01.Professional Learning and Development
Paper
Exploring Teachers Experiences in Working with Gender Responsive History Teaching Resource Pack through PBL
Hasmik Kyureghyan, Talin Saghdasaryan
Paradigma Educational Foundation, Armenia
Presenting Author: Kyureghyan, Hasmik;
Saghdasaryan, Talin
This study is an exploratory study that looks at teachers’ experiences of using the history resource pack through Project Based Learning. The study was done in the framework of an experimental project carried out with 30 public school history teachers in Armenia. The teachers were all female, with almost equal representation from all regions in Armenia.
In 2021, the Paradigma Educational Foundation started an initiative of developing resources to help teachers teach under-explored sections of Armenian history, including gender-sensitive topics and women’s role in Armenian history, through the lens of active historical thinking (Metzger and Harris, 2018; Seixas 2015). To that end, the foundation developed an innovative history-teaching resource pack called “History #5”. Therefore, this paper reports the finding of the study done to explore the practices of teachers with the resource pack in developing active historical thinking skills and multiperspectivity, as well as discussing gender-sensitive topics. The project was run in collaboration with UNICEF Armenia and the National Center for Education Development and Innovation.
The aim of the study was to explore teachers’ experiences of teaching with the resource pack through PBL and their practices of dealing with gender-sensitive topics. The study also aimed at identifying the affordances and constraints of the resource pack for further improvement.
The “History#5” resource pack is a history-teaching resource based on the theories of active historical thinking and multiperspectivity. Active historical thinking as a theory developed at the end of the 1970s in the UK, USA, Canada, and Germany (Metzger and Harris, 2018) and has been internationally spread through the work of Peter Seixas (Seixas, 2015). Active historical thinking theory holds that history teaching and learning should aim at helping students: Establish historical significance; Use primary source evidence; Identify continuity and change; Analyze cause and consequence; Take historical perspectives; and Understand the ethical dimension of historical interpretations.
Multiperspectivity is based on the constructivist approaches of the Nouvelle Histoire movement. It assumes that “we too have a perspective which has been filtered through our own cultural context, reflects our own standpoint and interpretation of what has happened and why, our own view of what is and is not relevant, and may also reflect other prejudices and biases” (Stradling, 2003, p.14).
In the course of the project teachers used the resource pack through project-based learning, as it helps students develop key knowledge and skills (Larmer et. al, 2015). Moreover, using PBL is required by the new national curriculum. Within history teaching, that means the development of active historical thinking concepts and multiperspectivity, as well as encouraging student-centered experiential learning (Kolb, 2015), and a facilitator role for the teacher through scaffolding (first introduced by Wood, Bruner and Ross, 1976).
Therefore, studying this new resource pack through PBL aims at contributing to the knowledge base of history teaching and provides implications for policymakers, history educators, teachers, and the organizations working in the field. Moreover, it seeks to contribute to an understanding of the teachers’ motivation for using the resource pack, challenges and opportunities associated with the pack, its sensitive topics, and PBL. Thus, to achieve this aim this study employs a qualitative methodology and sets out to answer the following research questions:
-
What were the experiences of teachers doing project-based learning through the use of the “History#5” resource pack and the project-based learning guide developed to assist project implementation?
-
What were the experiences of teachers while discussing the gender-sensitive topics of the “History #5” resource pack and questions arising during the project?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis study employed a qualitative methodology to reach desired outcomes which is influenced by research questions (Crotty, 1998). As a research strategy it was broadly interpretivist (Bryman, 2012). It was an exploratory study as the use of the resource pack through PBL and gender sensitive topics was a completely new context for teachers thus firstly there was a need to explore the experiences and perspective of teachers.
30 teachers participated in the project. The teachers were invited by the “Paradigma” Educational Foundation: of the initially invited 60 teachers, who had previously participated in history education projects with the foundation, 30 replied and joined the project.
To fully answer the research questions the data was generated from the three surveys that included both qualitative and quantitative questions and semi-structured interviews. The questions were directed toward revealing the teachers’ experiences thus most of them were qualitative in nature. The surveys were sent to all participants and had a response rate of around 70% in average.
The first survey was conducted in the beginning of the project asking about teachers' expectations around project-based learning, and their assumptions of how gender-sensitive the topics are. The second survey was done in the middle of the projects and was asking teachers to reflect on their experiences so far, the roles they and their students have within that, and the dynamics of their roles. The third survey was conducted at the of the project and included questions about the usefulness of project-based learning in developing historical thinking concepts and discussion gender-sensitive topics, the main difficulties of the project, and what their perception of their students’ experiences were.
The semi-structured interviews were conducted following Kvale’s approach which allowed flexibility depending on participants’ responses (Kvale, 2007, Charmaz, 2014). Interviews were reflective in nature and revealed participating teachers' experiences and perspectives. To choose the interview participants, a question was added in the second survey that asked for voluntary participation in an interview. Of the 14 teachers who consented to go through an interview, 5 were chosen through purposive sampling (Babbie, 2007). For the purpose of gaining detailed reflections the teachers who provided more details and content-rich data in the survey were purposely selected and invited to participate in the semi-structured interview. The interviews were recorded and then transcribed using name tags to ensure anonymity.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsTwo datasets (surveys and interviews) responses were read and re-read to identify patterns and themes, and to develop a set of codes. The qualitative data from the surveys were analysed thematically. 32 codes were generated which were categorised within 3 broad themes such as i) Positive aspects of the project, ii) Challenges of the project and iii) Opportunities for improvement.
The coding of interview data revealed ten focused codes which were categorised within four themes, which are: i) Satisfaction from the resource pack and PBL, ii) the challenges of using the resource pack and the PBL, iii) sensitive topics and stereotypes, and iv) need for continuous learning.
The results of this study indicate that the teachers have had positive experiences using resource pack through PBL. Although teachers explicitly mention the challenges they faced during the project, that did not hinder them from having a positively unique learning experience from the project.
The data analysis shows that the main difficulties noted by the teachers are based on a lack of experience of working with the methods and topics used in the project: for example, difficulties around finding the required material, language of resources (Western Armenian vs Eastern Armenian), research skills were lacking. They also noted difficulties of working with primary historical resources, grouping of students, planning and facilitating project-based learning effectively.
As for the second research question on sensitive topics, the data revealed that teachers avoided engaging and/or guiding the discussions on gender sensitive topics, mostly because of lack of relevant knowledge and skills.
The research findings highlight that the participants are willing to work with the resource pack and PBL in general however taking into account the workload it requires they find it difficult and require more opportunities for future learning, development and practice.
ReferencesBabbi, E. (2007). The Basics of Social Research, 4th Edition. Wadsworth Publishing.
Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. SAGE. London.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Sage Publications.
Kolb, D.A. (2015) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. 2nd Edition, Pearson Education, Inc.
Kvale, S. (2007). Conducting an interview. In Qualitative Research kit: Doing interviews (pp. 52-66). SAGE Publications Ltd doi: 10.4135/9781849208963.n5
Larmer, J., Mergendoller, J.R. and Boss, S. (2015). Setting the standard for Project Based Learning: A proven approach to rigorous classroom instruction. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Metzger, S.A. and Harris, L.M. (2018). Introduction. In The Wiley International Handbook of History Teaching and Learning (eds S.A. Metzger and L.M. Harris). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119100812.ch0
Seixas, P. (2017). A Model of Historical Thinking, Educational Philosophy and Theory, 49:6, 593-605, DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2015.1101363
Stradling, R. (2003). Multiperspectivity in history teaching: a guide for teachers. Council of Europe. Germany.
Tompson, K.J. and Beak, J. (2007). The Leadership Book Enhancing the Theory-Practice Connection Through Project-Based Learning. Journal of Management Education 31(2):278-291
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 17(2), 89–100.
01.Professional Learning and Development
Paper
Professional Learning and Pedagogical Development in Primary Education: Problem-based Learning as a Driver for Professional Development
Nikolaj Stegeager, Helle Korsgaard, Trine Lindvig Thomsen
Aalborg University, Denmark
Presenting Author: Stegeager, Nikolaj;
Korsgaard, Helle
This paper reports on a pilot project in a public school (pupils aged 6-16) in a small municipality regarding a school development project that the authors have developed and facilitated in the school year 21/22. The goal of the project was to create knowledge about how to foster teacher development through an intervention centered around Professional Learning Communities (Stoll, et al., 2006; Doagan & Adams, 2018) and Action Learning (Aubusson, 2012; Revans, 1998). More specifically, the project sought to fulfill the ambition of the school administration who wanted problem-based and project-organized learning (PBL) to be the focal point for a pedagogical and organizational reorientation of the public schools in the municipality. A reorientation that held the potential to improve student motivation as well as increase the schools’ ability to develop students’ understanding of the world around them and foster their acquisition of 21st century skills (OECD, 2019) – a goal that is shared widely in the primary educational sector across Europe and described in the European Councils recommendation on key competences for lifelong learning (European Council, 2018).
PBL is an international recognized pedagogical approach. Evidence for PBL’s effectiveness in improving stu-
Dents’ outcomes is promising although further research is still needed (Condliffe, 2017; Grant & Tamim, 2019). PBL can be organised in many different ways and in very diverse settings. However, across the research literature there is general agreement on the common characteristics that form the basis of PBL in education (Barrows 1996; de Graaff & Kolmos 2007; Savin-Baden & Major 2004). As such, PBL is characterised by the following principles:
- Learning is organised around real and complex problems that links theory to practice
- The nature of the academic work that students produce is authentic
- Knowledge is constructed through active learning processes
- Learning is a social phenomenon based on students’ active participation and involvement
- Learning takes place in small groups in order to achieve a goal only reachable through collaboration
- Teachers acts as facilitators of learning
- Students take responsibility for identifying own learning needs and organizing own learning path.
The full paper describes the concrete background for the competence development project as well as the didactic and practical considerations behind the design. Through countless research projects, organizational researchers have documented the difficulties of implementing successful organizational change (Beer & Nohria, 2000; Hughes, 2011). Educational institutions are in no way more susceptible to change than other organizations - rather the contrary (Burner, 2018). However, Fullan (2011), points to four conditions that, if met, provides initiatives aimed at promoting educational change a greater probability of success:
- Cultivate the intrinsic motivation of teachers and students
- Engage teachers and students in continuous improvement of teaching and learning
- Inspire cooperation and teamwork
- Be sure to involve all teachers and students
Based on Fullan’s four principles and Hargreaves & Shirleys (2020) notion of Leading from the Middle, small groups of teachers met once a month with a university facilitator to develop pedagogical PBL-based experiments which were subsequently tried out in class and finally evaluated at the next meeting in the learning group. After one year, the project was subject to a quantitative evaluation through a survey questionnaire. Finally, focus group interviews with teachers and managers were conducted (interviews with students is to be completed in Spring 2023). The research question that the project sought to answer was:
Are the principles behind theories of Professional Learning Communities, Action Learning and Problem-based Learning an effective way to foster pedagogical development for teachers in all subjects and classes simultaneously in primary education?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe study is based on qualitative and quantitative data. By the end of the project, a questionnaire survey (Martin, 2006) was administered to all participants (N=30), who were asked about their perception on changes in own learning and practice as well as the benefit for the students. Furthermore, two focus group interviews (Morgan, 2001) were conducted with eight teachers (four in each group) and one focus group interview was conducted with the school management team (3 persons). The interview guides were partly based on answers and themes from the questionnaire survey, partly theoretical concepts from the research literature. Interviews lasted approximately one hour.
Interviews were subsequently transcribed and coded. All authors used an inductive approach to search for themes and provide preliminary codes (Coffey & Atkinson, 1996) of both the questionnaire data and the interview transcriptions. The authors compared and discussed the themes and the coding until consensus was obtained regarding themes and codes. The primary inspiration for the coding was a four-phase matrix model developed by Glaser & Strauss (1967): Conceptualization of the overall theme, rough division of data into general categories, division into subcategories and further division into finer categories. In this case, the data was categorized into four broad categories, ten subcategories, and fifty-three finer categories. Furthermore, the finer categories were analyzed based on Boeije's (2002) five-step approach to continuous comparison, where he emphasizes the importance of looking for patterns, or in other words for combinations of categories or codes (Ibid., 397). The data underwent several rounds of comparing and contrasting established patterns and representative quotations for reporting the themes were assigned (Miles et al., 2018).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsFrom the questionnaire we see that the teachers believe that PBL fits as a teaching approach in all educational subjects. However, even though all teachers feel that the training course has provided them with the necessary skills and tools to implement PBL they differ in their perception of the applicability of the approach. In this regard answers indicate that teachers within humanistic subjects and teachers in the younger classes (age six to nine) find it more difficult to apply the PBL principles than natural science teachers and teachers in the older classes.
The qualitative interviews center around four basic themes: Teacher learning, Student learning, Professional Learning Communities & organizational learning. The interviews confirm and elaborate the findings from the questionnaire. The teachers report on changes in their professional role and identity and how their teaching style has shifted from transmission of knowledge to facilitation of learning. Furthermore, they describe how the fact that all teachers have worked simultaneously with the project has led to a change in organizational culture. Best illustrated through all the physical learning objects that are displayed throughout the hallways of the school. Moreover, teachers detect a change in their internal communication and their collaborative approach to pedagogical development brought forward by the dialogues in the professional learning communities. Overall, the teachers express a positive attitude towards the full-scale educational change approach based on the principles of Professional Learning Communities and Action Learning. However, they also raise concerns about questions of economy, resources, national legislation, different learning perspectives and whether it is possible to retain the established communities of practice when support from the professional learning consultants cease.
In our conference presentation we shall further elaborate on these perspectives for us to be able to answer the problem statement of this paper.
ReferencesAubusson, P., Ewing, R. & Hoban, G. (2012). Action learning in schools: Reframing teachers' professional learning and development. Routledge.
Barrows, H. S. (1996). Problem‐based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview. New directions for teaching and learning, (68), 3-12.
Beycioglu, K. & Kondakci, Y. (2021). Organizational change in schools. ECNU Review of Education, 4(4), 788-807.
Boeije, H. (2002). A purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the analysis of qualitative interviews. Quality and Quantity, 36, 391-409.
Burner, T. (2018). Why is educational change so difficult and how can we make it more effective. Forskning og forandring, 1(1), 122-134.
Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data: Complementary research strategies. Sage Publications, Inc.
Condliffe, B., Visher, M. G., Bangser, M. R., Drohojowska, S. & Saco, L. (2016). Project-based learning: A literature review, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED578933.pdf
De Graaff, E., & Kolmos, A. (2007). Management of Change: Implementation of Problem-Based and Project-Based Learning in engineering. Sense Publishers.
European Council (2018, May 22). lifelong learning. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32018H0604(01)&from=EN
Fullan, M. (2011). Choosing the wrong drivers for whole system reform. Victoria: Centre for Strategic Education.
Glaser, B. and Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Aldine.
Grant, M. M., & Tamim, S. R. (2019). PBL in K–12 Education. In Moallem, M., Hung, W. & Dabbagh, N. (Eds.). The Wiley handbook of problem-based learning. John Wiley & Sons, 221-243.
Hargreaves, A. & Shirley, D. (2020). Leading from the middle: its nature, origins and importance. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 5(1), 92-114.
Hughes, M. (2011). Do 70 per cent of all organizational change initiatives really fail? Journal of change management, 11(4), 451-464.
Martin, E. (2006). Survey questionnaire construction. Survey methodology, 13, 2006.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M. & Saldaña, J. (2018). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Sage publications.
Morgan, D. L. (2001). Focus group interviewing. In Gubrium, J. F. & Holstein, J. A. (2001). Handbook of interview research: Context and method. Sage Publications, 141-159.
OECD (2019). OECD Future of Education and Skills - Learning Compass 2030 – A series of Concept Notes. Paris: OECD.
Revans, R. (1998). ABC of Action Learning. Empowering Managers to Act and to Learn from Action. Lemos & Crane.
Savin-Baden, M. & Major, C. H. (2004). Foundations of Problem-based Learning. McGraw-hill Education.
Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M. & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221–258.
01.Professional Learning and Development
Paper
Enhancing the Skills of Judging Information Relevance While Working with Project-based Learning.
Gulzada Zhanzhigitova1, Nartay Chultukov1, Mukkadas Mirzakhmetova1, Saken Nurzhautov2
1Nazarbayev Intellectual school, Kazakhstan, Turkestan; 2Center of Pedagogical Excellence
Presenting Author: Chultukov, Nartay
Abstract
With continuous development of the Internet, learners are overwhelmed by information flow which is available and sometimes accurate if filtered properly. During our experience of implementing different projects with Nazarbayev Intellectual School students, we noticed that they tend to find most of the information on the Web, but not necessarily criticizing it or checking for relevance to what they’re looking for. For that reason, as an Action research group, we took an aim to enhance learners’ skills of judging information for relevance while implementing project-based learning thereby improving their reading literacy.
Project-based-learning (PBL), as it is called, stands for a teaching method in which students learn by actively engaging in projects. The concept of PBL is similar to the notion of “knowledge building” launched by Bereiter and Scardamalia. Students are focused because they are creating a product or building something that reflects their dedication and passion.
The definition of PBL in Blumenfeld’s publication (1991) which discussed the effectiveness of project-based learning and motivation, PBL is a set of drive activities that culminate in a final product. Moreover, a question or a problem is set before the project begins and the solution is found by the end of the project. Analyzing the nature of PBL through different scientific articles we decided that implementing PBL would be advantageous as it matched perfectly with my goals to improve my students’ digital literacy, searching and sorting skills. Thus, we linked research to PBL as conducting research and doing projects is essential for their further academic life, development of problem-solving, critical analysis, communication and evaluation skills.
Defining the problem:
Though conducting research and working on a project might seem appealing and engaging, there are hurdles which students can be faced with. First of all, they find it challenging to identify the relevance of the data they collected to their project goals and research questions which may in turn take them off the track if not guided or given support. Students usually have problems:
While working with data from the internet:
-
students write full sentences to a search engine thinking that more they write, more accurate information will show up;
-
students trust a search engine that may return hundreds of unreliable documents;
-
students hope that one or two listed on the first page will be relevant;
-
students limit their research with one or two sources;
While working with data they collected from their surveys, interviews, experiments:
-
they think every information they collected is relevant to their project. Therefore they struggle with sorting information which includes evidence and facts
-
students struggle with contracting open-ended questions;
-
after every new information students tend to shift from their initial goal.
-
students focus on irrelevant, additional information rather than relevant data.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedMethodology
Action research is accepted as a method in which teachers become researchers of their own practice. This method allows teachers to test hypotheses in the real world. Action research
usually starts with a question or a problem that teachers and the main advantage of this method is that it is done by observing, evaluating and modifying the situation.
The main stages of Action research are: planning, acting, observing, reflecting. In order to guide the research process, the research plan is elaborated. With an aim to undertake the first stage, a group of two English teachers, a teacher of mathematics (in a vice-principal position) and a manager of the Center of Pedagogical excellence developed a plan and outlined what to undertake, when and how. The common problem was lack of data processing skills in learners which resulted in poor judgment of whether the information they found is relevant or not to their search. The Action research group aimed at improving the situation and getting positive outcomes such as formation of focused search skill; improving students’ e-literacy; data processing skills.
Bearing that in mind, after a planning stage, as a group, we immediately started the action: we created projects on different topics related to their curriculum (projects on environmental issues, reading literacy, well-being of teenagers, etc). We included 5-6 students in each group and students started working on their projects (they had to work with data). The group of teachers observed students while they were working with data: collecting, processing and checking for relevance. Students conducted their own surveys, wrote literature reviews on the given issues. They came up with their solution or a product at the end of the project and the teachers observed, recorded and took notes over some time. Continuous work with other teachers in the group has brought positive results. Reflecting on the gathered data, the teachers took some steps to help learners improve their data processing skill:
narrowing students’ research and making their research topic specific;
explaining students the basic rules of constructing sentences for surveys.
ensure that the information they found is relevant, valid, and comprehensive.
It is important to question the assumptions that are often overlooked and this can then lead to a new action-reflection cycle. For that reason, we went through the stages of Action research (planning, action, observation, reflection) several times in order to avoid bias.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsOutcomes:
If students acquire the basics of data processing simultaneously implementing their projects, they will master functional literacy which refers to the set of skills of searching, using, adapting, creating and using information for communication and action (Rosenblatt 1995, 2005). One of the essential anticipated outcomes of the research is that students may achieve high results in PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) tests. Having acquired these skills of data processing, after graduating school students will meet the requirements of leading companies in the global market.
ReferencesReferences
1.Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future, The Clearing House, 83, 39–43.
2.Colliver, J. (2000). Effectiveness of problem-based learning curricula, Academic Medicine 75, 259–266.
3.Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P. and Gijbels, D. (2003) Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis, Learning and Instruction 13(5), 533–568
4.Godden, D.R. and Baddeley, A.D. (1975). Context-dependent memory in two natural environments: On land and underwater. British Journal of Psychology 66, 325–331.
5.John Larmer and John R. Mergendoller (2010). The Effectiveness of Problem-Based Instruction: A Comparative Study of Instructional Methods and Student Characteristics
a.https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/ijpbl/article/view/28108
6.Helle, L., Tynjala, P., & Olkinuora, E. (2006). Project-Based Learning in Post-Secondary Education—Theory, Practice and Rubber Sling Shots. Higher Education
7.Lave, E. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8.Norman, G.R. and Schmidt, H.G. (2000). Effectiveness of problem-based learning curricula: Theory, practice and paper darts, Medical Education 34, 721–728
9.OECD Reports (2015). Reviews of School Resources: Kazakhstan
10.Phyllis C. Blumenfeld, Elliot Soloway, Ronald W. Marx, Joseph S. Krajcik, Mark Guzdial & Annemarie Palincsar (1991) Motivating Project-Based Learning: Sustaining the Doing, Supporting the Learning, Educational Psychologist, 26:3-4, 369-398
Teasley, S. and Roschelle, J. (1993). Constructing a joint problem space: The computer as a tool for sharing knowledge, in Lajoie, S.P. and Derry, S.J. (eds.), Computers as Cognitive Tools Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 229–257.
|
