Running Head: Constructivist Practices

1Constructivist Practices

Constructivist Practices Using Questions and PBL

Quentin Flokstra50567072ETEC 530 Section 65AThe University of British ColumbiaDr. Diane JanesMarch 13, 2015

Facilitating Projects Using Questions and PBLAs a high school humanities teacher, I have facilitated many projects with my students. Well-designed projects allow students to construct their own knowledge. Moreover, these projects should require students to learn and utilize effective research skills and to create meaningful artifacts. Within my own teaching practice, as I have been exposed to the tenets, and benefits, of constructivism, I have sought to integrate the principles of constructivism within the process of facilitating projects. I have improved the research process by utilizing the Question Formulation Technique (QFT) designed by Dan Rothstein and Luz Santana (2011) while I continue to work on integrating more of the features of Project Based Learning (PBL), particularly with having students create meaningful artifacts. The Question Formulation Technique (QFT) & ConstructivismThere are two essential components to PBL: First, there is a question that serves to organize and drive activities and, secondly, that those activities result in a series of artifacts which lead to a final authentic product which answers the original question (Blumenfeld et al., 1991). Many times, it is the teacher that provides guiding questions or a problem and the students direct the activities, but as Blumenfeld et al. (1991) point out, students can also create the questions themselves. However, there seems to be an omission within educational circles of teaching students how to ask a range of questions (Rothstein & Santana, 2011). One of the central tenets of constructivism is that education is student centered, students have to construct knowledge themselves (Dougiamas, 1998, p.4). A key component of this is to have students learn to ask their own questions, as this will facilitate their active role within the classroom. This cannot be overlooked nor overstated. As Schwartz (2012) points out, Coming up with the right question involves vigorously thinking through the problem, investigating it from various angles, turning closed questions into open-ended ones, and prioritizing which are the most important to get at the heart of the matter. Indeed, having students learn effective means of asking questions has been an enriching process within my social studies classes. The QFT process utilizes constructivist elements in its approach. The QFT protocol has six core components.1. A question focus, which serves as the starting point for student questions.2. A process for students to produce questions using four simple rules.3. An exercise for students to work on closed- and open-ended questions.4. Student selection of priority questions.5. A plan for how to use the priority questions.6. A reflection activity for students(Rothstein & Santana, 2011, p.16)While the onus is on myself to come up with the question focus (QFocus), the bulk of the work is left with the students. It is critical that the QFocus is not a question. It needs to be brief, simply stated, and encourage new ways of thinking (Rothstein & Santana, 2011, p.29-30). One way that I do this is to be provocative with the QFocus by using words such as must or always. This will then cause a reaction in students. Other times I have students figure out the criteria for evaluating a particular issue. Overall, the point is to have a specific statement which promotes lines of questioning. Once I create a QFocus, I simply need to facilitate the questioning process. This veers from the traditional route within many projects wherein I would provide a series of critical questions for students grapple with. Having the students create their own questions exposes their existing knowledge and preconceived notions about the topic or focus. Moreover, as SO (2002) points out, it is important for students to test their own ideas and questions, and, if necessary, to adjust those notions. By having students ask, then answer, their own questions, they are clearly in the process of constructing their own knowledge and thus they take ownership and I, as the teacher, move more clearly into the role of a facilitator (Driscoll, 2005). Moreover, Driver and Oldham (as cited by Matthews, 1994) suggest some constructivist-inspired teaching methods which are also effective links to the QFT protocol. When students generate their own questions, they are immediately invested in the overall project which gives them the opportunity to develop their own motivation for learning about a topic. Secondly, restructuring of those ideas in which conflicts about meanings come into play when different students see new ways of interacting with the focus (Matthews, 1994). One of the key components, as mentioned in the second step of the QFT protocol, are the rules for asking questions. Rothstein and Santana (2011, p.19) set out four key rules that they suggest for asking questions:1. Ask as many questions as you can.2. Do not stop to discuss, judge, or answer any of the questions.3. Write down every question as it is stated.4. Change any statements into questions.This allows each member of the group to generate their own questions which then can encourage their peers to ask different questions. This social negotiation is an integral part of their learning and a key component of constructivism according to Driscoll (2005). I have used this process several times when introducing new projects and I have found it to be quite valuable. Once students are reminded of basic questioning words, they are more than capable of coming up with a range of high-quality questions. The next steps which take them to prioritizing their question is also a valuable learning experience. Using constructivist principles, it is critical for me to allow my students to prioritize the questions themselves. It can be tempting to help them along but it is important for them to learn which questions can be better used than others. I have even found (Flokstra, 2015) that using students struggles with their own questions to be a valuable learning experience. When students find that their questions are lacking after they have done a bit of research, I then have them go through the questioning process again with the new knowledge that they have gained from their research (Flokstra, 2015). Knowledge building is ongoing and can be re-visited mid-project. Indeed, knowledge is actively constructed by the learner (Dougiamas, 1998, p.5). Overall, I have found that when students create their own questions, they quickly take ownership of their learning and become more aware of the knowledge construction process, which are two key aspects that Driscoll (2005) highlights as being essential for a constructivist-learning environment. I echo the sentiments of Schwartz (2012) who posits that if students are engaged in deciding which questions to answer, they will also be invested in discovering those answers. I can attest that my students have become more adept at the research process when they have created and prioritized their own research questions. The challenge is to then take those questions and generate meaningful artifacts. Challenges of Implementing PBLAs I noted earlier, I have seen substantial improvements with the research process among my students but this has not translated in the same way for their projects. Although learning and improving the questioning process is a critical improvement, the priority questions need to jump-start further learning (Rothstein & Santana, 2011, p.103). For me, I have used them as the basis for the students projects. However, these projects are still lacking in some ways. PBLs essential feature is authentic, meaningful projects. According to Amy Mayer (n.d.), many of my class projects are just that: projects. Although, I have many aspects of PBL within my classroom, there are a few key components that I still need to work on to bring my classes more in line with the core tenets of PBL. As Blumenfeld et al. (1991) note, it is critical for students to be responsible, and to have the freedom, to generate their own artifacts. Many times, once my students have begun answering their own question, I have left it up to them to decide what their artifact will be. What I have found is that they will default to traditional models of sharing information such as creating posters, Power Point presentations, and so on. These are methods that they are comfortable with and have down in most of their prior classes. I seem to be facing the same challenges that Blumenfeld et al. (1991) noted in that PBL may have wide spread appeal but not wide spread adoption. Moreover, even though it has been around for a while, it is still an innovative process that requires significant curricular support. Thus, I face some challenges in that I seem to be missing some administrative and curricular support as well as students not being exposed to PBL throughout their education. Another great barrier is having my classes generate solutions to real world scenarios or to have them in real life experiences. Most of my classes cover historical material and thus the authenticity aspect can be challenging to create. However, as Blumenfeld et al. (1991) point out, technology is playing an increasingly important role as a significant resource. There are more online resources available then ever before to help facilitate this process. It is clear to me that my projects require more authenticity, more value, and the creation of artifacts that are less school-like and are more representative of the problems solutions (Blumenfeld et al, 1991, p.372, 376). This will require more research and time on my part. A brief perusal of online resources has led me to identify several high quality sources to help with my own journey in PBL such as the Buck Institute for Education (bie.org) and Edutopia (edutopia.org). Moreover, the school network that I belong too is also supporting a weeklong PBL residency program with the goal of having teachers learn the principles of PBL and have ready-to-use units by the end of the program (PBL Residency, 2015). There are opportunities available, perhaps more than ever before, and the onus is on me to seize those opportunities. ConclusionOverall, I believe that I am moving in the right direction in having more constructivist elements present within the projects that I am doing within the courses that I teach. As Rothstein and Santana (2011) point out, by using the QFT protocols, I am encouraging critical thinking skills. Firstly, I am providing the ability for students to use both divergent and convergent thinking. Moreover, students also learn metacognitive skills as they are forced to think about their own processes of thinking and learning. These are foundational aspects for implementing constructivist elements within my classes. By utilizing more online resources that are currently available for PBL, I believe that I will improve upon the projects that I am currently conducting in my classes. I, too, will build upon my own knowledge and construct my own meaning with implementing improved educational practices. Indeed, constructivism is a life-long process for all learners.

BibliographyBlumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3/4), 369-398. Retrieved from EBSCO database. (Accession No. 6370955)Dougiamas, M. (1998, November). A journey into constructivism. Retrieved March 5, 2015, from https://dougiamas.com/archives/a-journey-into-constructivism/Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Constructivism. In Psychology of learning for instruction (pp. 384-407). Toronto, ON: Pearson.Flokstra, Q. C. (2015, January 13). Not just the starting point: Student research and the QFT. Retrieved March 11, 2015, from The Right Question Institute website: http://rightquestion.org/blog/starting-point-student-research-qft/Matthews, M. R. (1994). Constructivism and science education. In Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. Retrieved from https://connect.ubc.ca/bbcswebdav/pid-2468674-dt-content-rid-9867827_1/courses/SIS.UBC.ETEC.530.65A.2014W2.40504/download/unit2-science-teaching.pdfMayer, A. (n.d.). What's the difference between "doing project" and project-based learning? Retrieved March 11, 2015, from Fried Technology website: http://www.friedtechnology.com/#!stuff/c243pPBL Residency. (2015). PBL residency. Retrieved March 12, 2015, from http://pblresidency.comRothstein, D., & Santana, L. (2011). Make just one change: Teach students to ask their own questions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Schwartz, K. (2012, October 26). For students, why the question is more important than the answer. Retrieved March 9, 2015, from Mind Shift website: http://blogs.kqed.org/mindshift/2012/10/for-students-why-the-question-is-more-important-than-the-answer/SO, W. W.-M. (2002). Constructivist teaching in primary science. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching,, 3(1). Retrieved from https://www.ied.edu.hk/apfslt/download/v3_issue1_files/sowm/sowm.pdf