September 2014 – Learning Aloud

Improving peer editing

One challenge in writing a textbook on technology integration is knowing when to stop including things. You do not want to drift into areas covered in other courses (e.g., Methods) or to extend your comments beyond your areas of expertise. Of course, you also want to include enough information that what you do write leaves learners with enough guidance that they feel they can act on the information provided.

One of our core recommendations has long been a modification of writing across the curriculum or writing to learn we have labelled authoring to learn. We extend the area of writing to learn in to include approaches that involve multimedia authoring. We contend such recommendations are concrete, efficient, and thoroughly researched as a strategy that lends itself to various implementations of project based learning.

In our most recent edition, we explore the role online tools such as Google docs offer in developing writing skills and applying writing to learn strategies. A key component of effective instruction in either area is the revision process – writing is an iterative process that moves toward a higher quality product and a deeper level of understanding when revision is emphasized. A reality associated with such benefits is the time intensive nature of supporting revision. Ideally (although some might question the use of this superlative), teacher review and guidance would offer the best approach. However, heavy use of writing to learn tasks would also place what might be unrealistic demands on teacher time. Peer editing may offer the solution. In addition to the advantage of a division of labor, peer editing should offer a way to develop editing skills. Improvement in editing skill not only would benefit peers, but would also the writing skills of the “editor”.

Our content on this topic already reviewed the challenges of developing skilled peer editors and provided references both supporting this approach and identifying issues that can occur when peer editors are “turned loose” without preparation and training. Our suggestions for how to support editors offered general guidelines, but did not provide specific examples. This is the issue of straying into the area of methods courses and limitations in our own personal experiences we mentioned earlier.

I have finally located a resource that offers the kind of concrete suggestions to explain the general guidelines we provided. This is a lesson from the ReadWriteThink site. The PowerPoint that can be downloaded gives very specific suggestions for what young editors should do in reacting to the work of their peers.

The gold standard

One more PBL post!!

The Buck Institute just generated a post requesting a search for the PBL gold standard. While promoting PBL activities, the post argues that many such activities are not effective. I like the way they describe the issue:

Do we really need to see another classroom stocked with sugar-cube pyramids or Styrofoam solar systems?

Perhaps what you get when you look at all classroom activities labelled by someone as PBL are the kind of results I point to in my last two posts. There are certainly “activities” that have led to the concern for the importance of “minds on, not just hands on” implying that there are too many busy-work activities. Also, as I described in my recent posts, there are papers identifying cognitive and affective conditions that PBL activities should address (Belland, et al., 2013; Hung, 2011). While it would be impractical to evaluate all activities in this fashion, there are examples of activities that have been studied using careful research techniques (e.g., Wirkala & Kuhn, 2011). If the Buck Institute wants a place to begin, I would propose using such examples.

I get the feeling of deja vu as I follow the new arguments for and against PBL. I was at one time very interested in the WebQuest model. I found it concrete and theoretically sound and it seemed to generate a good deal of interest. What seemed to happen (IMHO) is that many did not understand many of the original expectations for a quality WebQuest. The glut of examples available online left it to the “consumer” to determine whether the activity was a fun way to spend class time and/or a meaningful learning activity. I remember Bernie Dodge attempting to create a curated site (I think users had to pay a small fee to use) that would offer examples, invite feedback, and encourage enhancements. I might now describe it as an “Angie’s List”. Interest just seemed to fade.

This issue also reminds me of Merlot. In fact, I wondered whether Merlot still exists (it does). I remember the interest in Merlot at my University when it first became available. It was promoted as a way to find quality “learning objects” for your classroom. I found that I was the 8th faculty member from my institution to sign up in 2006. I did not find many of the resources of value, but I did find some things I used. I really cannot explain why I stopped looking, but my reaction may have been common. The service seems to generate little buzz of late.

I agree with Buck that we need some high quality examples and we probably need these examples from a variety of disciplines/levels. It seems possible to me that the general advantage of direct instruction may occur because many motivated educators who understand something are simply better at explaining what they understand than they are at creating environments and activities that both motivate and educate students. Asking deep questions and creating authentic problem scenarios are not easy tasks.

Perhaps the design of “problems/projects” should be left to those with the time and skill to generate resources that meet high standards. We certainly do not expect educators to create all of the other educational resources they use in their classrooms.

Belland, B. R., Kim, C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2013). A Framework for Designing Scaffolds That Improve Motivation and Cognition. Educational Psychologist, 48(4), 243-270.

Hung, Woei (2011). “Theory to reality: A few issues in implementing problem-based learning”. Educational Technology Research and Development 59 (4): 529.

Wirkala. C. & Kuhn, D. (2011). Problem-Based Learning in K–12 Education: Is it Effective and How Does it Achieve its Effects?, American Educational Research Journal, 48, 1157–1186

Allowing teachers to think critically about PBL

This is a follow-up to my last post and a reaction to an Edutopia annotated bibliography of PBL research .

I am aware of the calls for educational reform and the proposals that problem-based or project-based activities are a way to address this need for reform. Depending on the sources you follow, you may get the idea that educational leaders and educators are resistant to new and more productive approaches that help students learn if PBL methods are not implemented immediately. I am guessing that those who continue to rely on more traditional methods are aware of the advocacy for what have sometimes been described as “learner-centered”, “inquiry-based” or “discovery” methods and wonder about their own behavior as a consequence.

In reaction to this information environment, I have considered what my role should be. I with my wife have a textbook used in the preparation of future teachers and in the further development of teachers returning for graduate work. Here is my thinking on my role. My job is to identify key issues in the field and offer the best information available related to these issues. I do believe a textbook should be more than a “how to do it” manual. The information that should be made available when a situation is complex may often involve describing controversies and the evidence supporting the different sides of a given difference of opinion.

I believe my job is to encourage reflection on practice alternatives. You cannot encourage critical thinking if you knowingly leave out credible alternative positions. A partial description leaves the decision maker in the dark. To do so would be akin to propaganda. The goal of a textbook when valid controversies exist is not to sell one side of the issue but to help the learner come to a reasoned understanding.

My issue with PBL is that reviews of the research completed by some of the most established educational researchers (some examples appear at the end of this post) have found direct instruction to be a more productive method. These conclusions are based on what the researchers regard as quality studies. It should be noted that a summary of the research does not imply that a given method is always found to be superior. What I find objectionable about the Edutopia bibliography is that there is no hint that this is an area of disagreement. None of the research summaries I mention are included.

There are examples of quality research that demonstrate the potential of PBL (see references for Kuhn appearing below) and there are detailed analyses of the implementation and affective issues that must be considered for PBL methods to be effective (Belland, et al., 2013; Hung, 2011). To borrow the title of a book on a completely unrelated topic “it is complicated” (apologizes to d boyd) and to imply otherwise is simply misleading.

Belland, B. R., Kim, C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2013). A Framework for Designing Scaffolds That Improve Motivation and Cognition. Educational Psychologist, 48(4), 243-270.

Capon, N., & Kuhn, D. (2004). What’s so good about problem-based learning? Cognition and Instruction, 22(1), 61–79.

Hung, Woei (2011). “Theory to reality: A few issues in implementing problem-based learning”. Educational Technology Research and Development 59 (4): 529.

Kirschner, 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.

http://learningaloud.com/grabe6/Chapter8/ch8_kuhnprojects.html

Lesgold, A (2001). “The nature and methods of learning by doing”. American Psychologist 56 (11): 964–971.

Mayer, R. (2004). “Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery? The case for guided methods of instruction.”. American Psychologist 59: 14–19.

Wirkala. C. & Kuhn, D. (2011). Problem-Based Learning in K–12 Education: Is it Effective and How Does it Achieve its Effects?, American Educational Research Journal, 48, 1157–1186