St. Peter’s College, Gore (TLIF 5-047) - Scaffolding project-based learning that is aligned to local curriculum design in years 8–10 Publications
Publication Details
Project Reference: St. Peter’s College, Gore (TLIF 5-047) - Teachers at St. Peter’s College were keen to explore how project-based learning (PBL) might be used to facilitate students’ development of the qualities embodied in the school’s graduate profile. This unites the capabilities of a twenty-first century learner with the Gospel values that are integral to the school’s mission.
Author(s): (Inquiry Team) led by Bridget Ryan
Date Published: August 2021
Overview
The project team set out to learn what is involved in PBL, to share their learning with colleagues who would also facilitate PBL for students in years 8–10, and to design and develop structures to make it happen. Overall, they were successful in growing teacher capabilities in facilitating PBL and in seeing it work for students. Teachers learned important lessons about shifting the locus of control to students and setting up the environment for PBL. Many students learned to take greater agency over their learning and had the satisfaction of completing projects on topics and issues they felt passionate about.
It changes the way I look at things. Before PBL, I didn’t think outside the box with my other work. Now I think more creatively, I try and add more detail. I know my emails are way better now .... Planning was really useful; I know lots of different ways of planning now. I can jump between all of them depending on what I am planning. I think it helps other people because they all get that feeling of helping someone. I could hear parents at the exhibition talking about how the kids had made a difference. I felt proud of all of us and our school. We have all helped .... In my opinion I think most people did well, even those that mucked around learnt something about wasting time, that’s not a failure.
Student reflection
For both teachers and students, a big part of the learning was about accepting failure and the ability to reflect honestly and critically to get out of the learning pit. The project team encountered unexpected resistance from some parents and whānau and this impacted upon some students who were unhappy about moving away from traditional methods of teaching and learning. The team recommend that schools embarking on significant change make communications a part of their strategic planning to help create the conditions for success.
The inquiry story
This inquiry was led by a team of seven teachers, later reducing to six. It involved all students in years 8–10 and the 30 teachers who were also involved in facilitating project-based learning. It ran in two iterations, from mid-2019 to the end of 2020. In each iteration, monitoring of student outcomes included close monitoring of a target group.
What was the focus?
Teachers at St. Peter’s College were familiar with the research showing that learners are far more engaged in learning when it is authentic, and they have agency over it. While most students at the college do well academically, the teachers knew that some priority learners, including gifted learners, did not enjoy the school’s traditional model of teaching and found it difficult to navigate. The teachers also knew that employers and tertiary education providers are increasingly looking for school leavers who have resilience, can collaborate and communicate effectively, are critical and creative thinkers and problem-solvers, and can adapt their knowledge to deal with unfamiliar situations.
The college is a special character school, and it was equally important that its curriculum should foster in students the school’s values of Compassion, Community, and Commitment. The school had drawn these aspirations and priorities together into the following graduate profile:
Graduates from St Peters College will be resilient, creative problem solvers who are able to communicate effectively and work collaboratively while holding firm to the Gospel values of Jesus Christ in a challenging 21st century world.
The project team theorised that multi-disciplinary project-based learning (PBL) utilising concepts and tools from the Local Curriculum Design toolkit would enable teachers to develop the facilitation skills necessary to foster creativity, resilience, engagement, and agency, along with the school’s core values. The team leading the school’s TLIF project sought to address the following inquiry questions:
- What teacher competencies and capabilities support learners to have more agency in their learning?
- What teacher competencies and capabilities support learners to be more engaged, resilient, reflective, and creative?
- What facilitation strategies will make the most difference for teachers and learners?
What did the teachers try?
Members of the project team were coached in how to facilitate project-based learning in classrooms. They then co-designed professional learning sessions where they shared their learning with colleagues. The team also designed a project proposal template with prompts to help students make decisions about questions, such as:
- who they would work with and how they would ensure each person did their share;
- the problem they would address, their rationale, and their intended impact;
- the resources they would use from within and without the school, in terms of expertise, as well as materials;
- the intended learning, in terms of twenty-first century skills, the Gospel values, and curriculum learning areas;
- the intended timeline and whether their project plans were realistic, hit the right level of challenge, and likely to be rewarding.
Every year 8–10 student engaged in PBL for five periods per week. ‘Continuity of care’ was assured by having each team member teach a minimum of two of these periods. In addition, each team member took on responsibility for overseeing at least one of the nine classes participating in PBL, collaborating with their colleagues over what happened in the periods they didn’t teach.
The monitoring process included fortnightly meetings with students to co-construct a fortnightly Attitude to Learning report mark and comment, student continuums and surveys, and the collection of whānau and community voice following the exhibitions. All teachers engaged in observations and practice analysis conversations and the TLIF team met regularly to formally self- and peer-assess their progress against an Innovative learning Pedagogies – Teacher Capabilities Matrix provided by Evaluation Associates. Guided by their critical friend, they focused their attention on the dimension of ‘Building learning-focused relationships’.
The first iteration of PBL took place in 2019, concluding with an ‘exhibition’ for students to share what they had done with whānau and the community. The second happened in 2020. It was meant to run over two terms, but major events, including the Southland floods, the Covid-19 pandemic, and the loss of a team member led to adjustments to plans and the project’s extension to the end of 2020. These events and problems with timetabling also disrupted the ability to deliver continuity of care as intended. This was partially addressed by setting up a OneNote page where teachers could share what was happening and where students might need additional support.
Implementation of the project was also disrupted when a group of parents objected to the whole premise, concerned that PBL lacks the academic rigour of traditional teaching practices. The project team attempted to address this concern by guiding students towards more ‘academically worthy’ projects in the second year, introducing a weekly reflection, and increasing the required paperwork. As the team anticipated, these changes, which were out of step with the whole ethos of PBL, had a negative impact on student engagement. Many students felt frustrated by the additional and inauthentic demands on their time and attention. Ironically, their dissatisfaction, served to add fuel to the objections from parents. The team describes this as their own experience of being in the learning pit. The process of coming out of the pit involved honest sharing with colleagues and students, ending the weekly reflections, and offering students the opportunities to reset their projects and choose something they could be passionate about.
What happened as a result of this innovation?
Despite the disruptions, all team members moved from Stage 1 to Stage 3 on the Innovative learning Pedagogies Matrix, not just with regard to Learning Partnerships, but also Learning Environment, Locus of Control, and Teacher Collaboration.
The teachers found the experience of PBL liberating. Instead of focusing on the delivery of content and achievement of high student grades, they were actively involved in student learning. Both they and their students were allowed to be honest about failure and treat it as a first attempt in learning. This was exemplified by the team’s recognition that the introduction of more paperwork in 2020 was a mistake that knocked students’ creativity and sense of ownership, moving them away from their passions.
Teachers found that the depth of relationship they developed with students meant they felt it deeply when students faced setbacks. However, they also took delight in students’ experiences of success.
For many students, PBL proved fertile ground for developing resilience, empathy, and excitement and for living out the school’s values. While external rewards were not part of the project’s kaupapa, they were introduced in the final week in acknowledgement of some impressive achievements. These included:
- two students ran a cultural day to improve awareness of cultural diversity and address microaggressions – this will now be an annual event;
- three students who typically fly under the radar built a garden seat for the school;
- two students learned and taught New Zealand Sign Language;
- three students worked with young people at Starship Hospital and developed sensory books to help disabled children;
- two students worked with community members to develop a business plan;
- one student coached peers and younger students at a different school in his sporting discipline;
- two students ran a community education programme alerting people to the danger of strokes, how to avoid them, and how to respond.
Some members of the community, including both students and whānau members, were never convinced about the value of PBL. Most often, it was students whose whānau objected to the project who enjoyed less success and felt most negatively about it. However, even these students demonstrated that they had developed honest critical reflection skills when asked to reflect on their journey. Others had the satisfaction of reflecting on how they had worked through obstacles and failures to find a real sense of achievement. This was most apparent at the exhibition, where students articulated their authentic learning journeys, ‘warts and all’, confidently and honestly displaying real learner agency. They were able to show that they had taken ownership of their learning and behaviours and had developed the capability to think ahead and plan.
What did they learn?
The team learned that the teacher capabilities required to support learner agency, engagement, resilience, reflection, and creativity include:
- teaching and modelling the ability to accept failure and work through the learning pit;
- encouraging and modelling reflection;
- the ability to lead conversation about learning;
- the ability to activate connections to prior learning;
- the use of a common language by all teachers;
- the ability to ask questions that facilitate deeper, more critical thinking;
- focusing on the learning process rather than the product.
The facilitation strategies that make the most difference for teachers and learners include:
- offering a range of options for planning;
- offering a range of options for collaboration;
- making thoughtful discussion and questioning integral to the learning process;
- enabling choice in the physical arrangement of the classroom;
- skilful questioning;
- less teacher voice and more student voice;
- accepting that noise levels will rise and fall.
The team also learned that it will take time to shift all community members’ perceptions about worthwhile learning at school and the power of student ownership of learning and of learning taking place outside of the classroom. This is an important and big task that needs to be part of whole school strategic planning and cannot be left to a small group.
Inquiry team
The team was led by Bridget Ryan. Over time, it also included Brian Coyle, Neli Seumanutafa, John Watkins, and Claire Welch, Louise Grogan, Amanda Kotkamp, Lisa Sanson, Sam Sanson, and Jacqui Thompson.
Janelle Stephenson (Evaluation Associates) was the project’s critical friend.
Mary and Lab Wilson (Bats Inc.) were the project’s expert partners.
For further information
If you would like to learn more about this project, please contact the project leader, Bridget Ryan, at bridgetryan@stpetersgore.school.nz
Reference list
Bell, S. (2010). Project based Learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The Clearing House. 83, 39–43.
Bigum, C. (2003). The knowledge producing school: moving away from the work of finding educational problems for which computers are solutions. Computers in New Zealand Schools, 15(2), 22–26.
Boaler, J. (March 31, 1999). Mathematics for the moment, or the millenium? Education Week.
Bolstad,R., & Gilbert, J., with McDowall, S., Bull, A., Boyd, S. & Hipkins, R. (2012). Supporting futureoriented learning and teaching – a New Zealand perspective. Report to the Ministry of Education. Wellington: NZCER Press.
Boyd, S., & Watson, V. (2006). Shifting the frame: Exploring integration of the key competencies at six normal schools. Wellington: NZCER Press.
Gilbert, J. (2005). Catching the knowledge wave? The knowledge society and the future of education. Wellington: NZCER Press.
Hannon, V. (May 5 2018). What is education for? Korero Mātauranga, Christchurch, May 5th 2018. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
Kizkapan, 0., & Bektas, 0. (January 2017). The effect of project-based learning on seventh grade students’ academic achievement. International Journal of Instruction. 10(1).
Leadbeater, C. (2005). The shape of things to come: Personalised learning through collaboration. Nottingham: The Department for Education and Skills and the National College for School Leadership.
Leadbeater, C. (2004). Learning about personalisation: How can we put the learner at the heart of the education system? Nottingham: Department for Education and Skills.
Rotherham, A. J., & Willingham, D. T. (Spring 2010). ‘21st-Century’ skills. Not new, but a worthy challenge. American Educator.
Tangaere, A. R. (1997) Maori human development learning theory. Te puawaitanga o te reo Maori. Wellington: NZCER Press.
Strobel, J., & van Barneveld, A. (2009). When is PBL more effective? A meta-synthesis of meta-analyses comparing PBL to conventional classrooms. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 3(1).
Navigation
Contact TLIF
If you have any questions about TLIF projects, please contact us at:
Email: TLIF Mailbox