Practicing PBL in a test-driven educational setting

In many Asian countries, Taiwan in particular, the educational environment is still very much test-driven. The National Subject-Competency Test (NSCT) score is still the

major indicator of students’ academic achievement and is the predominant factor in determining which college or university high school graduates may attend. Thus, changing the pedagogical practices of subject teachers is extremely difficult. For students accustomed to a more traditional school experience, this means a transformation from following orders to carrying out self-directed learning activities, from memorizing and repeating to discovering, integrating, and presenting; from listening and reacting to communicating and taking responsibility; from knowledge of facts, terms, and content to understanding processes; from theory to the application of theory; from being teacher dependent to being empowered.

A project-based learning approach is student-centered with student inquiry and exploration as key elements. Learners have the opportunity to work more autonomously and build their knowledge (Schneider 2005). In PBL, students completed contextualized tasks as opposed to isolated lessons. Learning from projects rather than from isolated content is, in part, so that students can face the task of formulating their own projects, guided on the one hand by the general goals they set, and on the other hand by the

―interesting‖ phenomena and difficulties they discover through their interaction with the environment (Collins, Brown & Newman, 1989).

Project-based approach is an engaging way to teach required standards. The content standards are indeed taught, but they are joined with other content and skills to make a meaningful, rigorous, and interesting learning experience. With traditional teaching methods, it is very difficult for students to engage in the learning process. In project-based learning, students can become self-motivated learners through creating products ―valuable in their own right‖ and collaborating with other students (Evertson et al., 2006).

Through projects, students can not only learn concepts, they are provoked and encouraged to develop new knowledge. It’s not that the previous could not happen in a

traditional lecture/note-taking classroom setting, but PBL is designed around student-centeredness to allow each individual student to build (learn) on previous knowledge, from any level, and develop new knowledge.

In PBL, the teacher is not the only contributor to the learning that occurs in the classroom. PBL gives students the right amount of choice and autonomy. The teacher’s role is as a guide and facilitator. The teacher creates the project and many scaffolding activities, but the students do the exploration and discovery. The teacher’s role is not just to be a transmitter of knowledge, rather an advisor of learning (Newell, 2003). Classroom teaching is not effective where teachers are knowledge providers and students are passive takers. The one-way transmission approach cannot meet diverse learner styles and the expansion of knowledge in our world.

Some possible barriers to production-oriented PBL projects include technical difficulties with software, hardware and networks, as well as time constraints, and the need for teacher training (Steelman, 2005). Marx (1997) stated teachers have difficulty incorporating technology into the classroom, especially as a cognitive tool. In order to cultivate PBL, teachers should be prepared to integrate technology into their PBL teaching and learning practices (Barab & Luehmann, 2002; Barak & Dori, 2004).

Relatively few teachers are willing to integrate ICT into their teaching activities (Hermans, Tondeur, van Braak, & Valcke, 2008; Ertmer, 2005). Many authors attribute the lack of technology integration to post-teacher education barriers to technology integration in PBL (Brinkerhoff, 2006; Hew & Brush, 2007; Demirci, 2009). The major categories of barriers that were identified and intended to be tackled include:

Lack of teacher confidence (Bosley & Moon, 2003, Bradley & Russell, 1997).

Resistant to change and negative attitude (Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck, 2001;

Ertmer, 1999; Mumtaz, 2000; Snoeyink & Ertmer, 2001).

No perceived benefits (Mumtaz, 2000; Snoeyink & Ertmer, 2001; Yuen & Ma,

2002).

Lack of time (Cuban et al., 2001; Ebersole & Vorndam, 2002; Fabry and Higgs, 1997; Snoeyink & Ertmer, 2001).

Lack of training (Preston et al., 2000; Wild, 1996).

Lack of access to computing resources (Bosley & Moon, 2003; Fabry & Higgs, 1997; Mumtaz, 2000; Preston et al., 2000).

Lack of institutional support (Butler & Sellbom, 2002; Cuban, 1999; Snoeyink

& Ertmer, 2001).

Such authors contend that barriers in the form of lack of resources, knowledge and skills, available technology, time, technical and administrative support (Wepner, Ziomek,

& Tao, 2003) and lack of will due to incompatible beliefs about technology and teaching prevent the integration of technology by in-service teachers (Ertmer, 1999; Hew & Brush, 2007).

Technology was best learned in the context that teachers should learn technology through the integration of technology into their course work and field experiences (Handler, 1993). One key to improve teachers’ preparation for technology integration is to embed technology within courses, and to provide targeted technical specialized courses (Angeli, 2005; Davis & Falba, 2002). However, recent calls for educational reform in teacher education stress the need for innovative teacher education restructuring to ensure that teachers not only know how to apply technology but also how to design high quality technology-enhanced lessons (Angeli, 2005; Dawson et al., 2003; Thompson, Schmidt, &

Davis, 2003).

Teachers need to see good technology practices modeled by themselves who are given the opportunities to practice with the technology, and reflect on their use of technologies in order to plan curricula and instruction in the classroom (Doering et al., 2003). For an effective learning environment, the teachers required more guidance,

showing more specimen projects and more check points during the process. Evaluating challenges and suggestions together, it can be considered that they need more guidance to cope with time management and anxiety. Acquiring the technology skills necessary to transform a teacher from novice to expert requires the involvement of an experienced teacher who can help bridge the gap between theory and practice. Working alongside experienced teachers allows the teacher to observe, listen, and participate in activities (Eraut, 2007; Harrison, Lawson, & Wortley, 2005).

Team-teaching is a potential solution to this problem. The team-teaching approach supports guidance, arising teachers’ motivation to succeed, and learning how to implement PBL.