Project-Based Learning

Having presented the ProE model, in this study, I put the aforementioned model to the test through a project-based learning approach (PBL). PBL is generally understood as an inquiry-based teaching method that promotes student learning by solving challenges that resemble, or are, real-life problems (Barron & Darling-Hammond, 2008; Markham et al., 2003). It mostly consists of groups of students with increased autonomy working together on a sustained inquiry for periods of time longer than a classroom session to accomplish the project’s goal, which usually adopts the form of an artefact (Blumenfeld et al., 1991; Gresalfi et al., 2012). The role of teachers in PBL is thus as facilitators who help students move through the process together so that they can successfully

accomplish the project’s goal.

That being said, PBL shares many aspects of task-based learning (TBL) (see Van den Branden 2006, for a discussion of what TBL is and is not). Thus, both methods of instruction seek to engage students by making the task or the project the focus of the lesson rather than the knowledge, craft or skill to be acquired; both include a

commitment to authenticity; both promote student autonomy by allowing students to drive their own learning, thus embracing the idea that there is not only one proper path to a goal; and finally both move the teacher to a position of facilitator and monitor. Perhaps then, the most marked difference between TBL and PBL is that PBL goes further in terms of both student-centeredness and content learning. That is, PBL extends for days, weeks, terms, and even academic years. Also, in addition to content

knowledge, PBL seeks to promote the acquisition of valuable life skills such as creativity, collaboration, communication and critical thinking (Boss et al., 2013; Markham et al., 2003).

In light of this, there are various reasons why I opt for projects rather than tasks to assess the potential of the ProE model for ASEC engagement. First, as mentioned above, PBL

consists of a long-term learning endeavour in which students work towards an overarching goal. In long-term endeavours motivation and engagement are more difficult to sustain than in small activities that can be accomplished over a class period (see Dörnyei et al., 2013, for a discussion). Therefore, I feel that if the project is successful in terms of ASEC engagement, it could be expected that the ProE model is also likely to succeed in less challenging learning activities where engagement would be easier to sustain.

Second, PBL has affinity with the ProE model, which makes a strong case for its adoption. To clarify, consider for example, PBL’s focus on real-world issues, which aligns with the principle of learning activities that are of value or importance to the students (i.e., meaningfulness). On the other hand, the fact that PBL offers opportunities for control over many aspects of a project integrates well with the principle of learning activities that empower students (i.e., autonomy). Finally, in PBL students work in groups to complete the project, which facilitates the principle of fostering interpersonal connections with peers (i.e., belongingness). On another note, although promoting students’ beliefs in their own abilities to complete the projects (i.e., competence) is not an explicit element of PBL, this method is often characterised by its flexible nature, allowing for (ideally, rapid) adaptation in the face of unexpected twists and turns. Thus, in PBL teachers often need to revise and amend the project to fit the needs arising out of the specific learning situation (see Doherty & Eyring, 2006; Stoller 2006). This can help towards fighting low-levels of perceived competence throughout the course of the project and, as a result, increase the likelihood of its successful completion.

Third, the use of PBL in school settings has been shown to have a connection with student engagement and achievement (e.g., Boaler 2002; Cognition & Vanderbilt, 1992; Marx et al., 1997; Thomas 2000). This is somewhat unsurprising since it shares the principles of the ProE model, which in turn have been correlated with ASEC

engagement (cf. 3.3.3). On another note, PBL research has also shown that this

instructional method can have a positive impact on student attitudes towards the subject where the project is conducted (e.g., Boaler 2002; Cognition & Vanderbilt, 1992). For example, in a recent study conducted in Turkey, Sesen and Tarhan (2013) found that inquiry-based laboratory activities not only produced significant gains in learning but also produced positive attitudes towards chemistry and laboratory. This study involved 62 high school students aged 16-18. These findings make the adoption of PBL even more appealing because of its potential for shaping student attitudes in addition to promoting student engagement. The former (i.e., attitudes), although it is not the particular goal of this present study, is what directs it (cf. 1.1).

Finally, the last reason why I propose using PBL to assess the potential of the ProE model for ASEC engagement is personal. That is to say, ever since I knew about PBL I have been trying to implement it in my practice. However, until this PhD study, I had not been able to do so. Therefore, I saw this study as an excellent opportunity to achieve my goal, since I had significant autonomy in selecting my research context. In what follows, I turn to describe and explain the methodology deployed in this investigation.

Chapter Four: Methodology

4.1 Introduction

In this chapter I provide the methodological framework upon which this investigation operates. This includes a discussion of (a) the participants; (b) the methodological approach adopted; (c) the data collection instruments used; (d) my approach to data analysis; and (e) the precautions taken to make this research involving adolescents as ethical as possible. In 4.2 I introduce the participants of this research: 19 Year 9 students and a fellow teacher. In 4.3, I explain the action research approach adopted in my investigation. I then discuss why my research is heavily informed by this particular methodology and I describe its structure. In the following section (4.4) I describe and provide a rationale for the research methods used to collect data. These include three types of interviews, a research journal, open-response questionnaires and post-project questionnaires. In 4.5, I present thematic analysis as the analytical approach used in this study, followed by a description of the steps taken to analyse the data gathered through the selected instruments. Finally, in 4.6, I address the ethical principles adhered to in order to ensure the fair treatment of my participants, and negotiate and gain informed consent from both the participants and the institution.