Last month I had the opportunity to go with a team of five colleagues to Worcester Polytechnic Institute’s (WPI) Institute on Project-Based Learning. This two and half day learning experience was intense. There were times of excitement and times when we were challenged. Although I knew that this type of conference would be different, I didn’t know until the very end the purpose of the structure until one of the Institute’s organizers pointed it out in the closing comments. Rick Vaz talked about the work that we did and the engagement of our teams and connected all of this to PBL. We just completed an iteration of PBL through our work at the Institute. This realization amazed me and made me more excited about what we accomplished. Wow!
So, before I talk about the connections to PBL, I think it would be helpful to have some context. The Buck Institute for Education, PBL Works, is an excellent resource for Project Based Learning (PBL). Among the many materials provided, one helpful tool is Gold Standard PBL: Essential Project Design Elements. PBL Works identifies seven characteristics of high quality PBL:
- A Challenging Problem or Question
- Sustained Inquiry
- Authenticity
- Student Voice & Choice
- Reflection
- Critique & Revision
- Public Product
As I think back on the Institute, I would like to share how we engaged in these seven elements throughout the two and half day experience.
A Challenging Problem or Question– Before even beginning at the institute, as part of the application process, we had to articulate what we wanted to work on during the Institute. This guided our work and provided a context for the sessions and conversations we had at the Institute. Cathie LeBlanc wrote in our application, “At the Institute, we will work on a plan to move from the pilot phase with the INCAP and thematic pathways to a permanent implementation phase.” This focus and challenge helped to frame our work throughout the Institute.
Sustained Inquiry- Throughout the Institute we had many opportunities to learn about PBL in different settings and from various people. As with a traditional conference, there was a keynote address at the opening of the conference. Here we had the opportunity to hear from Randy Bass from Georgetown University and how they use PBL as part of a summer program to support first year students’ transition to college and retention within the first year. This inspiring talk gave us much to think about and consider as we consider our work. Whether engaged in whole group sessions, like the keynote, or concurrent sessions, every engagement focused us in thinking and considering PBL.
Authenticity– As we attended various sessions and met as a team, everything related back to our Action Plan or what we were going to do once we returned to campus. This written plan helped us to think about the information we learned and consider how this applied to our context. This gave authenticity to our learning because we had a defined purpose.
Student Voice & Choice- We had many choices throughout this experience. We could decide which sessions we wanted to attend and how we wanted to spend our time as a team. There were opportunities to meet with WPI faculty to learn and we could decide who and if we wanted to use these resources.
Reflection- Reflecting happened throughout the experience. We had many opportunities for breaks between sessions and learning. This time provided us the chance to talk about what we learned or what we were thinking about from the last experience. This time was valuable to our experience!
Critique & Revision- We had a WPI faculty mentor that model for us how to guide students through this process. He asked critical questions as we met as a team that pushed us in our thinking. It was not always easy but he was there to really get us to move beyond the surface level of the work. Part of the critique process also came during our time with in our cluster. The cluster was a group of four institutions. We had a chance to present to this group and get feedback about our work.
Public Product- We had several public products that we worked on. As I just mentioned, we presented to a small group and got insight about our work. We also did a smaller pitch to the larger group. This was an opportunity to share with the full group a short summary of our work. We also had our action plan that we will be shared with stakeholders at the university.
So, why I am so excited about this process? Well, I think that we ask our students to do work but don’t always realize the challenge of the experience or what students might face. Participating in this institute gave me a small glimpse into the student experience. I want to hold on to these thoughts and feelings as I guide my students this fall in Tackling a Wicked Problem. I hope these insights we help me to be a better facilitator and guide.