BACK TO PROJECT BASED LEARNING BLOGS
By: Andrew Larson, High School PBL Facilitator
Columbus Signature Academy New Tech High School
Columbus, IN
My friend Jonathan Nesci is an artist and furniture designer. His style is modern and minimalistic, and his results are phenomenal-- beautiful, elegant and functional pieces of furniture that cost a lot of money. We were talking one day about his design process, which he remarked is driven by constraints, usually geometric ones. As a rule, his adherence to these constraints is not an option.
Nesci says that, “constraints are what makes something good; they are the problems that you solve to make it your own. We all are given immense variables in life and no two of our problems are scientifically the same. Design thinking really gives the author permission to answer the problems according to their constraints.”
I started to think about how this outlook applies to my Project Based Learning world at Columbus Signature Academy New Tech High School.
Every educator knows that students need boundaries for behavior, especially those that do not have them at home. Most of us can point to a student who, in one context, might be a real behavior issue and in a different context, with tighter boundaries, behave far better. One of the misconceptions about PBL (Project Based Learning) is that it is a free- for- all, where students are left to explore in a purely constructivist mode that is determined entirely on their own. I would contend that PBL is not that at all, but is instead done with the best results when constraints are present and clearly understood.
Constraints can be liberating
My friend Rachelle Antcliff has a saying about academic standards. She says, “I love standards. I see them and think, ‘Is this all I have to teach?’” The content standards are the most basic form of constraints; they are literally the minimum proficiencies for student achievement. PBL empowers students to actually do something with that information.
It is hopefully obvious that standards are the basis upon which all projects are designed, and that design work is the job of the professional educator. No one in their right mind would have a one-year course where students were expected to learn the standards in a sequence or level of depth that they determine for themselves, right?
My friend and colleague Ryan Steuer wrote a how-to guide for creating PBL projects. While there is more than one way to design a project, it is almost universal that “Phase II” of any good project is where the “Solution Criteria” (read: constraints) are made clear to students. Once students understand the goal of a particular project (Phase I) the very next step is that they know what their boundaries are.
In just about every project I have ever done with students, at least one student needs to know “what is it that we are actually supposed to do, and how?” All they really want is clarity on my expectations. In concrete terms, this might be where students are given rubrics for content or process. Some advocate for a brief period of time “out of the box” before students get thinking in the box. This is fine by me. Sometimes, though, the faces go slack when you have to break it to students that their big ideas will not fit within the constraints that you need to give them. I hate having to tell students “yes, but…” just a day or two into the project; I would prefer to give them the parameters sooner rather than later.
Constraints are real life
The limitations that we place on students’ ideas are nothing more than a representation of adult reality. Furthermore, though, what can be done within certain limitations is, in my opinion, the most impressive demonstration of creativity. That is why we watch “MacGuyver,” “The Martian,” and “Chopped,” right?
My friend Jonathan puts constraints on his work. Upon reflection, I found that I do the same thing. Whenever my co- facilitator Rachelle would present me with a very “out of the box” project idea, I would head home and try to build the box (in my case, the rubric.) This is how I made sense of the idea, gave myself boundaries, and liberated the creative side of my brain to imagine how the project might need to be structured.
“Voice and Choice” doesn’t have to be sacrificed
It is fair to assume that some readers and practitioners of PBL might not see it my way, claiming that “student voice and choice” will be thrown out the window with the creation of constraints. Where is the opportunity for students to give their input for project ideas? I do not see this as an either/ or situation, as in, there are either constraints OR there is student voice and choice. The standards are the box. The voice and choice comes when we empower students to find their own ways to demonstrate their application of those standards.
The rest is just logistics. Just for fun, here is an example of a literal “box” as a constraint. My colleagues have, for many years, run a very successful project with their eleventh grade U.S. History students where museum displays are created, around a certain theme such as Prohibition, World War II, or U.S. counter- culture. In past years, enormous structures-- literal cabins made of cardboard-- would take shape. These were very impressive structures, but the question remained about how in the world to get it to the museum. In subsequent years, the “box” that they imposed on their students was 1 meter cubed as a size limitation. Did student creativity get crushed? No, it did not. It flourished, just as before, but with fewer U- Haul trailers required.
I think that in all fairness to educators, student voice and choice about project ideas should be done well in advance of the required content topics. It then becomes the job of the educator to take those ideas and connect the dots between those passions of students and the constraints of the academic standards. Perhaps at a student open house before school starts or on the “Meet the Teacher Day” at the end of one year, where students meet next year’s teacher? Whatever the case, I do not feel that it is fair nor sustainable for teachers to get student input on project ideas at the time that a project is starting. There is a way to have student voice and choice with respect to project ideas while also giving teachers time to uphold their professional obligation to structure those learning experiences with care, intentionality and the appropriate focus on academic standards.
Contrary to intuition, working in a metaphorical box is a way that work gets done in the real world, and it is how students should be guided in a PBL setting. The next wave of innovations will come as a result of such challenges in our classrooms.
Andrew Larson is a science facilitator at the Columbus Signature Academy New Tech High School and an experienced Magnify Learning workshop facilitator. He contributes to our regularly updated blog about Project Based Learning with contributions from other PBL facilitators and students. When he’s not doing awesome PBL work, you can find him mountain biking, spending time with his family, or digging around in the garden.
SIGN UP TO RECEIVE OUR PROJECT BASED LEARNING BLOGS & RESOURCES!