Esther Dabagyan
SED 625
11/01/06
Dr. Rivas
Current Event # 2
In continuing my search for studies regarding project based learning (PBM), I
began looking for articles that focused on urban schools since I currently teach in one.
The success of PBM can be more hard fought in urban school settings due to greater
discipline problems. Success in implementing inquiry learning requires excellent
classroom management skills and I was happy to find an article that examines this
problem very closely. The name of the article is Urban Schools’ Teachers Enacting
Project-Based Science. It is written by Tali Tal, Joseph S. Krajcik, and Phyllis C.
Blumenfeld.
The article is mostly anecdotal with qualitative evidence providing few test scores
to bring 2 teachers to the forefront of their study. The purpose of the study is to explore
and expose the type of teaching practices that “foster inquiry and promote students’
learning of science in urban schools” (Tal, Krajcik, and Blumenfeld, 2005). They began
with a group of 25 teachers over a 2 school-year period. All teachers enacted one or both
of the following project based units; an 8th grade unit about motion and force, and another
8th grade unit about the nature of matter, states of matter and chemical change. All
teachers gave a pre-test and post-test constructed by the authors. Of the 25 teachers that
participated, only 10 teachers were video taped for a total of 15 lesson periods each.
From the 10 video taped teachers, 2 were selected with the highest test post-assessment
gains and analyzed according to the “Opportunity to learn” criteria based on previous
research (Schwartz, 1995; Stevens, 1996; Tate, 2001). This was a large study including
over 2000 students in the Detroit Public School system where the student population is
91% African American, 4% Latino, 4% White, and 1% Asian.
Due to the anecdotal nature of the study, I found it hard to see the true
significance of the article. While I don’t find qualitative data invalid, this particular study
didn’t have many new ideas to contribute to what most teachers know is good practice.
The article alludes to the fact that PBS is harder to enact in urban schools but doesn’t
quite elaborate on those challenges in the study. It mentions that many urban schools
have inadequate resources and large class sizes, yet the 2 chosen “successful” teachers
have equipment like motion sensors and computers. While the authors claim to focus on
the successful aspects of implementation of PBS, they fail to confirm their results by
looking closely at teachers who may not be as successful. How can they be sure that the
practices they highlight, such as using a real-world context, always being prepared and
choosing heterogeneous groups are the ones really responsible the higher test scores? It is
true that both Ms. Anderson and Ms. McGee (the 2 top teachers) demonstrated these
practices – but where those practices missing from the unsuccessful teachers? I do not
disagree that the methods found to work for both teachers are good ones; however, I feel
that more thorough research is required in this area in order to lend further insight into the
successful tactics of urban school teachers.
The pre and post-assessment scores were variable by teacher. Ms. Anderson’s
scores were compared to 8 teachers for one of the PBS units and 10 for the second PBS
unit. The total number of students assessed was 588 and 755 respectfully. Ms.
Andersons’ students did demonstrate better gains in the post-assessments than the other
students; however, I don’t understand why the tests weren’t given to all 25 teachers, or
better yet, many more teachers regardless of whether they are teaching PBS or not. This
type of extensive examination would help deepen the confirmation that not only does Ms.
Anderson display exemplary teaching methods, but that PBS is an effective method of
teaching in urban schools.
Ms. McGee’s students also tested far better than the students of other teachers.
Her students were compared to the students of 3 other teachers for the 1st PBS unit and 5
others for the 2nd PBS unit. The student sample size was significantly smaller, with a total
of 78 and 372 respectfully. I also noticed that while Ms. McGee’s students had higher
post-assessment score gain, they also began with higher pre-assessment scores. The
average gain is still significant; however, a teacher’s job is made much easier when your
students are even a bit more knowledgeable than others. The second PBS unit did not
have pre-test scores, only post-tests, thus without knowing were Ms. McGee’s students
began, how can we be sure that the scores are significant? Overall, I found Ms. McGee’s
test scores less convincing due to sample size and lack of pre-test completion.
I found the article confusing more than anything. In reflecting on my own practice
– I recognized some aspects of my methodology that correlate well with what was
identified as “best practices” in the article; While others, clearly I could work on. I left
wondering how much of it is simply individual “teaching style” and how much is truly
science. The article opens many doors to further studies, such as; are heterogeneous
groups better than homogenous? Are successful pedagogical methods dependant on the
teacher or the method? The article demonstrated that both teachers used different aspects
of their pedagogical content knowledge, yet both were affective. Ms. Anderson paced her
students, modeled and didn’t correct them very often employing the “soft touch”. Ms.
McGee addressed her students’ difficulties by pressing them for their reasoning. This
raises new questions for me regarding best practices. Perhaps a good teacher simply uses
the appropriate method that corresponds well with the needs of a particular class. I feel
I’m left with wanting more information. My students are in an urban setting, and are
minorities, but they have another crutch, they are English learners. This poses a whole
new set of challenges for me and requires further searching.
References
Tal, T., Krajcik, S. J., Blumenfeld, C. P. (2005). Urban Schools’ Teachers Enacting
Project-Based Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43 (7), 722-745.