Construction of Indicators of “How Teachers Support ” in Project-Based Learning(PBL)

doi:10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2023.08.009

Abstract

Abstract:

In the new teaching reform, whether teachers should provide support, to what extent, at what time and what types of support are the key issues in the transformation of learning and teaching from the perspective of competencies. Taking project-based learning as a typical method, based on the latest development of constructivism, effective failure, intervention research of project-based learning implementation, learning scaffolding and other theories, this paper forms the theoretical framework based on three key questions about how much support, when to support, and how to support. Based on the framework and the coding of teachers’ interview, the final indicators of how teachers support students in PBL were constructed and confirmed.

Key words: project-based learning, how teachers support, indicator

Xuemei Xia. Construction of Indicators of “How Teachers Support ” in Project-Based Learning(PBL)[J]. Journal of East China Normal University(Educational Sciences), 2023, 41(8): 90-102.

Figures/Tables 14

指标	描述
促进探究	1.1 呵护与维持学生在项目过程中的热情和主人翁意识 1.2 在学生学习停滞的时候，促进学生深入探索 1.3 在适当的时机引入问题解决的思维工具 1.4 促进学生形成多样的问题解决思路 1.5 引导学生采用适合这一领域实践的方式去探究 1.6 引导学生比较、反思不同的问题解决思维路径
评估知识	2.1 指向综合的项目目标，运用包括传统方法在内的多样的评价方法 2.2 定期运用过程性的评价节点给个体、团队有效反馈 2.3 和学生共同研讨确定好的成果意味着什么 2.4 运用成果标准促进学习过程中的自我评价和同伴评价 2.5 引入真实专家、工具、标准等共同参与评价
深化概念	3.1 通过追问、反思、对话、质疑、引导同伴评论等使学生不断回到项目目标中的核心概念 3.2 支持学生暴露自己的先前观点，通过分析和比较，解释和精细化等支持，将学生粗糙的日常经验转化为精确的概念 3.3 引导学生建立知识之间、知识与项目之间的联系，增强理解力 3.4 让学生经历有效失败，不超前预设，不在项目开始之前提前讲授，推迟教师的概念指导，直到学生对挑战性问题有全局性探索 3.5 在真实世界中提供更多概念的类型和在新情境中迁移概念的机会
塑造文化	4.1 尊重每位学生提出的意见，重视所有学生的积极参与 4.2 让学生理解，没有唯一的“正确答案”，他们可以在项目中冒险、犯错误并从中学习 4.3 鼓励学生提出问题、质疑、产生新想法、提出猜想 4.4 引导学生形成自主探究和合作探究的心态，对自己和团队负责 4.5 鼓励学生形成“成长心态”，教师不以成果的精致程度为标准，将赞美和认可集中在学生的努力、毅力、克服困难的策略以及整个改进过程上 4.6 教师强调项目的质量和对学生有合理的高期望，要求学生对项目成果和过程负责任，要学生解释或证明自己的思想

References 0

	夏雪梅. (2018). 项目化学习设计: 学习素养视角下的国际与本土实践. 北京: 教育科学出版社.
	夏雪梅. (2020). 项目化学习的实施: 学习素养视角下的中国建构. 北京: 教育科学出版社.
	Barron, B. J., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., & Bransford, J. D Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem-and project-based learning Journal of the Learning Sciences 1998 7 3-4 271 311 Barron, B. J., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem-and project-based learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3-4), 271—311. doi: 10.1080/10508406.1998.9672056
	Barron, B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Teaching for meaningful learning: A review of research on inquiry-based and cooperative learning (PDF). In Powerful Learning: What We Know About Teaching for Understanding. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
	Buck Institute for Education. (n. d.). Gold Standard PBL: Essential Project Design Elements[EB/OL]. [2021-05-06]. Retrieved from https://www.pblworks.org/what-is-pbl/gold-standard-project-design.
	Condliffe, B., Quint, J., Visher, M., Bangser, M., Drohojowska, S., Saco, L. & Nelson, E. (2017). Project-Based Learning: A Literature Review (Working Paper). Retrieved from https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/Project-Based_Learning-LitRev_Final.pdf.
	Dahlgren, M., Castensson, R., & Dahlgren, L PBL from the Teachers’ Perspective: Conceptions of the Tutor’s Role within Problem Based Learning Higher Education 1998 4 437 447 Dahlgren, M., Castensson, R., & Dahlgren, L. (1998). PBL from the Teachers’ Perspective: Conceptions of the Tutor’s Role within Problem Based Learning. Higher Education, 4, 437—447.
	Gresalfi, M. S., & Lester, F. (2009). What’s Worth Knowing in Mathematics?. In Constructivist Instruction (pp. 276−302). Routledge.
	Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Barrows, H. S Goals and Strategies of a Problem-based Learning Facilitator Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning 2006 1 1 4 Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Barrows, H. S. (2006). Goals and Strategies of a Problem-based Learning Facilitator. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1), 4.
	Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A Scaffolding and Achievement in Problem-based and Inquiry Learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark Educational Psychologist 2007 42 2 99 107 Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and Achievement in Problem-based and Inquiry Learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99—107. doi: 10.1080/00461520701263368
	Jacobson M. J., Kim B., Pathak S., Zhang B. H., To Guide or Not to Guide: Issues in the Sequencing of Pedagogical Structure in Computational Model-Based Learning Interactive Learning Environments 2013 23 6 715 730 Jacobson M. J., Kim B., Pathak S., Zhang B. H.,. (2013). To Guide or Not to Guide: Issues in the Sequencing of Pedagogical Structure in Computational Model-Based Learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(6), 715—730.
	Kapur M Examining Productive Failure, Productive Success, Unproductive Failure, and Unproductive Success in Learning Educational Psychologist 2016 51 2 289 299 Kapur M. (2016). Examining Productive Failure, Productive Success, Unproductive Failure, and Unproductive Success in Learning. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 289—299. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2016.1155457
	Kapur, M., & Bielaczyc, K Designing for Productive Failure Journal of the Learning Sciences 2012 21 1 45 83 Kapur, M., & Bielaczyc, K. (2012). Designing for Productive Failure. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(1), 45—83. doi: 10.1080/10508406.2011.591717
	Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E Why Unguided Learning Does not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Discovery Learning, Problem-based Learning, Experiential Learning and Inquiry-based Learning Educational Psychologist 2006 41 2 75 86 Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why Unguided Learning Does not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Discovery Learning, Problem-based Learning, Experiential Learning and Inquiry-based Learning. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75—86. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
	Kittell, J. E An Experimental Study of the Effect of External Direction During Learning on Transfer and Retention of Principles Journal of Educational Psychology 1957 48 7 391 405 Kittell, J. E. (1957). An Experimental Study of the Effect of External Direction During Learning on Transfer and Retention of Principles. Journal of Educational Psychology, 48(7), 391—405. doi: 10.1037/h0046792
	Krajcik, J. S., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E Inquiry in Project-based Science Classrooms: Initial Attempts by Middle School Students The Journal of the Learning Sciences 1998 7 313 350 Krajcik, J. S., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in Project-based Science Classrooms: Initial Attempts by Middle School Students. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 313—350. doi: 10.1080/10508406.1998.9672057
	Krajcik, J. S., & Shin, N. (2014). Project-based Learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.). The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (2nd ed. , pp. 275−297). Cambridge University Press.
	Krajcik, J. S., Czerniak, C., & Berger, C. (1999). Teaching Children Science: A Project-based Approach. McGraw-Hill Humanities, Social Sciences & World Languages.
	Mayer, R. E. Should There Be a Three-strikes Rule Against Pure Discovery Learning? American Psychologist 2004 59 1 14 Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should There Be a Three-strikes Rule Against Pure Discovery Learning?. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14.
	Miller, C., Lehman, J., & Koedinger, K Goals and Learning in Microworlds Cognitive Science 1999 23 305 336 Miller, C., Lehman, J., & Koedinger, K. (1999). Goals and Learning in Microworlds. Cognitive Science, 23, 305—336. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog2303_2
	Paas, F Training Strategies for Attaining Transfer of Problem-solving Skill in Statistics: A Cognitive-load Approach Journal of Educational Psychology 1992 84 429 434 Paas, F. (1992). Training Strategies for Attaining Transfer of Problem-solving Skill in Statistics: A Cognitive-load Approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 429—434. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.429
	Pea, R The Social and Technological Dimensions of Scaffolding and Related Theoretical Concepts for Learning, Education, and Human Activity The Journal of the Learning Sciences 2004 13 3 423 445 Pea, R. (2004). The Social and Technological Dimensions of Scaffolding and Related Theoretical Concepts for Learning, Education, and Human Activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423—445. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls1303_6
	Petrosino, A. J. (1998). The Use of Reflection and Revision in Hands-on Experimental Activities by At-risk Children. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.
	Quilici, J. L., & Mayer, R. E Role of Examples in How Students Learn to Aategorize Statistics Word Problems Journal of Educational Psychology 1996 88 144 161 Quilici, J. L., & Mayer, R. E. (1996). Role of Examples in How Students Learn to Aategorize Statistics Word Problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 144—161. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.88.1.144
	Reiser, B. J Scaffolding Complex Learning: The Mechanisms of Structuring Andproblematizing Student Work The Journal of the Learning Sciences 2004 13 273 304 Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding Complex Learning: The Mechanisms of Structuring Andproblematizing Student Work. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 273—304. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls1303_2
	Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., McLearn, R. S., Swallow, J., & Woodruff, E Computer Supported Intentional Learning Environments Journal of Educational Computing Research 1989 5 51 68 Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., McLearn, R. S., Swallow, J., & Woodruff, E. (1989). Computer Supported Intentional Learning Environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5, 51—68. doi: 10.2190/CYXD-6XG4-UFN5-YFB0
	Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D A Time for Telling Cognition and Instruction 1998 16 4 475 5223 Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A Time for Telling. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 475—5223. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci1604_4
	Song Y. J., & Kapur M. How to Flip the Classroom – “Productive Failure or Traditional Flipped Classroom” Pedagogical Design? Journal of Educational Technology & Society 2017 20 1 292 305 Song Y. J., & Kapur M. (2017). How to Flip the Classroom – “Productive Failure or Traditional Flipped Classroom” Pedagogical Design?. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(1), 292—305.
	Sweller, J., Kirschner, P. A., & Clark, R. E Why Minimally Guided Teaching Techniques Do Not Work: A Reply to Commentaries Educational Psychologist 2007 42 2 115 121 Sweller, J., Kirschner, P. A., & Clark, R. E. (2007). Why Minimally Guided Teaching Techniques Do Not Work: A Reply to Commentaries. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 115—121. doi: 10.1080/00461520701263426
	Thomas, J. W. (2000). A Review of Research on Project-Based Learning. Retrieved from http://www.bobpearlman.org/BestPractices/PBL_Research.pdf.
	Tobias, S. and T. M. Duffy, T. M. (2009) . Constructivist Theory Applied to Instruction: Success or Failure? NY: Routledge.
	Wickens, C. D. (1992). Engineering Psychology and Human Performance (2nd ed.). HarperCollins Publishers.
	Wise, A. F., & O’Neill, K. (2009). Beyond More Versus Less: A Reframing of the Debate on Instructional Guidance. In S. Tobias, & T. M. Duffy (Eds). Constructivist Instruction: Success or Failure? (pp. 82−105). Routledge.
	Woods, D. R. Problem-oriented Learning, Problem-Based Learning, Problem-based Synthesis, Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning, Peer-led Team Learning, Model-eliciting Activities, and Project-based Learning: Which is Best for You? Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research 2014 53 13 5337 5354 Woods, D. R. (2014). Problem-oriented Learning, Problem-Based Learning, Problem-based Synthesis, Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning, Peer-led Team Learning, Model-eliciting Activities, and Project-based Learning: Which is Best for You?. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research, 53(13), 5337—5354.

序号	项目类型	项目经验	学科	年段
001	学科项目	3年	数学	小学
002	跨学科项目	1年	英语	小学
003	活动项目	5年	探究	小学
004	跨学科项目/活动项目	3年	美术/劳技	小学
005	学科项目	5年	数学	中学
006	跨学科项目	2年	数学	中学
007	跨学科项目	5年	科学	小学
008	学科项目/跨学科项目	6年	英语	中学
009	学科项目	5年	语文	小学
010	学科项目	5年	语文	中学
011	活动项目/跨学科项目	4年	科学	中学
012	学科项目	5年	化学	中学
013	学科项目	2年	艺术	小学

一级指标/二级指标	节点
教师支持	98
促进探究	32
评价反馈	37
深化概念	8
塑造文化	21

一级指标	二级指标
促进探究	1.1 维持学生对项目的动力、规则和主人翁意识 1.2 支持学生自主探究 1.3 引导学生交流讨论多种问题的解决思路 1.4 支持学生真实地解决问题 1.5 在适当的时机引入问题解决工具
评估知识	2.1 评价同时指向知识、能力、态度等多个目标维度 2.2 运用过程性评价，在不同的阶段给个体、团队有效反馈 2.3 运用评价标准促进学生反思与修订 2.4 引入真实世界的评价实践
深化概念	3.1 通过追问、提炼、总结、引导讨论等方法促进学生理解概念 3.2 推迟教师讲授正确概念的时机 3.3 引导学生建立知识与项目情境的联系
塑造文化	4.1 尊重所有学生 4.2 营造鼓励提问、质疑、试错的文化 4.3 营造鼓励倾听、合作的文化 4.4 营造自主负责、严谨的文化 4.5 形成指向项目的真实探究文化

项目	分组	频数	频率
年段	小学	102	57.30%
	初中	76	42.70%
任教学科	文科类	94	52.81%
	理科类	84	47.19%
教龄	1～5年	49	27.53%
	6～10年	47	26.40%
	11～20年	53	29.78%
	20年以上	29	16.29%
实施项目个数	1个	92	51.69%
	2～3个	68	38.20%
	4～6个	15	8.43%
	7～10个	2	1.12%
	11个及以上	1	0.56%

项目	分组	频数	频率
年段	小学	113	59.47%
	初中	77	40.53%
任教学科	文科类	98	51.58%
	理科类	92	48.42%
教龄	1～5年	56	29.47%
	6～10年	49	25.79%
	11～20年	54	28.42%
	20年以上	31	16.32%
实施项目个数	1个	99	52.11%
	2～3个	72	37.89%
	4～6个	16	8.42%
	7～10个	2	1.05%
	11个及以上	1	0.53%