Expeditionary learning is the raddest



Academic advantages of experiential teaching04675505December 5, 2014ELLEN kIRBYEDF 621 1000000December 5, 2014ELLEN kIRBYEDF 621 AbstractThe public education system has received criticisms ranging from corporal punishment to religious affiliations to testing procedures. A current debate that has begun concerns the different methods of teaching. More specifically, there are strong opinions on Expeditionary Learning Schools (EL schools) versus Thematic Learning. When President Bush established the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act in 2001, standardized testing became the method of measuring students’ academic achievement from year to year (Woolfolk, 2012). While this method is useful in allowing the nation to observe students’ academic standing, it does not accommodate for children that learn at different rates and through different methods. Project-Based Learning has been used in various schools since the early 90s. This research examines the advantages of Experiential Learning. Keywords: Expeditionary Learning Schools, No Child Left Behind, Project-Based Learning, Experiential Education, Zone of Proximal Development, Self-Determination Theory, Content Standards (CSOs) Literature ReviewDefinition Expeditionary Learning, Project-Based Learning, Active Learning, and Student-centered education all fall under the term Experiential Education. This is defined as, “a philosophy that informs many methodologies in which educators purposefully engage with learners in direct experience and focused reflection in order to increase knowledge, develop skills, clarify values, and develop people's capacity to contribute to their communities,” (What is experiential education, n.d.). ?Studies suggest that students who are actively engaged in the learning process show improvement in academics, social aspects, and overall well-being (Williams & Dixon, 2013; Archambault, Janosz, & Chouinard, 2012; Thiede & Redford, 2012; Klein & Riordan, 2011; Celio, Durlak, & Dymnicki, 2011; Albert, D, 2010; Beeseley, A, 2010; Wurdinger, Haar, Hugg, & Bezon, 2007; Blumenfeld et al., 1991). One procedure Expeditionary Learning implements is the 5 E Learning Cycle which promotes student engagement (Berger, Rugen, & Woodfin, 2014). Each process in the Learning Cycle requires a certain degree of engagement from both educators and students. Schools included in studies for EL included EL Schools, PBLS, Garden-Based Learning, and schools that implement Thematic learning. Participants in these studies are generally between the ages eleven to eighteen (Williams & Dixon, 2013; Archambault, Janosz, & Chouinard, 2012; Klein & Riordan, 2011; Albert, D, 2010; Beeseley, A, 2010; Wurdinger, Haar, Hugg, & Bezon, 2007).Engagement A survey was conducted in which students listed ‘boring’ as the number one word that described their school experience (Wurdinger, Haar, Hugg, & Bezon, 2007). Students have the ability to take on more challenging tasks than fill-in-the-blank worksheets, and as such should have the opportunity to showcase these academic strengths. Connor and Pope (2013) surveyed students that cited their boredom in school was due to the lack of challenge in their assignments. Currently, student engagement in high school is particularly low (Connor & Pope, 2013). Researchers observed that the students are inattentive, exert little effort, do not complete tasks, and are constantly bored (Connor & Pope, 2013; Wurdinger, Haar, Hugg, & Bezon, 2007). Due to the fact that dropout rates are rising and academic achievement has lowered in the past two decades, (Archambault, Janosz, & Chouinard, 2012; Klein & Riordan, 2011; Albert, D, 2010; Wurdinger, Haar, Hugg, & Bezon, 2007) researchers attempted to discover the source of this predicament. Studies found a positive correlation between student engagement and academic progress. Researchers identify seven unique types of engagement in academics: purposeful, full, rational, busy, pleasurable, mental, and recreational (Connor & Pope, 2013; Archambault, Janosz, & Chouinard, 2012). There are three distinctions of engagement types: behavioral, cognitive, and emotional or affective (Connor & Pope, 2013; Reeve, 2013). Reeve (2013) acutely describes each distinction:Behavioral engagement refers to how involved the student is in the learning activity in terms of attention, effort, and persistence; emotional involvement refers to the presence of positive emotions during task involvement such as interest and to the absence of negative emotions such as anxiety; and cognitive engagement refers to how strategically the student attempts to learn in terms of employing sophisticated rather than superficial learning strategies, such as using elaboration rather than memorization (p.579). Education is more than test scores and graduation rates. Because teachers can lack the proper engagement, some students might coast their way through school. Authentic engagement is a rarity; in most education systems schools produce what Connor and Pope (2013) call robo-students that get through school on auto-pilot and that they do not learn or retain the intended material. EL and PBL both theorize that student progress can be enhanced by authentic engagement. Wurdinger, Haar, Hugg, and Bezon (2007) conducted a study that observed the relationship between students’ engagement in school and academic achievement. Student motivation and engagement can be measured using the Self-Determination Theory (SDT) which measures motivation to learn, while integrating multiple personal and social factors that shape student engagement and positive development (Skinner & Chi, 2012). Students involved in schools that implement project based learning, such as EL schools, have been found to be more engaged when involved in the projects because it gave them an opportunity to work with other students while doing hands-on activities (Wurdinger, Haar, Hugg, & Bezon, 2007). In addition, this method of learning has displayed improvement in lower performing students’ overall scores because they are able to progress at their own pace (Wurdinger, Haar, Hugg, & Bezon, 2007).Connor and Pope (2013) list one limitation of this conceptualization of engagement as being based on the premise that a certain dimension of engagement can be either present or not present when, in fact, engagement is graduated and fluid. Other limitations include that self-report data was collected (Reeve, 2013; Connor & Pope, 2013). Students are not always accurate in their reporting however and researchers suggest for future studies that teachers, parents, and administration be surveyed to collect more valid data (Connor, Pope, 2013). Motivation A meta-analysis study was done to measure the impact project learning had on students that measured 1) attitudes towards self, 2) attitudes toward school and learning, civic engagement, social skills, and academic achievement (Celio, Durlak, & Dymnicki, 2011). The mean effect size for academic achievement was .43, significantly higher than the effect size for the other four outcomes. A similar study was conducted in New York’s Rochester City School District over a two year period. The study measured the impact EL had on students’ academic performance in both elementary and middle schools (Albert, D, 2010). Findings compared the differences in test scores for English Language Arts and Mathematics in EL schools and non-EL schools. Effectiveness of EL Schools is measured by two elements: teacher acceptance and student engagement (Wurdinger, Haar, Hugg, & Bezon, 2007). Expeditionary Learning implements the 5 E Learning Cycle in its curriculum. The first aspect of the 5 E Learning Cycle is engagement. The remaining four elements are: explore, explain, elaborate, evaluate. However, each step of the cycle requires a certain amount of engagement from the teachers and the students. Berger, Rugen, and Woodfin (2014) discuss in Leaders of their own Learning the importance of hands on activities, and emphasizes the effectiveness of self-directed learning. The central idea of project-based learning is synonymous with Vygotsky’s theory on Zone of Proximal Development. Wurdinger, Haar, Hugg, and Bezon (2007) define it as:A teaching method where teachers guide students through a problem-solving process which includes identifying a problem, developing a plan, testing the plan against reality, and reflecting on the plan while in the process of designing and completing a project. (p.151)Vygotsky’s theory of ZPD is more heavily endorsed today compared to Piaget’s theory of cognitive development (Woolfolk, 2012). While Piaget goes in to greater detail than Vygotsky, he does not take into account that children do not all learn and understand at the same speed. Blumenfeld et al. (1991) promotes PBL, stating their effectiveness stems from projects being adaptable to different types of learners and learning situations. Project-based learning allows this theory to be better implemented in the education system because it gave students the opportunity to discover unique skills necessary to complete projects, while also allowing them to progress at their own pace (Wurdinger, Haar, Hugg, & Bezon, 2007). School Culture Berger (2003; Berger, Rugen, & Woodfin, 2014) emphasizes the importance of building and maintaining a culture within the school that offers students a place to feel safe, respected, important, and challenged. Thus, consideration was taken into account regarding school involvement, measuring discipline/behavior issues, attendance to school functions, school participation in the community, and participation in extra-curricular activities.Previous studies conducted have tested for this using a Likert scale to determine whether there are correlations between the safety within a school and academic achievement (Celio, Durlak, & Dymnicki, 2011). Studies also analyzed the SES of students to measure for its relation to motivation, engagement, and test scores. Role of Teacher In addition to embodying different methods of learning, there is also a variance of teachers. Research has found correlations between teacher support and academic achievement (Chen, Hammond- Bennet, Upton, & Mason, 2014; Reeve, 2013; Archambault, Janosz, & Chouinard, 2012; Blumenfeld et al., 1991). Berger (2003; Berger, Rugen, & Woodfin, 2014) indicates the effectiveness of models in EL schools. While beneficial, models are not limited to physical artifacts but also include teacher examples. Klein and Riordan (2011) exemplify the significance of teacher engagement. Teachers entering an EL school go through extensive training before beginning an expedition in a classroom. One of the core practices for this training is allowing teachers to plan and execute their own expedition among other teachers first (Klein & Riordan, 2011). It is vital for educators to understand the learning procedures of EL so that they can reinforce the standards and convictions of Experiential Education. In reference to educators being models of engagement Klein and Riordan (2011) quote one of the teachers who participated in their studyWhy am I so into this thing with the lobsters, because I am?! Everybody in this group is crazy about lobsters!...And I think that we were just engaged. And so every time I was really engaged and then I thought about what made me engaged, those were the things that I want to do [with my students]. (p. 44) Efficiency of EL schools depends profusely on the teacher’s capabilities. Skinner et al. (2012, p. 19) states that teachers, through the quality of interactions with students, have the ability to shape motivation and engagement in the classroom. Previously, the SDT mentioned highlights the significance of social interactions fostering psychological needs (Skinner & Chi, 2012). This theory also argues that engagement is promoted when teachers nurture caring relationships, provide high expectations and clear feedback, and explain the relevance and importance of activities and rules while soliciting input from students and listening to and respecting their opinions (Skinner & Chi, 2012, p. 33). Another factor in the consideration of effective teachers is how their expectancies affect student progress. Studies suggest that through the quality of interactions with students, teachers have the ability to shape motivation to learn and engagement (Skinner & Chi, 2012). Archambault, Janosz, and Chouinard, (2012) identify the impact teachers’ expectations have on students’ academic experience. In general, the higher the expectation of the instructor, the better the students performed (Archambault, Janosz, & Chouinard, 2012). In contrast, teachers that displayed negative attitudes towards the students, the students perceived themselves negatively (Archambault, Janosz, & Chouinard, 2012). Experiential Education depends on student self-motivation; however, educators must first illustrate this practice in the classroom. Limitations One of the leading limitations found throughout these studies was that, Expeditionary Learning relies heavily on students’ perception of learning (Thiede & Redford, 2012; Martin et al., 2009). While standardized testing is not ideal, it does offer a method of directly examining academic achievement. For future studies, researchers should develop rubric systems in order to control for this. RationaleThe No Child Left Behind Act reformed the entire education system’s teaching methods. While in theory, this is a practical method to report and gauge academic achievement in the nation’s education system, it has a significant amount of limitations. Students learn at different paces, they absorb knowledge differently, and they are taught differently. No two teachers use the same exact method. It is improbable to produce valid, reliable results when there is only one variable being controlled for, testing procedure. With such a variance in teaching, learning, and motivation, it is impossible to standardize an entire nation. The elements in expeditionary learning offer students an education that can be molded to their individual needs. This method allows students to be engaged in their school work and produce quality results, while tracking their achievement throughout the entire process. Another factor observed from previous studies includes teacher quality. There have been multiple methods used to test for this such as videotaping lessons, collecting lesson transcripts and descriptive written records, student, teacher, and parent interviews, and academic transcripts (Chen, et al. 2014). Testing for this offers researchers more variables that affect academic achievement. These procedures also allowed us to test for student and teacher engagement. The following study was conducted in order to measure the effectiveness of project based learning education in Expeditionary Learning schools compared to schools that implement unit teaching. The purpose of this study is not to eliminate standardized testing, but to reform the teaching and assessment methods in order to accommodate for the variance of students and teachers with assorted learning methods. RQ 1: In what ways can educators, administrators, and parents work together to improve the education system? RQ 2: Does Experiential Education show a significant improvement in students’ academic achievement as well as overall wellbeing? MethodsParticipants: There were sixty schools used for this study: thirty were Expeditionary Schools and the remaining thirty used Thematic Units that adhere to the state CSOs. The participants were in grades fifth through eighth; their ages ranged from ten to fourteen (M age=13.4, SD=7.2 months). There was a total of 36,000 students that participated in this study. Of the participants, 17,652 were female and 18,348 were male. Students were administered numbers in order to maintain anonymity, creating a more random sample. Measurements: This study was conducted over a period of four years in order to measure the reliability of the results. To ensure reliability the participants in this research study needed to continually maintain a specific level of achievement from year to year. Achievement was defined by a number of variables: GPAs, graduation rates, college admittance, academic progress, as well as synergy within the classroom. Data was collected from student self-reports, teacher and administration records, and parental reports. In order to measure student progress a pre-test was administered to determine where the students were ranked academically. While the tests were identical, the teaching methods varied. Thirty schools were considered to be EL, while the remaining half practiced unit teaching. At the end of the learning period all the students took a post-test to measure their progress over the term. Questions on the tests required critical thinking and analysis that pertained authentic situations. A meta-analysis was conducted that combined students’ post-test scores and their engagement in academics. As a result of student achievement being correlated with motivation, students were also given a survey at the beginning of the term that measured their interest in school. Students were asked a series of questions about their attitudes toward school, education, and teachers. These questions were answered using a scale 5 point Likert scale, 1 signifying Strongly Disagree and 5 as Strongly Agree. These questions included: I like my school.; I feel safe in my school.; I trust my teacher(s).; My teacher(s) respect me.; I respect my teacher(s).; My teacher(s) have informative and engaging lessons.; My teacher(s) care about me.; I learn something new every day.; I feel bored while I am in school.; My parent(s) know what I am doing in school.; I enjoy being in school.; and I plan on attending college. The same survey was administered each year as the students advanced grade levels.Design: The schools that implement Thematic Learning are listed as the control group as they receive no different learning methods. EL schools are defined as the experimental group. Because student progress has been linked to motivation to learn, an ordinal scale was designed to display motivation levels among the participants. As a result of student achievement being correlated with motivation, students were also given a survey at the beginning of the term that measured their interest in school. Teachers that worked in the EL schools went through extensive training to learn how to prepare and foresee the students’ projects. Training included learning how to do classroom critiques, the 5E learning cycle, research methods, and team collaboration skills. Before leading their own expedition, teachers participated in an Expeditionary Learning experience. They were shown multiple models and examples of hands-on activities to use with their students in order to activate motivation to learn. Over the course of the study teachers, principals, school designers, and instructional guides attended a national conference that offered workshops, examples, and different activating pedagogical methodologies. This allowed teachers to improve their own methods while sharing their experiences as well. Teachers at the control school received no additional training. Procedure: Students attending the EL schools received much more intervention than those attending thematic schools. The procedure of EL schools is much more hands on than those that teach with units. Teachers introduced a broad subject that would be covered through ought the learning cycle, known as a Big Idea in order to engage the students first (cite leaders of their own learning). Rather than using a textbook as the solitary source for information, students in the experimental group were taught how to research and discover new information in different ways (i.e. maps, previous studies, seeking expert opinions, learning to read charts and graphs, etc.). Throughout this process the teachers implemented ZPD and scaffolding with the students. While students worked and collected information educators did informal assessments to determine if they understood the tasks, expectations, and procedures. In contrast to thematic learning, the evaluation process took place throughout the entire unit. We tested students with the creation of artifacts. Blumenfeld et al. (1991) proposed the use of artifacts as a method of testing because they are representations of the students’ problem solutions that reflect emergent states of knowledge. The lessons taught in both EL schools and normal schools were the same and met the same content standards while the teaching methods differed. The method of the EL schools allowed for information to resonate in the participants minds’ for a longer period of time in order to promote a full understanding. It gave students the skills to think critically, and solidify information, rather than the memorization of it for the purpose of a standardized test. Collecting student, parent, teacher, and administrative reports allowed this study to be considered valid. Analysis: The demographics of each school as well as each individual child were studied also. Independent variables included students that were on free or reduced lunch, socioeconomic status, students with single parents, students raised by someone other than their biological parents (i.e. grandparents, foster parents), and behavioral reports. Grouping variables included students’ age, sex, grade level, and test scores from the pre-test. A qualitative study was done from observations in the classroom. The research team examined each classroom throughout the term, monitoring student engagement, participation, and collaboration. Measures were done based on how much time students spent on the learning process. In other words, we logged hours that students spent actively using their prior knowledge to understand new concepts, self-assessing their progress, and also applying it to real-life situations versus hours spent completing worksheets, listening to the teacher lecture, and taking exams. We compared these numbers with test scores from both pre- and post-tests in order to determine whether student engagement has a statistical significance on the production of knowledge. A MANCOVA and regression were ran to determine how the variables affected one another. To make the study more reliable, results from the post-tests, surveys, and regression were adjusted to z scores in order to account for the individualization of participants. DiscussionThe previous research conducted on the effects Experiential Learning can have on students’ motivation to learn and academic achievement gave me a clear grasp on the flaws in the education system. While results showed strong correlations between engagement and intellectual improvement, they also suggested a need for further inquiry. Many of the studies collected for my study controlled for a number of variable, however, none of them tested for all the co variants that exist within a classroom. Measuring the number of variables I included in this study did require a significantly longer amount of time. However, by doing so the study was made more reliable. The results supported my proposed questions that Expeditionary Learning has a positive impact on students’ academic achievement and attitudes toward school. Using more active teaching pedagogies gave students the opportunity to create, explore, and discover new information while applying it to authentic situations. This method indicates a more valuable education system that has the potential to produce scholastically driven students that are constantly engaged in the learning process. ConclusionThe benefits discovered through Experiential Learning were unsurprising. I think the findings from this study do promote the necessity of a reformation in the education system. Pedagogies and learning strategies are constantly changing and improving. The continuation of antiquated teaching methods is a waste of the new resources available in the modern world. This study exemplifies the importance of allowing students to reap all the potential possible from the public education system. Findings from the research conducted show a significant increase in multiple areas such as student engagement, socialization skills, creativity, graduation rates, college acceptance, and academic achievement. Standardized testing does not account for the variables that are involved in the testing situation (i.e. some students don’t perform well on tests due to nerves, sickness, emotional turmoil, etc.). Experiential learning allows for students to be tested throughout the learning process course in order to track their progress daily. I found that widening the age range and the examination process produced more reliable results. This method of teaching is suggested to be more effective for students in areas of academic achievement, cognitive development, and social skills. References Albert, D. (2011). Expeditionary learning participation in the city school district of Rochester. Cambridge, MA:EduConsultant. Archambault, I., Janosz, M., Chouinard, R. (2012). Teacher beliefs as predictors of adolescent’s cognitive engagement and achievement in mathematics. The Journal of Educational Research, 105, pp. 319-328. Association for Experiential Education. (n.d.). What is experiential education? Retrieved November 8, 2014, from Beeseley, A., Clark, T., Barker, J., Germeroth, C., Apthorp, H. (2010). Expeditionary learning schools: Theory of action and literature review of motivation, character, and engagement. Mid=continent Research for Education and Learning. Berger, R. (2003). An ethic of excellence: Building a culture of craftsmanship with students. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Berger, R., Rugen, L., Woodfin, L. (2014). Leaders of their own learning: Transforming schools through student-engaged assessment. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Blumenfeld, P., Soloqay, E., Marx, R., Krajcik, J., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3&4), pp. 369-398.Celio, C., Durlak, J., Dymnicki, A. (2011). A meta-analysis of the impact of service learning on students. Journal of Experiential Education, 34(2), pp. 164-181. Chen, W., Hammond- Bennet, A., Upton, A., Mason S. (2014). Accomplished teachers’ implementation of quality teaching practice. The Physical Educator, 71, pp. 320-343. Connor J., Pope, D. (2013). Not just robo-students: Why full engagement matters and how schools can promote it. J Youth Adolescence, 42, pp. 1426-1442. Klein, E., Riordan, M. (2011). Wearing the “student hat”: Experiential professional development in expeditionary learning schools. Journal of Experiential Education, 34(1), pp. 35-54.Martin, B., Bright, A., Cafaro, P., Mittelstaedt, R., Bruyere, B. (2009). Assessing the development of environmental virtue in 7th and 8th grade students in an expeditionary learning outward bound school. Journal of Experiential Education, 31(3), pp. 341-358. Reeve, Johnmarshall. (2013). How students create motivationally supportive environments for themselves: The concept of agentic engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), pp.579-595. Skinner, E., Chi, U., The Learning-Gardens Educational Assessment Group. (2012). Intrinsic motivation and engagement as “active ingredients” in garden-based education: Examining models and measure derive from self-determination theory. The Journal of Environmental Eduaction, 43(1), pp. 16-36. Thiede, K., Redford, J. (2012). Elementary school experience with comprehension testing may influence metacomprehension accuracy among seventh and eighth graders. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), pp.554-564.Williams, D., Dixon, P. (2013). Impact of garden-based learning on academic Outcomes in schools: Synthesis of research between 1990-2010. Review of Educational Research, 83(2), pp. 211-235. Woolfolk, A. (2012).?Educational psychology, (12th ed.). Boston, MA:?Allyn?& Bacon.Wurdinger, S., Haar, J., Hugg, R. Bezon, J. (2007). A qualitative study using project-based learning in a mainstream middle school. Improving Schools, 10(2), pp. 150-161. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download