Implementing Project-Based Learning in Pre-Service Teacher Education

Janet K Holst Nanyang Technological University, National Institute of Education, Singapore [email protected]

Abstract: Increasingly, teachers at all levels are being asked to adopt pedagogies that promote collaborative learning and independent problem–solving. Project-based learning, aimed at incorporating these elements, is a new requirement of the Singapore MOE English Language Syllabus (2000). Teachers and teacher-trainees face a double challenge – of implementing change, and adopting pedagogies they have not themselves experienced as learners. This paper reports on a project-based module devised for English language teacher-trainees. The module called for group research and peer teaching in examining different models of integrated, projectbased learning in English, and in critically applying the notions and practices to the Singaporean context. The paper incorporates trainees’ reflections on aspects of the process, together with extracts from their presentations. Keywords: project work, collaborative learning, teacher education

Various frameworks for cooperative learning have been developed for use across the curriculum (e.g., by Cohen, 1994; Johnson & Johnson, 1994; Sharan & Sharan, 1992), and studies have demonstrated its effectiveness for promoting pupil learning and social relations compared with more traditional whole-class methods of teaching (Abraham et al., 1995; Bennett & Dunne, 1992; Sharan, 1999). This paper reports on a pre-service teacher-training module designed to familiarize Singaporean trainees with the principles and methods of cooperative learning in the context of secondary English language teaching. The module used collaborative project work with two groups of English language teacher trainees to examine theories and models of project-based learning (PBL) and to devise adaptations of these for use in the Singapore context. Project-based learning, or Group Investigation (Sharan, 1998) is a form of cooperative learning that contextualizes learning by presenting learners with problems to solve or products to develop (Katz, 1994). The basic phases found in most projects include selecting a topic, making plans, researching, developing products, and sharing results with others. Students cooperate in carrying out their investigation, in planning how to integrate and present their findings, and in evaluating their own and interpersonal effort (Sharan, 1998). Project work, it is generally claimed, allows for taking initiative and assuming responsibility, making decisions and choices, and pursuing interests. A further important aspect is the social learning experiences it affords, such as peer teaching and group construction of knowledge, which allow student to observe - and emulate other models of successful learning. Project-based learning has particular relevance for English language teaching as a bridge between “classroom” and “real life” English (Fried-Booth, 1997). In project groups, learners are placed in situations that require authentic, communicative use of language: they have to plan, organize,

negotiate, express their views, and reach consensus about the tasks involved and the sharing of these; they search out information, discuss their findings, devise written products and make oral presentations. Collaborative project work has been used in Singapore schools, but not consistently. As in most parts of Asia, whole-class instruction remains the preferred teaching mode in both primary and secondary schools, with emphasis on teacher exposition in highly structured lessons, and memorization for accurate reproduction in examinations (Zongyi & Gopinathan, 2001; Brindley, 1984). Small group or pair work is relatively unused (Zongyi & Gopinathan, 2001). While “transmission pedagogy” has produced high-achieving, efficient and focused learners, it has arguably not created the “creative, flexible and autonomous workforce” Singapore now needs to meet the economic challenges of globalization (Gopinathan, 1999: 299). Recent major changes in education policy, goals and curricula are designed to foster skills now seen as important in high-performance workplaces — independent study, critical and creative thinking, and multidisciplinary group work. At the English curriculum level, language skills are to be integrated and taught in communicative learning contexts, and project work is given a key place. A recent Singapore Ministry of Education document states: “Project work allows students to practise creative and critical thinking skills and selfdirected inquiry. It also helps our students see the interconnectedness of the knowledge they acquire from different subjects and cultivate communication and interpersonal skills” (MOE Work Plan Seminar, 2000). The implications for classroom practice and teacher education are considerable. The new direction requires teachers to adopt more student-centred, collaborative modes of teaching. Research shows it is difficult to change teachers’ established practices and beliefs, especially if the changes are perceived as “top-down” decisions (Kennedy, Doyle and Goh, 1999). How teachers teach is largely determined by the knowledge, attitudes, values, theories and assumptions they already hold about teaching (Breen, 1991; Woods, 1996), and these are likely to be based on their own first-hand experiences and observations as classroom learners (Lortie, 1975; Richardson, 1965; Richards, 2001). For most Singaporeans these were in teacher-centred, didactic contexts, so teachers and teacher-trainees thus face a double challenge – of implementing change, and adopting pedagogies they have not themselves experienced as learners. For this reason, a training approach was devised to illustrate collaborative learning in action while engaging the trainees reflectively in the process. With first-hand experience of collaborative project work, trainees might understand and be equipped to implement the new principles and practices, without simply resorting to models of past experience (Freeman, 1994). Other studies have used cooperative learning (CL) methods to teach preservice teacher trainees about CL. For the most part these report positive outcomes, with increased interest in course materials and more active pursuit of learning (Hillkirk, 1991; Ledford and Warren, 1997; Nattiv, Winitzky & Drickey, 1991; van Voorhuis, 1991; and Watson, 1995). They also show that trainees valued the opportunities for more interaction with their peers, both for explaining and listening to peers’ explanations of key courses concepts, and for the opportunity to become better acquainted with their course colleagues. Veenman et al. (2002:90) report that trainees appreciated the opportunity to experience and reflect on the cooperative skills needed to help their own pupils in the future. A further study (Hwong, Caswell, Johnson and Johnson, 1993) showed cooperation promoted higher achievement than individualistic learning on assignments, and that trainees in

2

cooperative situations tended to stay on-task better and have more positive views of their own skills. The basic question underpinning this study was whether project-based learning theory and pedagogy could effectively be taught to trainees using an experiential approach. Specifically, it aimed to learn: 1. What attitudes and perceptions trainees would hold about project work as a result of the experiential module; 2. Whether and to what extent these matched the claims made by proponents of PBL. The context The module described here was undertaken by two different groups of trainee secondary-level English language trainees in Singapore: a BA 3rd year group (BA3) of 30 students and a 2nd year Diploma in Education group (DE2) of 16 students. In previous semesters, both groups had taken conventional half-semester courses in teaching specific language skills: listening and speaking, reading, writing and grammar. The final module, 6 weeks long (2x2hr classes per week), was intended to provide consolidation of prior content by dealing with selected issues in English Language teaching: it seemed that project work might provide opportunities to explore issues of pedagogic concern given the new syllabus emphasis on skill integration, collaborative learning and capacity building. The module was structured around two series of group presentations based on collaborative examination of selected “case studies” of project work in secondary English classrooms in USA (Barron, 1993; Burke, 1993; Kain, 1993; Felhman, 1999; Wheeler, 1999). Each case study exemplified a particular approach to project-based learning, a different final product (e.g. poster, collage, skit, talk show, video) and a different view of “integrated learning”. Each was matched with a theoretical article dealing with some aspect of collaborative learning (e.g. Barrell, 1991; Sharan, 1998; Jacobs & Hall, 2002; Stoller, 2002; Willis, 1996). The aim was for trainees to learn in an experiential way about different kinds of projects, both multi-disciplinary and within language arts, and also about teachers’ management strategies and key theoretical principles of collaborative and task-based learning. The project task was to collaboratively evaluate and present a project case study and then to devise an adaptation for a Singaporean class, drawing on any of the modeled cases as a basis. Method Phase 1: Each group selected a project “case study” with a matched theoretical article. Given questions for guidance, they spent the first week-and-a-half reading, discussing and reflecting on this material. They had to devise a presentation that would explicate and exemplify the case project for the whole class, and include a critique, with possible adaptations and extensions for the Singapore context. The presentations and ensuing plenary discussions took a week (2x2hr sessions). Phase 2: Trainees then worked collaboratively for another week to develop a project for a Singapore class, elaborating one or two lessons in detail, preparing relevant student resources and materials, and carrying out a significant part of the project task to model to their peers. This work was presented to the whole class and followed by a plenary discussion (2 x 2hr sessions). Both presentations were peer- and tutor- assessed, and the main assignment for the course was a written

3

project plan with supporting materials and scaffolding. BA3 trainees were required to implement this to some extent on practicum, and furnish a log and written reflective evaluation on return. At the end of the presentation cycle, trainees were asked to reflect privately on the following questions and submit their written responses anonymously: What did you learn in the process? What did you find most interesting? Why? What did you find difficult/frustrating? Why? What did you enjoy/find most satisfying? Why What do learners need to ensure the success of this approach? What would your advice to teachers be? Data gathered thus came from three sources: 1. Trainee presentations, project tasks and assignments; 2. Trainee written reflections following the presentation series; 3. Trainer observations of the process and plenary discussions. Outcomes Working as teams to understand the methodology and devise a presentation had a noticeably positive effect on the trainees’ attitude and performance. The quality of the presentations, the trainees’ evident enthusiasm and commitment to the group effort, the way they engaged actively and critically with the source texts, as well as the quality of the comments made in the plenary discussions and in their written reflections, all reinforced this perception. The collaborative productions and presentations that emerged in the four weeks were highly innovative, multimodal and demonstrated high degrees of critical thinking, synthesis and application (and adaptation) of theory. For example: •

•

•

•

A radio show (retrospect of the 1960s) with interviews, news bites and period music followed by a TV chat show on education, featuring the “author” of the focus article, “pupils” and a “Singapore project teacher”. To produce this, trainees had to write a full script reconstituting the article in interview form and incorporating an evaluative commentary; A group-made video on cooperative learning, comparing a PBL classroom with a traditional classroom, and featuring interviews with the “pupils”, “teachers”, and the author, followed by a music video – a retrospective of memorable moments in the trainees’ lifetimes – encapsulated in song titles and clips from popular media; A “Ministry of Education Workshop” for teachers, with visiting “international experts” and accompanying Powerpoint slide show, followed by a school project on “Understanding Difference” and a wearable poster display (appliquéd T-shirts) on multicultural living in Singapore; A retrospect of cinema in Singapore from colonial times using animated Powerpoint, music and film photo clips, and a classroom Webquest project on the history of the entertainment industry in Singapore.

The project approach allowed for a much richer, wider, more intensive learning experience than possible in the conventional teaching format. Over the four weeks trainees experienced different conceptions of “integration” and “project work”; from the authors of the articles they learned, in intensive group readings and discussions, about problems, about alternative ways of assessing students and monitoring group work; they learned different presentation techniques — panel

4

discussions, chat shows, role plays, collages, floor plans, time lines, and (from peers) various IT competencies (Powerpoint animation with Web clips, video editing, etc). Classroom dynamics changed perceptibly. Where trainees had previously been silent and largely passive, they were now highly vocal, authoritative and engaged. The plenary discussions following each presentation were chaired by class members and fronted by the presenting panel, the tutor taking the largely silent role of spectator on the side. Trainees asked questions and raised concerns confidently with the panel members, who were confident, reflective and articulate in their responses. Discussions were thoughtful – even, at times, electric – and covered issues such as assessment practices in Singapore, whether all tasks needed to be assessed, what kinds of rubrics could best facilitate meaningful group assessment, how pupil privacy could be protected, how project progress and task allocation could be monitored, the relevance of foreign materials (video clips, comics) for Singaporean students, location of source materials, etc.). Trainee written reflections following the presentation series highlighted the following: 1. Creativity and challenge

Trainees commented on the scope PBL gave them for being creative and their pleasure and satisfaction at this. They enjoyed both the creative process (“thinking of how presentations can be done in a more creative, new way”; “coming out with creative ideas to present our project”; “when a brilliant idea came up after much brainstorming”) and the novelty of the products (“students can surprise the teacher with their skills - video editing, skits, music video production”; “students can be creative if given a chance”; “innovative approaches of the different groups”). Some focused on the challenge project work posed: “constructing a logical series of steps to guide students through a project”. 2. Interaction with their peers

Trainees clearly valued the opportunities project work gave for peer interaction. Specifically, they enjoyed collaborating and communicating (“more in depth discussions, more relaxed, sharing information from different angles”; “cooperation and team spirit”; “when every member contributed”; “learning through communication”; A number of trainees enjoyed learning from their peers (“collaboration leads to greater depth of research and learning”; “learning from each others’ strengths”; “teacher not always being the instructor”). “Seeing how fellow students progress in their thinking” was also mentioned as a source of satisfaction. 3. Opportunities for success and satisfaction

Many trainees remarked on experiencing satisfaction (“trying out an alternative idea that actually worked”; “completion of the end product”), and the pleasure of audience feedback on the project (“praise for the presentation”). “I specially liked the informal discussion time after presentations: this was when doubts could be cleared”). 4. Student/teacher roles

Classroom climate changed significantly. Trainees were highly interactive in their groups and seemed more resourceful than previously – in obtaining and sharing source material, in finding creative approaches and solutions. Enthusiasm and humour were evident throughout. Interesting was the use of physical space in the classroom: presenters frequently used the whole space, “walking” the class around wall displays, or monitoring groups as part of a workshop presentation. Trainees liked the relative freedom that the projects gave: “doing research and discussions outside class time”; “being less dependent on the teacher”, and felt the teacher/student dynamic had changed: “the teacher-student barrier was brought down”; “the teacher can learn from the students”.

5

5. Cognitive learning

Trainees’ comments indicated the experiential approach had given them a knowledge and understanding of project work, specifically: “different methods used in project work”; “different methods of presentation”; “the variety of project ‘products’ (music videos, t-shirts, slide displays, talk shows, etc)”. Some commented on the practical value for their own teaching (“broadened my spectrum of ideas for creative lessons and project design”; “innovative lesson plans”), and the insights gained from the experience: “how projects can integrate all the skills”; “the process is important”; “knowing the process of carrying out project work”. 6. Skill learning

A number of trainees identified skills they felt they had learned from the group project experience: speaking and leadership skills, research skills (“locating relevant information for the topic”), and collaborative skills (“flexibility”; “how to compromise, accept others’ viewpoints & abilities”). The perceptions reported above were echoed in the reflective evaluations made by BA trainees about the project work they carried out during their teaching practicum. Trainees commented on the change in teacher-student relations: “I got closer to the class and got to know them better; “I learned about different topics that would interest students”; “the students enjoyed playing a central role”; “students got to know each other better”. Trainees also experienced increased levels of motivation and positive affect in response to project work in the classroom. Pupils were “willing to devote time out of class without being told”; they enjoyed “expressing opinions and beliefs”; they had ownership and a sense of confidence about their work”. One trainee wrote, “There was a great deal of intrinsic motivation in the students, and immense satisfaction in me”. Asked to reflect on their student learning through the project experience, trainees commented on pupils’ emerging critical thinking and collaborative skills: the pupils were “able to consider different views and opinions before making a decision”, “able to analyze a situation from different angles before passing judgment”; they “learned to give feedback as they peer-evaluated each other’s work”, and “to listen to various ideas and to be receptive to all ideas during brainstorming.” Some trainees commented on their sense of pride is seeing what the pupils were capable of in project work: “getting my students to develop into thinking individuals”; “the products were so impressive”. When asked to reflect on their further training needs, trainees identified three areas: group management (“managing groups and facilitating discussions”); questioning skills (“I would like to train myself to ask more open-ended, or critical questions so as to get them reflecting on their tasks or progress instead of depending on the teacher”; and listening skills (“better listening skills so I can provide more effective feedback”). Discussion The project experience revealed a number of key strengths over the conventional approaches used in earlier modules. Work produced collaboratively in presentations and assignments was more ambitious in scope and more accomplished. It was also more creative and better presented. Class

6

motivation and classroom climate were noticeably more positive. This was evident in many ways — in the efforts groups made to meet and work in their own time, in the full attendance at class sessions, in the atmosphere of tolerant good humour and cooperation that prevailed through out discussions and presentations, in the pride trainees took in their productions, and in their interactions with the tutor. Trainees were more engaged than hitherto, not only in group discussions and in their project tasks, but as questioners and discussants in the audience. The project work also enabled trainees to reveal themselves to their peers and tutor as individuals, with backgrounds, strengths, interests and talents in a way that was not possible in the conventional teaching format. A perception exists in education literature that Asian students are “conformist”, “quiescent” and less “creative” as learners (Gopinathan, 1999). In the context of collaborative project work, however, these Singapore trainees certainly demonstrated exceptional creativity and productive “drive” as well as highly developed cooperative group skills. Unlike many “western” students, they settled speedily, pragmatically and pleasantly to the tasks; they stayed on task longer; their oral contributions within the groups were quietly explorative, additive and conciliatory rather than adversative or competitive. They seemed more tolerant of peers, and listened well. Furthermore, they were able to delegate and draw on highly developed IT skills that lifted the quality of their presentations and productions.

Conclusion Collaborative project work can be a powerful instructional method in teacher education. It provides opportunities for leadership, peer teaching and learning, and developing speaking competence and confidence. The approach may be more time-consuming, but is repaid in heightened interest, quality of learning, collaboration and creativity. In this case it gave trainees opportunities to develop and display their expertise and extend their personal strengths; to learn new skills from peers, and different ways of working and viewing issues; and to become theory builders and innovative practitioners. References Abrami, P.C., Chambers, B., Poulsen, C., De Simone, C., et al. (1995). Classroom connections: Understanding and using cooperative learning. Toronto: Harcourt Brace & Company. Barron, R. (1993). The year in review. In Reid, L. & Golub, J. (Eds.), Ideas for the working classroom: Classroom practices in teaching English. Vol 27. NCTE. Bennett, N., & Dunne, E. (1992). Managing classroom groups. London: Stanley Thornes, Breen, M. P. (1991). Understanding the language teacher. In R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman et al. (Eds.), Foreign/ Second Language Pedagogy Research (pp.213-233). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cohen, E. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1-35. Felhman, R. (1999). Activating the viewing process. In Reid, L. & Golub, J. (Eds), Reflective activities: helping students connect with texts. Vol 30. NCTE. Freeman, D. (1994). Knowing into doing: teacher education and the problem of transfer. In D.C.S. Li, D. Mahoney, J.C. Richards, (Eds.), Exploring Second Language Teacher Development (pp.175-193). Hong Kong: City Polytechnic of Hong Kong. Fried-Booth, D. L. (1997). Project Work. (8th Ed.) Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gopinathan, S. (1999). Preparing for the next rung: economic restructuring and educational reform in Singapore. Journal of Education and Work, 12(3), 295-307. Hillkirk, K. (1991). Cooperative learning in the teacher education curriculum. Education, 111, (4), 478-482. Hwong, N., Caswell, A., Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1993). Effects of cooperation and individualistic learning on prospective elementary music teachers’ music achievement and attitudes. Journal of Social Psychology, 133(1), 53-64.

7

Jacobs, G. & Hall, S. (2002). Implementing cooperative learning. In Richards, J. & Renandya, W. (Eds), Methodology in Language Teaching: an anthology of current practice (pp.94-106). London: Cambridge University Press. Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R.T. (1994). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. New York: Allyn and Bacon. & Johnson. Kain, D. (1999). Investigation Waltz, In Reflective activities: helping students connect with texts. Vol 30. NCTE. Katz, L. (1994). The Project Approach. ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education. ED368509. April 1994. Ledford, C. & Warren, L.L. (1997). Cooperative learning: Perceptions of preservice teachers. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 24(2), 105-107. Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: a Sociological Study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Moss, D. & van Duzer, C. 1998. Project-Based Learning for Adult English Language Learners. ERIC Digest, ED427556, December 1998. Nattiv, A., Winitzky, N., & Drickey, R. (1991). Using cooperative learning with preservice elementary and secondary education students. Journal of Teacher Education, 42(3), 216-225. Richards, J., Gallo, P., & Renandya, W. (2001). Exploring teachers’ beliefs and the processes of change. PAC, 1(1), 41-64. Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In Sikula, J., Buttery, T.J., Guyton, E. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education, (pp. 112-119). New York: Macmillan. Sharan, S. & Sharan, Y. (1992). Expanding Cooperative Learning Through Group Investigation. New York: Teacher's College Press, Columbia University. Sharan, S. (2000). Recent research on cooperative learning. IASCE, Spring 2000. Sharan, Y. (1994). Music of many voices: Group Investigation in a cooperative high school classroom. In Pederson, J. & Digby, A. (Eds) Cooperative Learning in the Secondary School: theory and practice, pp313-340. New York: Garland. Sharan, Y. (1998). Enriching the group and investigation in the intercultural classroom, European Journal of Intercultural Studies, 9(2), 1998, 133-140. Stoller, F.(2002). Project work: a means to promote language and content. In Richards, J. & Renandya, W. (Eds), Methodology in Language Teaching: an anthology of current practice (pp. 349-297). Cambridge University Press. van Voorhuis, J.L. (1991). Instruction in teacher education: a descriptive study of cooperative learning. ERIC Document No. ED. Veenman, S., van Benthum, N., Bootsma, D., van Dieran, J., and van der Memp, N. (2002). Cooperative learning and teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 2002, 87-103. Watson, B. (1995). Relinquishing the lectern: cooperative learning in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 46(3), 209-215. Wheeler, A. (1999). Distinguishing between the Myth and Reality of Self. In Reid, L. & Golub, J. (Eds.), Reflective activities: helping students connect with texts. Vol 30. NCTE. Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. London: Longman. Zongyi, D. & S. Gopinathan (2001). Research on teaching and teacher education in Singapore (1989-1999): Making a case for alternative research paradigms. APJE, 21(2)76-95.

Acknowledgement

The module described here was derived from a module originally designed by Ms Andrea Sweetman of NIE, Singapore, and adapted for project work. Copyright © 2003 J K Holst: The author assigns to HERDSA and educational non-profit institutions a non-exclusive licence to use this document for personal use and in courses of instruction provided that the article is used in full and this copyright statement is reproduced. The author also grants a non-exclusive licence to HERDSA to publish this document in full on the World Wide Web (prime sites and mirrors) on CD-ROM and in printed form within the HERDSA 2003 conference proceedings. Any other usage is prohibited without the express permission of the author.

8

9