Project Based Instruction
A UTeach Conference Course
Overview
Flávio Azevedo
Jill Marshall
flavio@austin.utexas.edu
STEM Education
University of Texas at Austin
Project Based Instruction
What do you know?
What do you want/need to know?
What is PBI?
In project-based science classrooms, students
investigate and collaborate with others to find
solutions to real-world questions. Using technology…
make products to show what they have learned. This
method of teaching science motivates young learners
to learn and explore, and it meets the national goals
for and standards of science education. Because
project-based science parallels what scientists do, it
represents the essence of inquiry and the nature of
science. (Krajcik & Czerniak, 2007, p. 25)
Why PBI?
In PBI, students are prepared to do things they
might actually do in life.
Research has demonstrated that students in
project-based learning classrooms get higher
scores than students in traditional classrooms…
(Krajcik & Blumenfeld, 2006, p. 318)
Essential elements of PBI
Some sort of driving question or problem,
for which the answer is not readily known.
Complex, extended, collaborative,
situated inquiry.
Data gathering from multiple sources
required for solution.
Scaffolding in the form of benchmark
lessons, opportunities for assessment,
social structure
Use of cognitive tools
History of PBI
Originates in home project movement beginning
in vocational agricultural ed in the early 20th
Century.
Looked to the immediate needs and interests of
students in order to engage them in the “hearty
purposeful act” (Kilpatrick, 1918, p.320).
But “did not teach future citizens what they
needed to know” (Charters, 1922 cited in
Kliebard, 1995, p.141) and “that learning limited
to this method was too discontinuous, too
random, and too haphazard, too immediate in its
function” (Bode, 1927, cited in Kliebard, 1995,
p.152). Vanished by the 1950s.
The new PBI
Undergoing a resurgence with student-centered
reforms
Outcomes-driven, theoretically-grounded design
process addresses main objections (lack of
focus; cognitive overload)
Tied to appropriate learning goals, scaffolding
(Barron, B., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore,
A., Petrosino, A. J., Zech, L., Bransford,
J.D.1998).
Overview
Course originally developed by Tony
Petrosino
Housed in Dept of Curriculum & Instruction
Field-based course: 3 – 4 day field
experience, plus several classroom
observations.
Master teacher sets up field experience
Mentor teachers paid stipends
Capstone course
Prerequisites: STEP 1-2, Knowing and
Learning, Classroom Interactions*
Last course before Apprentice Teaching
Preliminary portfolio due during PBI
Course Goals
1) To support the UTeach student’s development
by building a deep understanding of PBL,
including differentiating between strong and weak
theoretical approaches to PBL, and between PBL
and other inquiry-based approaches.
Course Goals
2) To enhance UTeach students’ ability to design
or adapt activities, lesson plans and a complete
project-based unit following theoretical
frameworks of PBL
Course Goals
3) To build UTeach students’ capacity to critically
reflect on their own and others’ lesson plans and
enactment.
Course Goals
4) To increase UTeach students’ ability to
measure student learning through the appropriate
use of formative and summative assessment, and
respond instructionally to the assessment
information.
Course Goals
5) To incorporate and synthesize work from
Knowing and Learning, Classroom Interactions,
and STEP courses into a meaningful capstone
experience integrating theory and practice.
Course goals
Students experience an engineering
design challenge and evaluate this mode
of instruction.
PBI and equity
Contextualized around your own students’
experiences
Everyone gets to do high-level thinking,
develop 21st century skills
 Need-to-know created for facts and skills
Addressing the “other 90%”
Major components
Read and discuss literature on PBI
Experience and/or learn about several PB
units (Design challenge)
Create and implement a project-based unit
at a local high school (groups of 2-3)
Analyze the implementation and suggest
improvement (individual, written assignm’t)
Design a 2-4 week unit based on topics in
state standards in their AT semester
Components of PBI
Field Experience
Theory
Reflective
Analysis
Unit
Development
Semester Flow – Spring 2012
Weeks 1-4
Weeks 5-9
Weeks 10-15
Presentation and
analysis of PB
units (including
experiencing one
as learners)
Plan, create, and
implement field
experience unit in
close collaboration
with teacher
Analysis and
reflections on field
experience
----------------------Portfolio
Engagement with
literature (including
creating and
critiquing
examples)
Design of final
project: 2-4 week
unit*, additional
literature
*planned for AT
Logistics and Classroom Practices
& Policies
Class meetings 3 hours weekly
Outside preparation (7-10 hours, some during
class)
Class Agenda and Activities displayed in
PowerPoint and archived on Blackboard/Canvas
Course assignments (guidelines, rubrics),
resources posted on Blackboard/Canvas
Online discussion board for reading
accountability, input to discussion
Field experience
 Format has varied historically
 Master teacher arranges placement
 Does it have to be a PB school? No, but students should
have access to PB instruction to observe
 Meeting between students, mentor teachers;
observations
Spring ‘14
 one 90-min class period, field trip (school day), two 90min class periods
 Student groups identified sites for their field trip
E.g, natural history museum; local caverns, F1 track…
Components of unit design
process (Krajcik, McNeill, & Reiser, 2008)
 Identify and unpack standards
 Generate learning performances
 Create concept maps showing relationships
 Craft driving question
 Iteratively, define anchor activity and final product
 Craft assessment and learning activities to reach
learning performances and scaffold final product
 Create calendar
--------------------- Upload all to webpage
Driving Questions
feasible
worthwhile (aligns with standards)
contextualized (real-world)
meaningful (interesting)
Ethical (Krajcik & Blumenfeld, 2006)
Sustainable (Krajcik & Czerniak, 2007)
“How can I smell things at a distance?”
“How can machines help me build big things?”
Anchoring experience can make the DQ more
meaningful
Anchoring experience
Bransford et al., 1990; Kumar, 2010
A story (video) of a situation that puts a
problem in real-world context
Scaffolds students, embedded
information, models approaches
Great resource: Petrosino and Dickinson
website (http://www.edb.utexas.edu/anchorvideo/howto.php)
Final product
Performance (presentation) or product
(wildlife sanctuary plan, physical or
computer model, report, video, etc.)
Addresses driving question
Embodies students’ learning
Supports students in developing
understanding
Encourages connections between ideas,
disciplines
Realistic
Resources
Example projects at
http://www.uteach.utexas.edu/PBI
Blog at http://pbispring2012.wordpress.com/
Legacy cycle webpage at
http://www.edb.utexas.edu/visionawards/petrosi
no/
Anchor video (Petrosino)
http://www.edb.utexas.edu/anchorvideo/theory.p
hp