking what we want from our students, ultimately? 

Doesn’t PBL revolve around the idea that students will be doing this kind of  thinking, this depth of thinking? 

Then, I considered one of the distinctions between Projects and PBL: projects focus on a product (a diorama or PowerPoint) (Mayer, 2012) whereas PBL focuses on how a student works with and within a real-world scenario or problem or one that simulates authentic real world situations (Larmer, 2012).

Having students create a presentation on a president falls short of PBL. It is a project, but it is not by and of itself project-based learning. It is project-based presenting.

Having students think like biographers or journalists is the goal.  Why does someone write about a president? For what purpose?  How would a journalist share what he/she found out? Consider, too, how the significance of the thinking changes when writing/reading about George Washington versus Bill Clinton—the shift from thinking like a biographer versus a journalist. 

Real world thinkers are thinking like researchers, analysts, artists. Real world thinkers are thinking geologically, astronomically, and environmentally. They care about accuracy, clarity, depth, logic, and significance—all things that, if we were to witness them in a student project, would give us that teacher glow!

We don’t want students to “make a Prezi” or “make a brochure.” We want them to care about what they are reading and exploring (the content). We want them to care not just about the content, but about their thinking, their content.

  

If you really want to integrate PBL in your classes, step back and consider how you can move your students towards striving to understand things for the purpose of finding a resolution to problems yet to be resolved/continue to persist, or to provide a new perspective on something. 

That’s what researchers, engineers, poets, dramatists, global citizens, historians, architects, artists…do.

References

Larmer, J. (2012, May 24). What does it take for a project to be “authentic”? Retrieved from http://bie.org/blog/what_does_it_take_for_a_project_to_be_authentic

Mayer, A. (2012, November 27). What’s the difference between doing projects and project-based learning? Retrieved from http://www.friedtechnology.com/2012/11/whats-difference-between-doing-projects.html

Paul, R. [CriticalThinkingOrg]. (2013, September 18). Socratic questioning series [disk 1] [part 1] [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvMGza0Roo4&list=WL&index=12

New Word: Creativifying

I've been talking with other teachers about teaching for creativity and teaching creatively. Good stuff! It seemed like, though, that we needed a new word for what we were doing--something that would capture it all up into one, concise focus. Here's what I came up! Let me know what you think in the comments! =D

Understanding Enduring Understandings

Differentiate my Ride! The Role of the Rubric in Differentiating Projects

Teachers certainly know that their students represent a variety of cultures, abilities, and learning styles. They also understand that by responding to individual students’ needs, those students will no doubt experience a more powerful learning experience. Providing opportunities for student choice in projects they complete, through negotiation, can help us “create motivating assignments that meet students’ diverse needs and varied interests” (Robb, 2008). Yet, we have to think in terms of fairness, too.  If Madison is creating a video and Esteban is writing a series of blogs, how can we be sure that they are both have mastered the objectives that we want them to master, and how can we ensure that neither of them feels the other has an “easier” task? 

In order to ensure that we’re effectively incorporating student choice as a method for differentiated instruction, we have to be able to effectively develop a rubric, and not just any rubric, but an analytical trait rubric. We must be able to discern criteria for quality, which can be applied to any media for presentation or production. 

And that means we may need to rethink our very comfortable, compartmentalized rubrics. Or we may need to use more than one for a project. Let’s take a look at one portion of this 5^th grade Ancient Civilization Research project rubric:

These rubric components are two of several--there are more components, such as presentation and organization. This particular project is NOT differentiated as students are all expected to develop a written report and an oral presentation. Thus, if we wanted to differentiate this project for ancient civilizations, we’d need to totally rethink the rubric and our approach to the assessment. 

Notice that Report and Research are separated into (basically) how many sources are used (numerous, general, adequate, insufficient) and a very vague overview of the use of that research, (again with the amounts as the focus for the most part: limited, some, good, thorough) combined with quality of descriptive writing (that will work). Further, the language is very pedantic and not developed with the student in mind. Thus, student motivation will be impacted. 

To differentiate this rubric and the project, we’re going to need to: (1) think more conceptually, (2) incorporate criteria in terms of analytic traits, and (3) write for the student.  Here’s what we might do:

Communication of Ideas	Ideas are creative, clear, and organized, and clearly show the audience how they connect to the civilization chosen	Ideas are clear and organized, but the audience may have trouble seeing how they connect to the civilization chosen	Ideas might be either organized or clear, but the audience isn’t able to see how they connect to the civilization chosen	Ideas don’t make sense and/ or don’t clearly connect  to the civilization chosen
Use of the Research	The research used clearly, effectively, and meaningfully supports the writer’s ideas, and the sources are credible as per the class agreement of what makes a credible source.	The research used supports the writer’s ideas, but it may not be clear or meaningful, and the sources are credible as per the class agreement of what makes a credible source.	The research used may or may not support the writer’s ideas effectively, or the sources may or may not be credible as per the class agreement of what makes a credible source.	The research used doesn’t support the writer’s ideas, and the sources may not be credible as per the class agreement of what makes a credible source.

This revision is, admittedly, somewhat done in haste, but I hope you see how the revised rubric could apply to any medium: a video, an essay, a blog, a visual, an infographic.  Further, notice that the emphasis is on quality of the criteria as opposed to amounts of things (clearly, meaningfully, effectively). Notice the use of “audience,” too, which can apply to any type of product--written, verbal, visual, or kinesthetic. With a short written component for the research, I could evaluate the communication of ideas in an interpretive dance. I also endeavored to make it more student-friendly, but I can see that some wording would probably need to be clarified for fifth graders.  At any rate, that’s the goal. 

Finally, and on a completely personal note, I’ve presented the more effective levels closer to the traits as opposed to less effective traits being presented first. Given that students read left to right, I feel that this approach is more motivational.  Call me crazy. 

But differentiating needs a little crazy to make it work. 

Reference

Robb, L. (2008) Differentiating reading instruction: How to teach reading to meet the needs of each student [Excerpt].  Danbury, CT: Scholastic. Retrieved from http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/what-differentiated-instruction

 

Mindy and some of her former students published Transparent Teaching of Adolescents, a discussion of effective teaching strategies for high school. Join the conversation!