COURSE SYLLABUS-DRAFT

Graduate Seminar in Project Based Instruction: EDC 385G

Time: Th 4-7PM

Personal Information

Dr. Anthony Petrosino
Assistant Professor
Sanchez Building, Room 462-A
The University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX

E-mail: ajpetrosino@mail.utexas.edu
Office: 512-232-9681
FAX: 512-471-8460

Office Hours: Tuesday 9AM-11AM and by appointment

Course Number: EDC 385G
Course Name: Graduate Seminar in Project Based Instruction
Room Number: SZB 284.
Unique Number: 08351

Course Description

Graduate Seminar in Project Based Instruction

Course Overview - There has been considerable emphasis in current reform documents concerning inquiry based activities. A number of strategies have arisen to address inquiry including case based instruction (Williams, 1992), problem based learning (Hmelo, 1998) and project based learning (Blumenfeld et al., 1991). This course will first address the differences between these approaches to inquiry, some historical roots to project-based instruction and finally will attempt to explore the basic ideas and theoretical perspectives underlying project-based science instruction.

Theoretical Perspective - A major hurdle in implementing project-based curricula is that they require simultaneous changes in curriculum, instruction and assessment practices--changes that are often foreign to the students as well as the teachers (Barron et al., 1998). In this seminar we will develop an approach to designing, implementing and evaluating problem- and project-based curricula that has emerged from collaboration with teachers and researchers. Previous research has identified four design principles that appear to be especially important: (1) Defining learning appropriate goals that lead to deep understanding; (2) Providing scaffolds such as beginning with problem-based learning activities before completing projects; using "embedded teaching", "teaching tools" and sets of "contrasting cases"; (3) Including multiple opportunities for formative self-assessment; (4) Developing social structures that promote participation and revision. We will first discuss these principles individually and then compare them to other design principles suggested by other groups involved with project-based instruction.

Driving questions of the course:

• What are project-based science learning environments?
• What makes a good driving question?
• What can we realistically expect of students doing inquiry?
• How can technology support students do inquiry?
• What kind of scaffolds can teachers provide to support inquiry?
• What are all the tools in the Investigators' Workshop and what is the theory behind their design?
• How do you design a curriculum that has a project-based science structure?
• How can you promote professional development?
• What is the role of collaboration, enactment, reflection and adaptation in professional development?
• How do you create project-based science learning environments?

Course Expectations:

Prepare for and participate in class discussion and class work-time;

Lead the class in a discussion of a set of articles;

Course project: Develop a project that might include a research proposal, an extended literature review, a small research study, or the development of PBS curriculum. You will present your projects to the class as well as produce a detailed written report.

Class Attendance

Class attendance is vital to the success of any graduate seminar. Regular attendance is expected with no more than 1 unexcused absence from class for the semester. Violation of the attendance policy may result in no credit for the course.

Availability of Coursework

Deadlines

Course Materials

Thursday September 2, 1999

Readings

Kilpatrick, W. H. (1918). The project method. Teachers College Record. Vol. XIX, No.4.

Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P.C., Marx, R.W., Bass, K.M., Fredricks, J. And Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: initial attempts by middle school students. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3&4), 313-350.

Thursday September 9, 1999

Barron, B. J. S., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., Bransford, J. D., and CTGV (1998). Doing with understanding: lessons from research on problem-and project-based learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3&4), 271-312.

Coleman, E. B. (1998). Using explanatory knowledge during collaborative problem solving in science. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3&4), 387-428.

Thursday September 16, 1999

Metz, K. E. (1995). Reassessment of developmental constraints on children’s science instruction. Review of Educational Research, Summer 1995, Vol. 65, No.2 (93-127).

Kuhn, D. (1997). Constraints of guideposts? Developmental psychology and science education. Review of Educational Research Spring 1997, Vol. 67, No.1 (141-150).

Metz K. E. (1997). On the complex relation between cognitive developmental research and children’s science curricula. Review of Educational Research. Spring 1997, Vol. 67, No.1 (151-163).

Thursday September 23, 1999

Brown, A. L., Campione, J. C., Metz, K. E., Ash, D. B. (In press). The development of science learning abilities in children. To appear in A. Burgen & K. Harnquist (Eds.), Growing up with science: Developing early understanding of science.

Thursday September 30, 1999

Model-based reasoning (Part 1). Taking science learning as the prototypical case, instruction aims to help students play the "modeling game." Mathematicians play this game too.

Hunt, E., & Minstrell, J. (1994). A cognitive approach to the teaching of physics. In K. McGilly (ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice. (pp. 51-74). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hancock, C., Kaput, J.J., & Goldsmith, L.T. (1992). Authentic inquiry with data: Critical barriers to classroom implementation. Educational Psychologist, 27, 317-364.

Thursday October 7, 1999

Teaching and Learning as Assisted Performance. The sociocultural perspective on teaching and learning places its emphasis on the organization or culture of assisted perormance. What forms of assistance are available?

Tharp, R.G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life. New York: Cambridge University Press. (pp.1-111).

Zuckerman, G.A., Chudinova, E. V., & Khavkin, E.E. (1998). Inquiry as a pivotal element of knowledge acquisition within the Vygotskian paradigm: Building a science curriculum for the elementary school. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 201-233.

Thursday October 14, 1999

Mind Tools. The socioculural perspective, and the cognitive perspective, both inscribe teaching and learning within the frame of activity defined by semiotic tools, like language and notation.

Vygotsky, L., & Luria, A. (1994). Tool and symbol in child developemnt. In R. van der Veer & J. Valsiner (Eds.), The Vygotsky Reader. (pp. 99-174). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Latour, B. (1988). Drawing things together. In M. Lynch & S. Woolgar (Eds.), Representation in scientific practice. (pp. 19-68). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Thursday October 21, 1999

Lehrer, R. And Schauble, L. (April,1998). Inventing data structures for representational purposes: Elementary grade students’ classification models. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Diego, CA.

Strom, D. And Lehrer, R. (April, 1999). The epistemology of generalization. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Montreal, CA.

Thursday October 28, 1999

Williams, S. M. (1992). Putting case-based instruction into context: examples form legal and medical education. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 2(4) 367-427.

Thursday November 4, 1999

Thursday November 11, 1999

Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N., and Pea, R.D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences Vol. 8(3&4) 391-450. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mahwah, NJ

Herrenkohl, L. R., Palincsar, A.S., DeWater, L.S., and Kawasaki, K. (1999). Developing scientific communities in classrooms: A sociocognitive approach. The Journal of the Learning Sciences Vol. 8(3&4) 451-494. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mahwah, NJ.

Thursday November 18, 1999

Collins, A. (1996). Design issues for learning environments. In S. Vosniadou, E. De Corte, R. Glase, and H. Mandl (Eds.). International Perspectives on the design of technology-supported learning environments. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mahwah, NJ.

Collins, A., Greeno, J. G., & Resnick, L. B. (1994). Learing environments. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (2nd edition, pp.3297-3302). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.

Thursday November 25, 1999

No Class-Thanksgiving

Thursday December 2, 1999

Final Presentations

Accommodations

Grade Evaluations

The major means of evaluation is a student-designed portfolio that documents the student’s learning. The final version of the portfolio includes a paper written for publication/submission about one’s research. This final paper should adhere to APA style.

Portfolios are evaluated as follows:

1. Evidence of digestion of readings in the form of notes or other forms of summary (highlighted text will be taken as evidence of reading but not of synthesis);
2. Clear development of a research question;
3. Coherence and conciseness of ongoing observations and thinking about the learning environment;
4. Use of appropriate methods for meaningful inquiry
5. Evidence of integration of inquiry-research with class discussion and readings;
6. Review of selected literature related to one’s research question, with an eye toward evidence of majoring;
7. Text devices like table of contents that assist a reader

The grade is based upon (a) participation and presentation, including the electronic seminar TeachNet (33%), and (b) the quality of he portfolio (67%). Collaboration is encouraged; you will not be forced into some type of distribution, normal or otherwise.

Academic Integrity

Policy on Scholastic Dishonesty: Students who violate University rules on scholastic dishonesty are subject to disciplinary penalties, including the possibility of failure in the course and/or dismissal from The University. Since such dishonesty harms the individual, all students, and the integrity of The University, policies on scholastic dishonesty will be strictly enforced.