Does Project Based Learning Help Foster Communities of Learners in Small US High Schools ?

This paper explores the role of project based learning (PBL) in the smaller learning communities that have been established in many US high schools. It presents evidence that this approach to instructional reform more often than not supports the creation of learning communities. A national survey in the United States focused on teachers and schools that had invested in PBL as an instructional approach. We found that this is a hallmark practice among schools and teachers who are most involved in creation of learning communities. PBL thrives when teachers and students experience schools as learning communities, and, conversely, teachers and schools who use PBL more frequently see themselves as realizing the goals of learning communities for their students. Findings are based on data from 330 teachers representing four progressive reform networks, other small reforming high schools and small learning communities, and larger comprehensive high schools. Examples are provided to show that results appear to be independent of school type. The literature on learning communities frequently does not focus on instructional reforms, but our findings suggest that an explicit focus on pedagogy may be necessary for effective creation of learning communities; we see evidence that it easier to create learning communities among teachers than to create them among students. Introducing Smaller High Schools It is conventional wisdom that American high schools are in trouble, with reports of drop out rates of 50% or higher in major urban centers. This situation has been a focus of attention of US Department of Education, state and local government, educators and foundations. To address these concerns, a major thrust of high school reform in recent years has been the creation of small reform-oriented high schools. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has invested over a billion dollars to help create small schools or small learning communities in dozens of districts and states. Newly formed small schools often have the goal of creating “learning communities” for both teachers and students. This goal is supposed to provide variety of benefits for teachers and students including opportunities and conditions for teaching and learning that are not feasible in large comprehensive high schools. Felner and colleagues (2007) found that successful learning communities thrive in smaller contexts, such as “small schools,” “schools within schools,” “houses” or “teams,” or embedded in larger schools such as Ted Sizer’s Essential Schools. Small schools are designed to remove structural barriers that impede effective teaching and learning, and to meet students’ needs as learners by personalizing 1 For our purposes, “learning communities” and “communities of learners” are used interchangeably. However, “small learning communities” and “small schools” refer to the school size and structure. 2 Felner et al. (2007) studied the personalization of schools through the institution of small learning communities as a result of a reform effort called “Project HiPlaces. ” The project views “performance and achievement as nested in a broader view of individual and contextually based competence, in which academic achievement is but one element of a larger set of competencies for which the student has inherent psychological motivation and need” (p. 211). instruction and using more student-centered instructional pedagogies (Bomotti & Dugan, 2005, Feldman, Lopez, & Simon, 2005, Newell & Van Ryzin, 2007). Though student-centered instruction is almost always a stated goal, the long term instructional implications of school conversion and start-up efforts across the US is unclear. Evaluations of these efforts have shown that while many smaller high schools have created a more personalized environment, instructional reforms have generally lagged behind structural and cultural changes (American Institute for Research & SRI International, 2005; Quint, 2006). It appears that small schools are fostering more personal and supportive contexts for both teachers and students.but they do not appear to be spurring increased instructional reform activity. Instructional reform efforts, instructional practice, and academic test scores all appear the same at small schools as at other CPS schools serving comparable students. This represents a sizable shortcoming of the reform effort (Kahne, Sporte, de la Torre & Easton, 2006, p. 2-3). In short, instructional reform is a weak link in the small school reform movement. This may, in part, reflect a failure to focus adequate attention on instructional practices in the literature on learning communities and small learning communities For example, the definition of learning community espoused by DuFour and Eaker (1998), an environment fostering mutual cooperation, emotional support, personal growth, and a synergy of efforts is void of the word instruction. Focusing on Instruction in Communities of Learners In Transforming Schools into Communities of Thinking and Learning about Serious Matters, Ann Brown (1997) notes that effective learning communities focus on creating classroom environments in which children “learn to think deeply about serious matters” (p. 399). She articulates particular instructional practices that lend themselves to this type of deep thinking (i.e., reciprocal teaching) along with a series of actions adults can take to engender a critical consciousness within students (i.e., introducing classes to big ideas and deep principles, leading students in a collaborative search for higher order relationships between concepts, and encouraging students to pool their knowledge in a “novel conceptualization of the topic”). Most of the literature on effective school-based learning communities, however, focuses minimally on the actual instructional practices of the teachers who work in such contexts, or the role of the students in the development of learning communities. Connections to actual instructional changes in the classroom as a result of structurally reforming the larger learning environment into a more community-oriented context are rare. One study of learning communities that focuses on instruction is Felner, et. al., (2007). In their view, more personalized environments are intended to provide contexts of productive learning, where in student learning is interpersonal and takes place between students and teachers, and among peers. Their “critical components” to creating successful learning communities included empowering decision making at all levels and implementing deep, integrated standards based instruction. Accordingly, they state the “central focus across efforts is the creation of conditions that engage students, support learning, and enhance development” (pp. 209-210). This interpersonal approach to learning and instruction is often embedded within the Project Based Learning, or PBL model – where students and teachers are engaged continuously with the content and with communicating with one another, making the student an active, participating member in the “shaping of his/her own learning” (Felner, et al, p. 210). What is PBL? According to John Thomas (2000), project-based learning (PBL) is a model that organizes learning around projects that are defined as “complex tasks, based on challenging questions or problems, that involve students in design, problem-solving, decision making, or investigative activities; give students the opportunity to work relatively autonomously over extended periods of time; and culminate in realistic products or presentations,” (p. 1). Maintaining fidelity to a PBL approach also necessitates that teachers be authentic in their approach to content and assessment, while also working to organize and manage projects in a way that supports student learning of explicit educational goals (Markham, Larmer & Ravitz, 2006). PBL classrooms are characterized by cooperative learning, reflection, and the incorporation of 21 century skills such as problem solving, technological literacy, negotiation, and communication, into students’ daily work (Gallagher, Stepien, & Rosenthal, 1992; Hmelo, 1998; Thomas, 2000). Given the focus on instructional practice in PBL literature, we also know about the strategies and practices that teachers subscribing to PBL use in the classroom such as generating an authentic, or essential question to guide student inquiry; incorporating formative assessments into daily lessons to check students’ progress and growth and inform future instruction; and emphasizing the importance of the process as well as the product when assessing student learning by weighing each equally in rubrics and other evaluative strategies. According to the literature, PBL can be more effective than traditional instruction in increasing academic achievement (Mergendoller, Maxwell, & Bellisimo, 2007); for facilitating students’ knowledge application (Dochy, et. al., 2003; Koh, et. al., 2008); in helping students develop a deep understanding of content (Boaler, 1997); and in helping students become more adept at integrating and explaining concepts (Schwartz & Martin, 2004). PBL has also been found to increase student motivation, foster more positive attitudes toward subject matter, and boost student engagement in learning; improve students’ retention of knowledge over time and their mastery of 21st-century skills; and increase students’ achievement on stateadministered, standardized tests. PBL has also been found to be especially effective with lower-achieving students (Gallagher, Stepien, & Rosenthal, 1992; Hmelo, 1998; Mergendoller, Maxwell & Bellisimo, 2003; Ravitz, 2008; Thomas, 2000). PBL and Learning Communities At times, the literature on learning communities paints a picture that supports the idea that reforming to include a more PBL oriented approach plays a critical role in establishing learning communities. A related reform involves building relationships outside the classroom, a key p