Reflection

I taught a long project-based-learning (PBL) unit with the 6^th graders at The Catamount School. While there are only nine students in the class, they have varied and significant academic needs. One student has an Individual Education Plan (IEP) based on learning disabilities, one student has physical and emotional disabilities, and two others see therapists and participate in weekly sessions with the school counselor. Four of the nine students read at a 4^th grade level or below. These students have a history of failures in their previous school placements, and one of my main goals in developing this PBL learning experience was to develop some academic self-esteem and resilience.

I used a number of STEM best practices as identified in my STEM best practices research. In the course of that research, I determined that STEM best practices can be grouped into four categories. First, STEM is authentic. This best practice has been embodied in the unit by incorporating the principals of The Catamount school and Smoky Mountain High School (SMHS), as well as the owners of the organic farm we visited, the agriculture teacher at Smoky Mountain High, and the Exceptional Children teachers who share an outdoor space with us. Working with these adults, the students were encouraged to support their claims with evidence. They worked on making speeches, shaking hands, and writing professional emails. This authenticity has been a hook as well as an opportunity for students to practice 21^st century skills. Second, STEM is collaborative. The students have worked in different groups to complete this project, collaborating on specializing in soils, greenhouse design, or plant preference surveys in small groups and sharing their information with each other. They worked as a large group, each student responding to each other’s ideas using a heart, a brain, or a question mark to include in the large group conversation. Third, STEM is Learner-Centered. The students employed voice and choice over the course of this project, choosing their specific interests, their product, and their group members as they went through the learning experience. Their choices led us to chickens, which provided an opportunity to team with the classroom of students with severe disabilities in our building to build a chicken coop, hatch eggs, and provide care over the course of the spring. Last, STEM is interdisciplinary; the students used the state science standards (plants, soils, and energy transfer) to inform their project. They also incorporated ideas from other classes, learning about victory gardens in Social Studies, working on their reflections in English/Language Arts, and using scale drawing and area/perimeter in Math.

Summarize what you implemented.

Over the course of 8 weeks, the students determined that they wanted to develop a garden on campus. They had been working in the three garden beds outside the classroom, and enjoying it, so they wanted to increase their garden footprint. I responded by developing a Garden PBL that I called “Food for All.” The driving question was, “Is local food better?” Within a week of working with my students, we re-titled the project, “Plants for People,” and revised our driving question to, “Can we, as 6^th graders, develop a garden space to feed our community?” The students did an engineering project component to determine the energy transfer that can support plants in a greenhouse, and they visited the SMHS greenhouse to support their learning. From there, students broke into three groups to research the best sites and ideas for building their garden on campus. The “Soils” group researched soil amendments, arriving at an idea that manure is the best fertilizer, and choosing to make the case for chickens as composters and fertilizers. The “Greenhouse” group measured light intensity and temperature at different sites and determined the size and shape of possible greenhouses at each site on campus. The “Seeds” group surveyed the students at The Catamount School to determine the types of plants we should have in the garden. The students then presented their findings to the principal of The Catamount School and got approval to put the chickens and greenhouse in one area and the garden beds in another area. After weighing their options, students determined that coldframes against a brick wall would be the best choice, and they split into two groups to measure, plan, and estimate the costs of the garden beds and the chicken lot. They remain in mid-process, developing plans, pricing them, and preparing their presentation to potential donors, scheduled for December 20.

The students have enjoyed the experience, expressing their dismay when the class is over and they need to leave. They continue to work on collaborative skills, stating in their self-assessments, “I forget to listen” and “sometimes I don’t ask how to help.” They have become more adept at giving feedback when it’s within a structure, and respond well to “I like… I wonder….” Prompts. Students still struggle with independent work, often discussing good ideas, assigning jobs, but then not following through. In terms of content, students are comfortable with plant development and soil texture and nutrients, as well as the categories of energy transfer, as measured in informal and formal assessments (like the poster above). The students still went from science to math, instead of working in a truly transdisciplinary way, but they didn’t seem to lose any specific learning. The timeframe for these standards was quite long, but the students also participated in mini-lessons that were related to other standards, including matter and properties of matter, during this time as well.

Overall, I learned a great deal during this experience; providing voice and choice only works if the teacher then listens and responds. The chicken ideas and resulting plans was eye-opening for me. One success is the increase in academic language in the classroom; while the students are practicing their collaborative skills, they have provided problem solving strategies to each other, and they’ve been able to come to consensus based on making claims and supporting their claims with evidence. They worked together to develop their presentation to the principals, and they continue to ask probing questions of themselves and their peers. The challenges were significant as well; while the students were learning a great deal, as evidenced in their interactive science notebooks, they had a difficult time communicating their learning. Over time, I saw an increase in the ability to summarize, but students still had a difficult time expressing the point of their learning, and making their learning clear to others.

In the future, I need to structure this PBL more tightly; while a garden PBL could be easily replicated for 6^th grade each year, I will need to provide more structure in terms of guiding documents and checklists for the different phases of the project. Often the students and I planned together, which provided voice and choice, and I want to continue that model. However, it would streamline the process to have a rubric or set of tasks for students to follow in order to clarify their jobs and provide fodder for self-reflection. In conclusion, I do not think the PBL model is necessary for all learning at the 6^th grade level; a healthy mix of inquiry in different forms is probably best, but the PBL process, encouraging students to work independently toward authentic goals, is extremely important. I plan to incorporate a Project-Based-Learning experience once a quarter in the next year.