u07a2 - Stouffer

I have definitely learned about how adaptable inquiry-based learning is. I would say, more that anything however, that my previous understandings of inquiry-based learning have been more reinforced than anything. After teaching for a few years at an Expeditionary Learning School, I have dabbled in inquiry-based and project-based learning in several contexts already.

One new insight I have developed relates to rubric creation. In looking through the variety of rubrics posted by my peers on the discussion forum, I have come to understand that there are so many different options, varieties, and variations on the style of rubric that I traditionally use in my own classroom. I look forward to reading through the ones I have not gotten to yet to see what I can pull into current assessments in my room or adapt for other activities.

I can't say that anything has changed too much since last weekend's blog. Formative and summative assessments are not new concepts to me. The three sources we researched for our papers did not pose new information for me either.

I have actually already begun implementing inquiry-based instruction into my own classroom. The Charles Dickens unit I designed ended up finishing just in time for my students to begin their unit on A Christmas Carol. They were all very impressed that I had created a website (they're middle schoolers, so eventually they will figure out it isn't all that impressive). Since it was quite successful, I plan to work out how I can include additional, different inquiry-based learning activities in my classroom in the future. 

u06a1 - Stouffer

My thoughts about inquiry based learned have not developed drastically over the past week. If anything, they have just been reinforced. It has been amazing to have the opportunity to see what all of my EDIM classmates have come up with for their own inquiry-based learning unit plans and Google Sites. 

I have developed some new insights into Web 2.0 tools that I did not know existed. Some I want to find a way to implement immediately into my own classes where they may be compatible.  I consider this exchange of knowledge one of the most beneficial components of online graduate classes such as this. We, as teachers. are able to absorb so many new and different kinds of ideas to then turn around and implement in our classrooms!

As I stated in my last blog post, one "burning question" that still remains to be answered for me is how I can seamlessly integrate this into my current curriculum. At the moment, my 7th grade ELA curriculum is already overloaded; it is nearly impossible for me to cover all of the material that I am required to have students master by the end of the year. The inquiry-based learning process, though it sounds incredibly effective and engaging, seems as though it would require more time to implement effectively. The more examples I see from my classmates, the more concerned I am that I wouldn't be able to dabble with inquiry-based learning units too often in my classes. It is just too time consuming. 

u05a1 - Stouffer

Over the past two weeks, I have developed one major insight into Inquiry-Based Learning. This insight is the inclusion and integration of Web 2.0 tools. It is extremely helpful to know that student can grapple with inquiry without needed to have a science-class style class to work though. Web 2.0 tools can provide the vehicle necessary for the inquiry process to occur with any student. On that note, there are Web 2.0 tools that can accommodate students at every possible level, opening the inquiry-based learning process to any grade-level student.

One thing that has changed for me, is that it is now more and more evident that I can include the inquiry-based learning process for my English classes without feeling like I am not completely fulfilling the tenants of the inquiry-based learning process. This style of learning can be implemented in virtually any content-area classroom. Prior to now, I was under the false impression that inquiry-based learning was solely for science-based classes.

One "burning question" that still remains to be answered for me is how I can seamlessly integrate this into my current curriculum. At the moment, my 7th grade ELA curriculum is already overloaded; it is nearly impossible for me to cover all of the material that I am required to have students master by the end of the year. The inquiry-based learning process, though it sounds incredibly effective and engaging, seems as though it would require more time to implement effectively. 

u03a1 - Stouffer

Over the past few weeks, several of my initial beliefs about inquiry-based learning have been confirmed. The most notable change has been my understanding of what qualifies as student-led, teacher-led, and student/teacher-led learning. Initially, for inquiry-based learning, I assumed that the vast majority of the lesson needed to be student-led (little to no teacher interaction/interference). From the example lessons we have been watching, it seems as though I was somewhat wrong. Inquiry-based learning can be employed in a classroom successfully even with teacher engagement. I think the crucial difference is that, in inquiry-based learning, the teacher becomes more of a guide rather than a teacher. It is still inquiry-based learning even if the teacher is asking guiding questions or helping to frame the inquiry the students are going to be experiencing. In retrospect, I believe I may have been thinking of inquiry-based learning more as grappling with no context nor scaffolding.

Overall, my intrigue of inquiry-based learning has not changed in the slightest. If anything, I feel as though I may be more understanding of it and willing to include it in my weekly lessons, as I’ve now found the teacher can have some say in the structure/content/flow of the lesson itself. Before, it seemed less feasible to implement in my own classroom, as I have a very tight curriculum to cover in a very brief amount of time.

I suppose the only “burning question” that I have yet is the question of how to precisely implement this into my classroom. We have had the opportunity to see and read about classes in action with inquiry-based learning, but none of the examples have tackled the kind of content that I am responsible for teaching. I find it hard to fathom how I might use inquiry-based learning to teach my fairly dry grammar concepts. They do not exactly inspire or incite many burning questions in my students, as it is a fairly cut and dry process.

u01a1 - Stouffer

Over the past week, my thoughts about inquiry-based learning have shifted here and there. In some ways my thoughts have been reassured as well. To begin, I want to highlight something Heather Wolpert-Gawron stated in her article “What the Heck is Inquiry-Based Learning”, “one of the reasons why the whole world seems to be losing its mind over the Broadway production of Hamilton is because it presents a fresh take on a story we’ve all heard before. The power of learning something new is undeniable. You have to bring that love of “whaaa?!” into your own classroom. You have to model your own curiosity quotient. Our curiosity quotient is a hunger to learn that defines how we advance our knowledge of the world”. I feel as though this is the perfect analogy to summarize my understanding of inquiry-based learning.

In looking at the Key Components of Inquiry-Based Learning in Topic D, I can see that my students are more than suited for trying out the full process of IBL. Our classroom environment is never a free-for-all, even during unstructured learning times. My students are accustomed to changing gears in terms of what we are learning and how we are learning, so I believe they are prepared to face the environmental change that would come along with IBL. I am fairly sure that all of my students feel safe in my classroom and feel that their opinion is valued; we spend a lot of time discussing writing prompts and debating, so they need to feel comfortable and valued before they will fully participate. Finally, I feel as though my students feel as though they are equal members in our “community” of a classroom. They often help to develop the way they will be graded on certain assignments and activities.

One thing that has changed for me is that I’ve realized that I have already been doing several components of the Inquiry-Based Learning process, but I am not doing it 100% correctly. I am limiting students’ choices in the topics or areas they are allowed to explore. I am also not always having my students reflect at the end of certain learning cycles; I find that my curriculum is too packed and I do not have enough time to always facilitate that reflection step. This leads me to the questions that popped in my head over the course of the week.

One question I have after reading the Four Steps of Inquiry-Based Learning in the “What the Heck is Inquiry-Based Learning” article by Heather Wolpert-Gawron is how do I contain students’ questions into my curriculum without squashing their curiosity? Furthermore, if students are directing their own learning, and each student is learning about something different, how do I ensure that all students receive content and instruction in each aspect of my required curriculum? How do I make sure they perform well on the PSSAs (Pennsylvania State Standardized Assessments)? Because as much as I loathe the tests, they are ever-integral to my responsibilities as a teacher according to my district.

Sources:

Wolpert-Gawron, H. (2016, August 11). What the Heck is Inquiry-Based Learning? Retrieved from https://www.edutopia.org/blog/what-heck-inquiry-based-learning-heather-wolpert-gawron

Connecting PBL, Technology, and STEM/STEAM

Project-based learning and technology go together like peanut butter and jelly! If STEM/the standards were the jelly and PBL was the peanut butter (emphasis on the PB), technology would be the bread that brings it all together into a cohesive whole. Looking at the SAMR model helps us, as teachers, identify how we are integrating technology into our teaching/classrooms. The SAMR model also encourages teachers to continue "moving up the ladder". Modification and redefinition comprise the transformation end of the ladder that teachers should be striving towards. Commonsensemedia.org states in their video "Introduction to the SAMR Model", "transforming leaning promotes higher order thinking skills", and it continued by listing some examples of those 21st century learning skills: analyzing, evaluating, and creating.

If we teachers are reaching from the "redefinition" end of the SAMR ladder, we should consider the eight essential project design elements from the PBL Gold Standard. Redefinition, "allows for the creation of new tasks that were previously inconceivable". The PBL Gold Standard provides the process to achieve redefinition; technology is the vehicle students can use to get there.

If I consider a PBL project that I created with a small group of teachers from a variety of districts across Pennsylvania, we can get a clear picture of how to achieve redefinition through technology and PBL. To begin, students are tackling a challenging problem/question: How do you run an effective campaign?  This question is thoroughly authentic, as it addresses a topic that is relevant to every student living in this country. They will be tackling this question from 5 different subject perspectives (English, Statistics, American History, Public Speaking, and Business) allowing for sustained and in-depth inquiry into the topic. Student voice and choice is plentiful starting with the politician Q & A with student-submitted questions and going all the way through their final products, corresponding with the five subjects. Several public products will be the result: a campaign speech, a timeline/research product, a research journal for the website, a campaign platform website, campaign commercial creation/filming, and a map infographic. All of which will undergo critique and revision before the culminating event. Students will then reflect independently and as groups, thus completing all eight of the essential project design elements.

However, those design elements will never come to fruition without some serious technology integration. Let's take a look at what role technology will play in each product:

• Campaign Speech

• Google Docs with peer collaboration via commenting and suggesting features

• iMovie

• Timeline/Research Product in History

• Prezi Timeline

• Research Journal for the Website

• Blogger or something similar for public view and collaboration

• Campaign Platform Website Creation

• HTML5 coding

• Campaign Commercial Creation/Filming

• iMovie

• Map Infographic

• Infographic software such as Canva.com

All of these products would be inconceivable without the use of the above technology, making this entire PBL project on the "redefinition" rung of the SAMR ladder. As Common Sense Media said in their video, "Integrating technology adds a whole new layer to teaching and learning".

References

Gorman, M. (2014). Essential Connections of STEM, PBL, and Tech Integration… What Would Dewey Think?. 21 st Century Educational Technology and Learning. Retrieved 10 April 2017, from https://21centuryedtech.wordpress.com/2014/09/15/essential-connections-of-stem-pbl-and-tech-integration-what-would-dewey-think/

Introduction to the SAMR Model. (2017). Commonsensemedia.org. Retrieved 10 April 2017, from https://www.commonsensemedia.org/videos/introduction-to-the-samr-model

Mergendoller, J., & Larmer, J. (2015). Why We Changed Our Model of the “8 Essential Elements of PBL” | Blog | Project Based Learning | BIE. Bie.org. Retrieved 10 April 2017, from http://www.bie.org/blog/why_we_changed_our_model_of_the_8_essential_elements_of_pbl

u01a1 - What is Project-Based Learning?

Commonalities

All three examples reminded me of my time teaching at Tapestry Charter School in Buffalo, NY. Tapestry is an Expeditionary Learning (EL) School. EL schools follow similar (some may argue identical) design principles as the project-based learning model (PBL). El's ten design principles are stated on their website as follows:

1. The Primacy of Self-Discovery

2. The Having of Wonderful Ideas

3. The Responsibility for Learning

4. Empathy and Caring

5. Success and Failure

6. Collaboration and Competition

7. Diversity and Inclusion

8. The Natural World

9. Solitude and Reflection

10. Service and Compassion

I found that the three examples of PBL, "More Fun Than a Barrel of . . . Worms?!", "Geometry Students Angle into Architecture Through Project Learning", and "March of the Monarchs: Students Follow the Butterflies' Migration" shared many of the Gold Standard design principles that are mirrored in EL's design principles.

Let's begin with the components that all three examples shared. Each example honed in on a goal or question (EQ/DQ) that all students could tackle. Each EQ was challenging without being intimidating, which is a cornerstone in the Buck Institute for Education's Gold Standards for PBL. Additionally, each of the three examples incorporated some measure of field work: the worms example had students in each class going on a field trip to gather information; the architecture example showed students touring a city to look at prime examples of architecture and going to the firm of the architects who judged their projects; and the monarch example had students working in a monarch garden right outside of their classroom and interacting with scientists across the globe via the Internet. All three of these demonstrated the authenticity of the project— another key component of the BIE's Gold Standards. Furthermore, all three examples were cross-curricular. This meets the "Key Knowledge and Understanding" portion of the BIE Gold Standards. Students are working through standards from various domains of content. Finally, All three examples involved a "public product"— an essential part of the Gold Standards. The worms project culminated in students presenting their learning in oral, digital, and social ways; the architecture project had students presenting their final products to a team of notable architects; and the monarch project encouraged students to post their research and observations on an online database as well as communicate products with other students in Mexico.

One thing that was missing from both the architecture example and the monarch example was student choice/voice in the EQ/DQ. In the worms example (and the sub-examples within that: the Cystic Fibrosis Project and Asthma Project) students had a measure of control over the project they were going to tackle. The architecture project and the monarch project were definitely teacher-selected. Though, students did have a voice/choice opportunities when it came to other components of the three different projects. One component missing from the worms example, but present in the other two, is the reflection component. I think this is one of the most important criteria from the BIE Gold Standards. Without it, students are not fully solidifying their learning or making plans for improving the next time around.

Student Engagement & Technology

In each example, the teacher was definitely playing the role of a facilitator. The students worked both independently and collaboratively at times. Student engagement was ensured and enhanced by making the projects relevant to the students and by allowing students to have creative control over numerous components of the project. One specific example of student engagement was with the class that elected to focus their project on Cystic Fibrosis. The students had a definitive buy-in with this topic because one of their classmates was battling CF at the time. It was clear they were engaged and able to transfer their learning as they extended the initial parameters of the project but doing a fundraiser and a walkathon for Cystic Fibrosis and their classmate.

I think it is important to note that the technology in these three videos was quite dated. If we forgo this consideration, technology played a crucial role in these examples. For one, in the monarch example, students were utilizing wireless keyboards to share control over their singular computer source. The resources they were using on the Internet really transformed the learning capabilities in their classroom. They were able to interact with scientists and experts all over the world. They could also document their own monarch observations for the use of others in the program. In the architecture example, students worked with computer modeling programs to design and render their concepts for the building. There was a key example of this when the teacher asked one of the students a question, and the student asked to show the teacher what was effectively the answer on the computer.

Conclusion

I do not think any of these projects met all of the criteria for a Gold Standard project as laid out by BIE. I showed this in paragraph three of the "Commonalities" section above; each example was missing at least one or more of the BIE components. However, I do think that all three were exemplary examples of PBL. They incorporated many of the important components of a Gold Standard project, and students succeeded.

References

Armstrong, S. (2002, February 11). Geometry Students Angle into Architecture Through Project Learning. Retrieved March 12, 2017, from https://www.edutopia.org/mountlake-terrace-geometry-design

Curtis, D. (2002, June 06). March of the Monarchs: Students Follow the Butterflies' Migration. Retrieved March 12, 2017, from http://www.edutopia.org/march-monarchs

Curtis, D. (2001, October 01). More Fun Than a Barrel of . . . Worms?! Retrieved March 12, 2017, from http://www.edutopia.org/more-fun-barrel-worms

Design Principles. (n.d.). Retrieved March 12, 2017, from https://eleducation.org/resources/design-principles

PBL Blog. (2015, April 21). Retrieved March 12, 2017, from http://bie.org/blog/gold_standard_pbl_essential_project_design_elements

Edutopia. (2014, June 26). Five Keys to Rigorous Project-Based Learning. Retrieved March 12, 2017, from  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnzCGNnU_WM