The seminal people researching in the area of my driving question- or at least those people whose research has been relevant to my study- are Bob Lenz, Nell K. Duke, and Douglas Fisher & Nancy Frey. These three contributors each approach Common Core standards in the context of PBL from different angles, each of which has been invaluable to my research. I’d like to listen in on a conversation with all four in a room together; I bet there would be as many contentious points in the room as there would be high fives.
Bob Lenz is a seminal figure in the world of PBL not so much for the research he’s done, but for the organization he’s founded: Buck Institute for Education (BIE). Building upon research that promotes the benefits of PBL and the need for 21st century learning, the Lenz is at the forefront of creating resources for educators so that they may implement PBL in their classrooms. (To that end, he’s also created Envision schools, which are charter high schools built around PBL.) BIE has become such a presence in the movement to endorse a different-from-traditional education model, and as such they have gathered research from numerous researchers which shows the benefits that PBL can have for students. The big ideas expressed in many such studies tout the ability of PBL to close the achievement gap, as well as teach “soft” 21st century skills alongside standards-based instruction. In theory, when students are driving their own learning, they are more invested and see greater returns. An essential element to Lenz’s approach is relevant, outside-the-classroom application for all student projects. The research compiled by the BIE in favor of a project-based approach is compelling, but I take it with a grain of salt because they have a bias in favor of their own brand.
Fisher and Frey are a well-respected research team who have dedicated their studies to literacy education. Although their work began long before the introduction of CCSS, their research into how to effectively teach literacy is all the more important as CCSS requires students to read increasingly complex texts. Much of their research has implications in the PBL classroom. In particular, their findings about the effectiveness of close reading strategies to help students comprehend complex texts are applicable if one is to include literacy instruction within a PBL unit. Fisher & Frey’s research suggests a close reading protocol is essential to enabling students to comprehend mentor texts as well as their own research sources.
Lastly, I’ve found great value in the research published by Nell K. Duke. She seems to be a bridge between PBL-centric thinking, and the real need for teachers and students to better understand (and master) CCSS. I first found Duke’s writing in an article where she went as far to say that PBL, badly done, could have detrimental effects on students’ literacy. On the other hand, she concluded the article by saying that PBL is worth doing (when done well) because of its potential to boost students reading and writing skills. She writes primarily for the K-5 teacher, but I find her conclusions practical for the middle school classroom. She maps out, more clearly than what I’ve seen in publications by BIE or New Tech Network, classroom routines and structure that make opportunities for explicit literacy instruction, followed by direct application in student inquiry projects. The big idea from Duke is that teaching both PBL and CCSS is possible, is effective, when explicit, CCSS-aligned literacy instruction (like that described by Fisher & Frey) is implemented. She prescribes a classroom model that looks like: 15 minutes whole-group instruction, 25 minutes of using that instruction in applied inquiry, 5 minute whole-group wrap up. I find this a very doable approach for my middle school classroom.
Here’s a bullet-point version of the big ideas so far:
Bob Lenz is a seminal figure in the world of PBL not so much for the research he’s done, but for the organization he’s founded: Buck Institute for Education (BIE). Building upon research that promotes the benefits of PBL and the need for 21st century learning, the Lenz is at the forefront of creating resources for educators so that they may implement PBL in their classrooms. (To that end, he’s also created Envision schools, which are charter high schools built around PBL.) BIE has become such a presence in the movement to endorse a different-from-traditional education model, and as such they have gathered research from numerous researchers which shows the benefits that PBL can have for students. The big ideas expressed in many such studies tout the ability of PBL to close the achievement gap, as well as teach “soft” 21st century skills alongside standards-based instruction. In theory, when students are driving their own learning, they are more invested and see greater returns. An essential element to Lenz’s approach is relevant, outside-the-classroom application for all student projects. The research compiled by the BIE in favor of a project-based approach is compelling, but I take it with a grain of salt because they have a bias in favor of their own brand.
Fisher and Frey are a well-respected research team who have dedicated their studies to literacy education. Although their work began long before the introduction of CCSS, their research into how to effectively teach literacy is all the more important as CCSS requires students to read increasingly complex texts. Much of their research has implications in the PBL classroom. In particular, their findings about the effectiveness of close reading strategies to help students comprehend complex texts are applicable if one is to include literacy instruction within a PBL unit. Fisher & Frey’s research suggests a close reading protocol is essential to enabling students to comprehend mentor texts as well as their own research sources.
Lastly, I’ve found great value in the research published by Nell K. Duke. She seems to be a bridge between PBL-centric thinking, and the real need for teachers and students to better understand (and master) CCSS. I first found Duke’s writing in an article where she went as far to say that PBL, badly done, could have detrimental effects on students’ literacy. On the other hand, she concluded the article by saying that PBL is worth doing (when done well) because of its potential to boost students reading and writing skills. She writes primarily for the K-5 teacher, but I find her conclusions practical for the middle school classroom. She maps out, more clearly than what I’ve seen in publications by BIE or New Tech Network, classroom routines and structure that make opportunities for explicit literacy instruction, followed by direct application in student inquiry projects. The big idea from Duke is that teaching both PBL and CCSS is possible, is effective, when explicit, CCSS-aligned literacy instruction (like that described by Fisher & Frey) is implemented. She prescribes a classroom model that looks like: 15 minutes whole-group instruction, 25 minutes of using that instruction in applied inquiry, 5 minute whole-group wrap up. I find this a very doable approach for my middle school classroom.
Here’s a bullet-point version of the big ideas so far:
- Close reading is critical for student’s understanding of complex texts (Duke, Fisher & Frey)
- Research shows PBL is effective because (Duke, BIE):
- Students have relevant application for their work, and therefore are more engaged
- It teaches 21st century skills
- Research shows it closes the achievement gap
- Explicit literacy instruction has a place in the PBL classroom (Duke, Fisher & Frey)
- PBL must be aligned to CCSS (BIE, Duke)
- Students bring varying abilities to self-regulate (various researchers)- they need at least some explicit instruction