Literature Review
What are the connections between teacher scaffolding
and positive student achievement outcomes in project-based learning in primary
school?
This literature review seeks to find
connections between teacher-scaffolding and student outcomes in student-centred
learning practices in primary school.
The main learning investigated is Project-Based Learning (PBL) although
there is mention of Inquiry Learning (IL) as it is very similar to PBL. Unlike discovery learning or purely
experiential learning, both PBL and IL involve strong scaffolding. This review
intends to look at the connections between this scaffolding and student
outcomes.
The scope of the review is the primary
years although some of the literature covered refers to middle years, up to
year 10, and this provides a wider context. There is very little research
available in the New Zealand context.
The findings of research in other countries such as Australia, USA and
UK are also relevant to New Zealand. The
New Zealand education system is arguably less constrained than these countries
and we do not have the same level of mandatory standardised testing up to year
10. In theory this gives New Zealand
educators more scope to implement student-centred learning systems and so the
practices and results of other contexts should be of relevance in New
Zealand. Some further readings around
project-based learning and the role of teacher scaffolding in student-centred
learning provide further context to the study.
Project Based Learning (PBL) grew from the
democratic education philosophy of John Dewey and has developed further in the
past 25 years (Bauer,
2006). PBL is “a systematic teaching method
that engages students in learning knowledge and skills through an extended
inquiry process structured around complex, authentic questions and carefully described
products and tasks,” (Buck Institute for Education, 2008 quoted in Coffey,
2008, p.1).
PBL is similar to inquiry learning but has a greater emphasis on a final
artifact. It is “a constructivist method
for teaching and learning that, at the end of the learning process, manifests
itself in a product of some sort,” (Bauer,
2006).
PBL and inquiry learning are both forms of
student-centred learning as opposed to curriculum-centred learning (Brough,
2012). Anecdotally, many educators and most
non-educators view student-centred learning as lacking structure, direction and
direct teaching. This is also reflected
in debate in the literature. There is a
school of thought that groups discovery learning with problem-based, inquiry
and experiential learning under the banner of minimally-guided learning (Kirscher,
Sweller, & Clark, 2006).
Their argument is based on an understanding of the limited cognitive
load capacity of the working memory thus arguing that teachers need to directly
provide information and modeled solutions.
They argue complex cognitive processes of inquiry with the metacognitive
structures of cooperation and processing that accompany it are too much for the
working memory to cope with. This
argument mistakenly groups PBL and IL with unguided discovery learning. “In both (PBL and IL), students are cognitively
engaged in sense making, developing evidence-based explanations, and
communicating their ideas. The teacher
plays a key role in facilitating the learning process and may provide content
knowledge on a just-in-time basis,” (Hmelo-Silver,
Duncan, & Chinn, 2007, p.100). Thus the question is not whether or not
PBL/IL is guided and whether there is explicit teaching, the question here is
what sort of guidance is the most effective.
A kaupapa Maori worldview is reflected in
the revised New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry
of Education, 2007).
The Maori worldview is “characterized by an abiding concern for the
quality of human relationships (and)….the need to balance individual learning
and achievement against responsibilities for the well-being and achievement of
the group,” Within such a worldview, education is understood as, “Holistic,
collective, experiential and dependent upon a free exchange of teaching and
learning roles,” (Macfarlane,
Glynn, Wiariki, Penetito, & Bateman, 2008, p.102).
“The concepts of whanau (extended family) and whakawhanungatanga
(building family-like relationships) are central and critical because they
underpin Maori understandings of human development and learning (p. 107). This worldview is honoured in collaborative
student-centred learning systems.
Some of the key factors of PBL fit very
closely within kaupapa Maori. As a student-centred curriculum, PBL aims to
teach skills and knowledge as they are needed rather than within curriculum
areas. This steps away from the Western
mindset of compartmentalized knowledge towards the Maori way of knowing which involves
direct experience in the natural world, (Barnhardt and Kawagley, 2005, in Macfarlane
et al., 2008, p.107).
The New Zealand Curriculum focus on competencies is a holistic focus and
competencies are judged through practice in a real context not in separate
academic areas.
Macfarlane et al, also point out that
school itself is an authentic experience and not just a preparation for life
beyond school (2008, p.108) and that for school to be culturally relevant it
needs to be a place that promotes belonging, relationship and rangatiratanga
(taking responsibility for one’s own learning).
All these things are in line with a student-centred curriculum
practicing project-based or inquiry learning.
PBL happens within a constructivist
classroom and a constructivist classroom is a culturally relevant classroom
which allows students to have a part in co-constructing learning where the
individual is respected for who they are and what they bring, connected to a
caring and relational community (Bishop et al, 2011 in Macfarlane
et al., 2008).
A lot of the research around PBL has been
conducted in the medical field with undergraduate students. A metasynthesis comparing the outcomes for undergraduate
medical students comparing PBL and traditional classrooms showed that PBL
students had improved outcomes in terms of long term retention, skill
development and satisfaction. On the
other hand, traditional methods favoured short-term outcomes and standardised
tests (Strobel
& van Barneveld, 2009). One
of the conclusions of this study was that more information is needed in other
contexts such as K-12 education and researchers, “Should refocus on studying
the differences in effectiveness of support structures to find optimal scaffolding,
coaching and modeling strategies for successful facilitation of PBL” (p. 550).
Specific
Studies for Review
The following five studies all discuss or
study teacher scaffolding in PBL. They
all claim increased positive outcomes with most of these outcomes transferring
into standards-based or formal assessments.
Implementing
the democratic principles and practices of student-centred curriculum
integration in primary schools (Brough, 2012)
This New Zealand-based study focuses on
the primary years. It involves the
participatory action research of three teachers over an extended period of nine
months.
Curriculum integration is “a generic term
encompassing numerous perspectives and models,” (Brough,
2012, p. 346). Brough
traces it back to late nineteenth century America where there were two distinct
varieties of education – subject-centred and student-centred. Student-centred curriculum integration places
students at the centre of learning. Although
most New Zealand primary teachers would consider their teaching to be
student-centred, in a recent “stocktake” teachers’ main understanding was a
subject-centred model (Brough, 2012).
The traditional NZ “theme” study is an example of learning experiences
which appear to be student-centred but are actually centred around a curriculum
area. One of the skills of the
student-centred teacher is to plan for authentic inquiry and manipulate “just
in time” teaching so that the curriculum demands are met.
The questions asked of the three teachers
in the study are relevant to the overall question of this review as the
teachers are asking what they can do to give the children more control whilst
maintaining quality learning and by implication this study is inquiring into
what successful scaffolding would look like.
The key scaffolding included skillful
questioning, collaboration, explicit metacognitive skill teaching and using the
teachable moment. It was acknowledged
that this is a significant challenge. Also that teachers think they are already
doing it and do not realize they are not until they go further into
student-centred learning. As the teachers in the study moved into more
student-centred learning, the study showed heightened levels of student engagement,
the ability to apply learning to new contexts, improved oral language, enhanced
problem-solving skills and the ability to make informed decisions.
Doing
With Understanding: Lessons from
research on Problem and Project-Based Learning (Barron et al., 1998)
This study, based on US 5th and
6thg graders, identified four design principles which support PBL:
·
Defining
learning-appropriate goals that lead to deep understanding
·
Providing
scaffolds such as “embedded teaching,” “teaching tools,” “contrasting cases”
and beginning with problem-based learning activities before initiating projects.
·
Ensuring
multiple opportunities for formative self-assessment and revision
·
Developing
social structures that promote participation and a sense of agency (Barron et
al, 1998, p.271).
Two controlled experiments with fifth and
sixth grade students showed that using a problem-based inquiry prior to the
project helped them to engage more effectively with the project. “A relatively circumscribed problem can
support the initial development of vocabulary and concepts, and video-based
problems, in particular, can present role models of students carrying out
complicated work,” (Barron et
al., 1998, p.277). This
particular scaffold was unique to this study.
Of the 62 sixth grade students, those exposed
to problem-solving in the initial stages engaged with more mathematising in the
final project of creating a fun fair item.
This is an important goal as students need to be able to use “formal
knowledge in an authentic and complex setting,” (Barron et
al., 1998, p.279).
There were similar results for 5th graders measuring river
pollution. In this case, the outcome was
an increased understanding of interdependencies.
Another scaffold, specifically drawn out
in this study was using contrasting cases. This created an opportunity for
students to analyse differences, for example, looking in a catalogue to choose
an appropriate scientific instrument.
The results of the study saw the
scaffolded students showing significant increases in accomplishment in the
quality of the playhouse they designed (the artifact), on standards-based
geometry tests and transferring the learning to design a new task. All of these are sought-after learning
outcomes.
Project-Based
Learning for the 21st Century: Skills for the Future (Bell, 2010)
Bell points out that PBL is not a
supplementary activity which supports learning, but the basis of the
curriculum. Students engaging in PBL
have been shown to achieve higher than students in traditional learning
environments on standardised tests. In a
British study conducted over three years, three times the amount of students
achieved the highest possible grade over other schools. Of particular note was superior performance
in questions with applied and conceptual problems, (Boaler, 1999, in Bell,
2010, p.40). In the US, two elementary
schools engaged in PBL raised their average student achievement from well below
to average and a third school raised from well below to well above.
The scaffolds mentioned in this study are:
project organisers, project planning scaffolding and an authentic target
audience.
This article states that accountability to
peers and not wanting to let their friends down would ensure equal student contribution
to the project (p.40). Also that
differentiation provides intrinsic motivation.
The experience of the writer indicates this is not sufficient. A belief
that somehow the natural environment creates the conditions for robust learning
is somewhat hopeful. Bell writes, “Students
are conscientious because they must complete their project in the allotted
time.” In reality, students are often
poorly committed to task completion and have a rush at the last minute to
produce a “finished” but inferior product.
The article also assumes that through social learning, students will
naturally help students gain twenty-first century skills. Creating the conditions for learning is not
enough to make the learning occur. The
complex cognitive and collaborative skills required for PBL have to be
explicitly taught. The article does talk
about teaching active listening skills, and scaffolding for success to “assist
them in making cognitive growth just beyond their reach,” (p.41), but the
implication is that the rest may be “caught” rather than “taught.”
Motivating
Project-Based Learning: Sustaining the Doing, Supporting the Learning (Blumenfeld et al., 1991)
Blumenfeld et al say it is insufficient
just to provide opportunities as students will not always invest the necessary
effort. The 1960’s discovery learning
did not last because there was insufficient understanding of the complex nature
of student motivation, and knowledge required to engage in cognitively
difficult work. Newer approaches are
more cognitive and this article talks about the master/apprentice model. “Teachers should scaffold instruction by
breaking down tasks; use modeling, promoting, and coaching to teach strategies
for thinking and problem solving; and gradually release responsibility to the
learner,” (p. ).
Cognitive scaffolding and engagement is
crucial for PBL. It is easy to be
side-tracked as projects may have high interest value but interest can be
valued over cognitive engagement.
Similarly, choice and control are crucial but in themselves don’t
necessary engage the curriculum.
Motivation is gained through choice and personal interest but projects
on their own may not be sufficient to sustain motivation. Teachers need to provide information,
scaffold instruction, encourage metacognitive process and give feedback in
order to sustain motivation. The
cognitive sophistication of groupwork is a necessary skill but is not always
sufficient. Thus scaffolding must
include direct instruction in cognitive tool proficiency and metacognitive
skills. In the same way, technology may
be a scaffold through providing access to information, active representations
and multimedia presentations but cognitive engagement with technology also
needs to be scaffolded.
Project-Based
Learning (Krajcik & Blumenfeld, 2006)
This article also covers the types of
scaffolds required to sustain PBL.
Similar to the previous articles, it describes the learning environment
as needing:
·
A driving
question
·
Inquiry
into question
·
Collaborative
community
·
Scaffolds
·
Tangible
products to address the driving question.
Krajcik and Blumenfeld include computer
software as a cognitive tool which can allow learners to visual and manipulate
complex data and expand the range of questions that can be asked. They don’t describe how the teacher might
scaffold the use of software. Like Barron et al (1998), they endorse a preliminary learning
experience to set the scene for the project.
In this case they talk about “anchoring experiences.” These are common experiences which the students
engage with in order to set the context for the learning.
Similarities
in scaffolding
All the articles discussed are constructivist and all have a strong
insistence on a good driving question which needs to be “feasible, worthwhile,
contextualised, meaningful and ethical,” acknowledging that it is very
difficult for students to develop good questions (Krajcik & Blumenfeld, 2006, p.321). The question itself is a scaffold but it
needs to be well crafted and when there’s a weakness it can be because it is a
question from the point of view of the teacher and not the student (Blumenfeld et al., 1991). Without the structure of a good
question, the students can get caught up in the doing and miss the reflection. For example in a rocket launching project,
sixth grade students did not learn much more than the making of the rocket due
to the lack of a driving question that would cause reflection and focused
inquiry. It was found that building in a
question on specifications prompted more considered thinking responses (Barron et al., 1998).
Teachers can
model good questioning, especially in the early years of primary school where
they can model open-ended questions, “I wonder” questions or use a thinking out
loud technique. When they do this
student thinking and contributions raise.
In the New Zealand study, skillful questioning “avoided providing
answers, conducted agenda-free discussions, genuinely listened and, wherever
feasible, acted on students’ ideas,” (Beane, 1997, Fraser, 2000 cited in
Brough, 2012, p.356).
So a crucial part
of teacher scaffolding is teaching how to question and supporting the students
to develop a strong question. A
substantial question opens the way for “just in time” learning, curriculum
coverage and specific teaching of the required collaborative and meta-cognitive
skills (Brough, 2012)
Collaboration between students and a sense of wider community are an
important part of PBL and in this aspect particularly aligned with kaupapa
Maori. Collaboration needs to be
specifically scaffolded, for instance through establishing norms of individual
accountability (Johnson, Johnson, Holubec, & Roy, 1984;
Slavin, 1983 cited in Barron et al., 1998).
A collaborative classroom is an authentic and real structure in itself,
and it then builds bridges between the classroom with the community beyond and with
an authentic audience (Barron et al., 1998; Bell, 2010; Krajcik & Blumenfeld, 2006; Blumenfeld et al., 1991).
Vital to PBL is the creation of an artefact. It is this aspect that distinguishes it to
some degree from inquiry learning. “Students’ freedom to generate artifacts is critical,
because it is through this process of generation that students construct their
knowledge – the doing and the learning are inextricable,” (Blumenfeld et al.,
1991, p.372).
Differences in
Scaffolding
All of the articles except for Bell (2010) are
specific in aspects of required teacher scaffolding. Although Bell does mention some specific
scaffolding there is an implication that creating the conditions is enough and
that students will naturally collaborate, do their best and produce thoughtful
results simply if the environment enables it.
This is where this learning can fall down.
Some of the writers are specific about what teachers
could actually do to scaffold the process.
They can provide preliminary problem-based learning (Barron et al., 1998), or structure collaborative groups for individual
accountability (Bell, 2010), or use an “anchoring experience” to set the scene (Krajcik &
Blumenfeld, 2006). Even though
New Zealand teachers tend to think of themselves as child-centred, Brough
discovered that they tend to plan and teach in a curriculum-centred way. Brough also discussed how challenging
student-centred learning is for teachers to deliver and how the teachers in his
study although engaging in individual participatory action research, also
benefited from targeted professional development and a professional learning
group.
Gaps for Further
Research
There is room for more research in the use of this
sort of learning in New Zealand. When
Heather Aked of Wellington East Girl’s College investigated PBL for her
sabbatical she looked in Australia, USA and UK (Aked, 2016). The
participatory action research model or teaching as inquiry model would be a
good start for teachers to build up reflective sharing on what works in
student-centred learning such as PBL or IL.
Specifically it would be good to see aspects of teacher
scaffolding isolated and controlled to further investigate the effect on
achievement, particularly scaffolds which support the cognitive processes. As it is acknowledged this type of teaching
is challenging and we do not have blueprints, it would be good to see some
specific pathways of good practice to support novice PBL teachers.
Conclusions
Primary and middle school examples of scaffolding
connected with successful outcomes have been investigated. These are within an international context as
there was insufficient New Zealand-based research. The five studies selected all have strong
similarities in terms of the absolute necessity of a strong driving question,
authentic collaboration, the need for specific teacher scaffolding of cognitive
processes and the essential final artefact which makes the learning
purposeful. There is more need for
research on the effect of different types of scaffolding, particularly
scaffolding for the complex cognitive processes involved in PBL.
REFERENCES
Aked, H. (2016). Investigating Project
Based Learning. Ministry of Education. Retrieved from
chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/http://www.educationalleaders.govt.nz/content/download/78037/640222/file/Heather%20Aked%20-%20project%20based%20learning%20-%20sabbatical%20report%202016.pdf#page=3&zoom=auto,-86,181
Barron, B.,
Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., &
Bransford, J. D. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on
problem-and project-based learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7((3-4)),
271–311.
Bauer, I.
(2006). Project-Based Learning. Retrieved from www.democratic.co.il
Bell, S.
(2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The
Clearning House, 83(2), 39–43.
Blumenfeld,
P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar,
A. (1991). Motivationg Project-Based Learning: sustaining the doing, supporting
the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3&4), 369–398.
Brough, C.
J. (2012). Implementing the democratic principles and practices of
student-centred curriculum integration in primary schools. Curriculum
Journal, 23(3), 345–369.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2012.703498
Coffey, H.
(2008). Project-based learning. Learn NC. Retrieved from
http://www.integratingengineering.org/workbook/documents/Project_basedlearning_07122012.doc
Hmelo-Silver,
C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in
problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark
(2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.
Kirscher,
P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during
instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist,
discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational
Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.
Krajcik, J.
S., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (2006). Project-based learning. na.
Retrieved from http://tccl.rit.albany.edu/knilt/images/4/4d/PBL_Article.pdf
Macfarlane,
A., Glynn, T., Wiariki, G., Penetito, W., & Bateman, S. (2008). Indigenous
epistemology in a national curriculum framework? Sage Publications, 8
(1), 102–127.
Ministry of
Education. (2007). The New Zealand Curriculum. Learning Media.
Strobel,
J., & van Barneveld, A. (2009). When is PBL More Effective? A
Meta-synthesis of Meta-analyses Comparing PBL to Conventional Classrooms. Interdisciplinary
Journey of Problem-Based Learning, 3(1), 44–58.
No comments:
Post a Comment