Herrin Literature Review 5305
Herrin Literature Review 5305
Herrin Literature Review 5305
Literature Review
Overview
There has been a movement to shift the traditional classroom environment into one that
encourages inquiry and a deeper connection with learning. In the traditional factory-based
model, the teacher is the center rather than the learner. Schools around the globe are beginning
to reconstruct the entire school experience in order to engage learners innovatively and
organically (Adams Becker, S., Freeman, A., Giesinger Hall, C., Cummins, M., & Yuhnke, B.,
challenge, competency, or project based learning. Jean Piaget’s writings (1964), among others,
helped shape the foundations of these methods. Inquiry based learning provides guidance for the
learner to discover, activate curiosity, and learn how to learn. Project-based learning (PBL)
presents learners with an authentic opportunity to engage meaningfully with content by solving
The objective of this literature review is to emphasize the importance learner choice,
ownership, and voice has in creating authentic learning opportunities (COVA), the definition of
PBL and its relation to blended learning, and the impact personalized learning has in
COVA
professors Tilisa Thibodeaux, Dwayne Harapnuik, and Cynthia Cummings (2017) to navigate
Project Based Learning: Personalizing the Learning Environment
2
the learning process in the M.Ed. Digital Learning and Leading program (p. 2). Through COVA,
learners are given the “freedom to choose how they wish to organize, structure, and present their
experiences and evidences of learning” (Harapnuik, 2016). Choice develops the foundation for a
personalized learning environment (Bolliger & Shepherd, 2010). In a PBL environment, learners
are encouraged to organize, collaborate with classmates, and choose how they wish to showcase
their work and learning experiences (Harapnuik, 2017). The Buck Institute for Education (2019)
calls PBL “a teaching method in which students gain knowledge and skills by working for an
extended period of time to investigate and respond to an authentic, engaging, and complex
how students are to perform, organize, structure and present information and learning
experiences. When teachers do provide a choice, it is often a selection from a predetermined list
of options” (Harapnuik, 2017). Teachers determine the method of delivery, and rarely offer
authentic opportunities for students to formulate solutions to real world issues. If learners are not
able to associate their learning with personal interests or ambitions, the learning is centered
around the teacher and not the learner (Bray & McClaskey, 2013). In a learner-centered
environment, a learner’s contributions and expressions are built upon prior knowledge and
“Some element of student control is critical; otherwise, blended learning is no different from a
Allowing learners ownership initiates motivation, engagement and agency (2014, pp. 20-21).
The process of ownership is not by pure discovery, but by guided discovery provided by the
instructor (Harapnuik 2016). Attwell (2012) suggests the learner owns different processes
related to learning in which the learner “owns” his or her reflections and personal assessments.
According to constructivists, like Jonassen (1999), learners must own the problem because it
dynamically through organizing and constructing knowledge in both individual and constructive
activity (Biggs, 1996; Piaget, 1968, 1983). Knowledge relates to an operation, in which to
engage in it, one must act on it (Piaget, 1964). Personal learning environments provide a space
for learners to take ownership and meet the expectations they have created for themselves (Bray
Through the COVA approach, learners are encouraged to construct and organize their
ideas through the use of their own voice, and share their work and insights with their audience
(Harapnuik, 2016). A true PBL environment situates learners’ interests, voice, and prior
experience at the heart of the curriculum and supports a student-centered pedagogy (Ball, 2016).
Voice is a central component to PBL. Projects are designed to revolve and culturally respond to
learners’ unique backgrounds, interests, and needs (Schwalm & Smuck Tylek, 2012). PBL grants
learners the opportunity to recognize their own voice and own it by publishing their endeavors to
a real-world audience beyond classroom borders (Buck Institute for Education, 2017). Publishing
to an audience other than the instructor deepens understanding, and bestows a sense of purpose
Project Based Learning: Personalizing the Learning Environment
4
(Bass, 2014). Harapnuik (2017) advocates for the implementation of an online ePortfolio in
which students present their authentic work digitally to create an online presence.
for learning to take place. Authentic learning requires active engagement in concepts in which
the learner learns “by doing,” cultivating and investigating solutions to problems that extend
beyond a textbook formula (Windham, 2007). Freeman et al. (2017) say “authentic learning is
not a trend - it is a necessity” (p. 4). In the 2016 K-12 Horizon Report, Becker, Adams,
Freeman, Giesinger Hall, Cummins, and Yuhnke argue that authentic learning is the foundation
in which metacognitive reflection and self-awareness blossom (p. 22). Harapnuik (2016)
suggests authentic learning opportunities that are significant to the learner stirs meaningful
connections. Authentic learning is not a new concept, however technology has further provided
learners new avenues to access learning in both real and virtual settings (Windham, 2007).
Ragone and Quale (2017) say PBL “requires children to embrace uncertainty while also
engaging with the great wonders of the world in a systematic way” (p. 60). An established
real-world view helps authentic learning to take root. An authentic learning environment helps
students grasp the purpose of why they are learning. (Yoshikawa & Bartholomew, 2017, p. 50).
Authenticity is not an isolated aspect of the environment, it is the result of reciprocity between
the learner, project, and the learning environment (Barab, Squire, & Dueber, 2000). Harapnuik
(2016) stresses that “without this dynamic and interactive authenticity, there would be no
extended time period, during which students select, plan, investigate and produce a product,
challenge (Holm, 2011, p. 1). These authentic learning opportunities guide discovery through a
constructivist method in which the learner uses prior knowledge to produce concrete evidence of
understanding. The projects require complex thinking and creative problem solving (Barron &
Darling-Hammond, 2008; Savery, 2006). In Jerome Bruner’s The Act of Discovery (1961), he
states that:
way that one is enabled to go beyond the evidence so reassembled to additional new
insights. A small part but a crucial part of discovery of the highest order is to invent and
develop models or ‘puzzle forms’ that can be imposed on difficulties with good effect. It
is in this area that the truly powerful mind shines (p. 7).
hands-on or virtual projects. Personalized learning through the tool of technology can be
accomplished through blended learning. Blended learning is “any formal education program in
which a student learns at least in part through online learning, with some element of student
control over time, place, path, and/or pace” (Horn & Staker, 2015, p. 34). Although PBL is not
directly associated with blended learning, when authentic projects are paired with technology,
Project Based Learning: Personalizing the Learning Environment
6
learners are able to engage deeper and experiment with a variety of tools and platforms (Adams
learner drives their own learning, and develops their own inner teacher. This creates flexibility
for the teacher’s role to shift into a facilitator or mentor. (Bray & McClaskey, 2014). “Educators
are now acting as guides and mentors, modeling responsible global citizenship and motivating
students to adopt lifelong learning habit by providing opportunities for students to direct their
own learning trajectories” (Friend, Patrick, Schneider, Vander Ark, 2017). The opportunity to
step away from the traditional problem sets and research papers students find learning fun
because they’re able to engage in hands-on meaningful projects with a variety of tools
(Windham, 2017). Personalizing the learning grants learners the chance to create, inspire, own
and receive support in their learning which in turn develops students into the biggest advocates
for a personalized learning environment (Friend, Patrick, Schneider, Vander Ark, 2017). A
learner-centered environment that is rich with genuine exploration, reflection, and expression
along with guidance and support frees learners to take risks to fail forward (Ackermann, 2003).
Carol Dweck (2006, p. 39) argues that when learners develop a growth mindset, failures may
sting, but failures do not define their identity. Failing forward develops agency and gives learners
the chance to own both their failures and successes. It is the responsibility of the learner to own
their learning (Harapnuik 2017) while it is the responsibility for the teacher to present learners
with challenges manageable enough to spark interests and engagement (Duckworth 1987). Our
Project Based Learning: Personalizing the Learning Environment
7
aim as educators is to inspire our audience to be autonomous life-long learners. Personalizing the
learning, providing authentic opportunities for ownership develops learner agency and efficacy
(Bruner, 1961).
Conclusions
The goal of education is about learning. Education sets students free to create, inspire,
dream, and lead if given authentic opportunities to do so. Educators have the great responsibility
to set the stage to encourage students to choose, voice, and own their learning. The PBL
real-world context. In his TED Talk titled Bring on the Learning Revolution!, Sir Ken Robinson
(2010) says, “Human flourishing is not a mechanical process, it’s an organic process, and you
cannot predict the outcome of human development. All you can do is...create the conditions
under which [learners] begin to flourish.” PBL empowers learners’ self-efficacy, and provides an
environment in which learners flourish. Personalizing the learning environment through PBL
References:
Adams Becker, S., Freeman, A., Giesinger Hall, C., Cummins, M., and Yuhnke, B. (2016).
NMC/CoSN Horizon Report: 2016 K-12 Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
Project Based Learning: Personalizing the Learning Environment
8
Attwell, G. (2012). Who owns the e-porfolio? Pontydysgu. Bridge to learning. Retrieved April
2019 from a http://www.pontydysgu.org/2012/09/who-owns-the-e-portfolio
Ball, C. L. (2016). Sparking passion: Engaging student voice through project-based learning in
learning communities. Learning Communities Research and Practice, volume number4(1),
Article 9. Retrieved from: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1112791.pdf
Barab, S. A., Squire, K. D., & Dueber, W. (2000). A co-evolutionary model for supporting the
emergence of authenticity. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(2), 37-62.
Barron, B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Teaching for meaningful learning: A review of
etrieved from
research on inquiry-based and cooperative learning. R
http://www.edutopia.org/pdfs/edutopia-teaching-for-meaningful-learning.pdf
Bass, R (2014). Social pedagogies in ePortfolio practices: Principles for design and impact.
Retrieved from http://c2l.mcnrc.org/pedagogy/ped-analysis/
Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32,
347}364.
Bray, B. & McClaskey, K. (2013). Personalization vs. differentiation vs. individualization chart
(v3). Retrieved from:
http://barbarabray.net/2014/01/22/personalization-vs-differentiation-vs-individualization-chart-v
3/
Bray, B. & McClaskey, K. (2014, June 11). Personalize your learning environment. International
Society for Technology in Education. Retrieved from:
https://www.iste.org/explore/articledetail?articleid=11
Project Based Learning: Personalizing the Learning Environment
9
Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, volume 31, pp. 21-32.
https://digitalauthorshipuri.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/the-act-of-discovery-bruner.pdf
Buchem, I., Tur, G., & Hölterhof, T. (2014, June). Learner control in personal learning
environments: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Literacy and Technology, 15( 2), 14-53.
Buck Institute for Education. (2019). What is project based learning (PBL)?. Retrieved from:
http://www.bie.org/about/what_pbl
D.U. Bolliger & C.E. Shepherd (2010) Student perceptions of ePortfolio integration in online
courses,Distance Education, 31:3, 295-314, DOI: 10.1080/01587919.2010.513955
Duckworth, E. (1987). The having of wonderful ideas and other essays on teaching and learning.
New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Ballantine Books.
Freeman, A., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Davis, A., and Hall Giesinger, C. (2017).
NMC/CoSN Horizon Report: 2017 K–12 Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
Friend, B., Patrick, S., Schneider, C., & Vander Ark, T. (2017). What’s possible with
personalized learning? Vienna, VA: International Association for K-12 Online Learning
(iNACOL).
https://www.inacol.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/iNACOL_Whats-Possible-with-Personalize
d-Learning.pdf
Harapnuik, D. (2017). COVA vs. traditional. [Web log comment]. Retrieved from:
http://www.harapnuik.org/?page_id=7003
Piaget, J. (1983). Piaget's theory. P. Mussen (ed). Handbook of Child Psychology. 4th edition.
Vol. 1. New York: Wiley.
Ragone, A. & Quale, M. (2017). Technology and project-based learning: The AltSchool journey.
Independent School, 76( 3), 54-61.
Robinson, K. (April, 2013). How to escape education’s death valley. Retrieved from:
https://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_how_to_escape_education_s_death_valley
Schwalm, J., Smuck Tylek, K., (2012). “Systemwide implementation of project-based learning:
The Philadelphia Approach.” Afterschool Matters, n15 p1-8. Retrieved from:
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ980187.pdf
Project Based Learning: Personalizing the Learning Environment
11
Swanson, Troy A. "A radical step: Implementing A Critical Information Literacy Model."
portal: Libraries and the Academy, vol. 4 no. 2, 2004, pp. 259-273. Project MUSE,
doi:10.1353/pla.2004.0038
Thibodeaux, T., Harapnuik, D., & Cummings, C. (2017). Factors that contribute to ePortfolio
persistence. International Journal of ePortfolio, 7( 1), 1-12.
Windham, C. (2007). Why today’s students value authentic learning. Educause Learning ELI
Paper 9. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI3017.pdf
Yoshikawa, E. & Bartholomew, S. R. (2017, May 1). Taking PBL to the next level. Techniques:
Connecting Education and Careers, 92(5), 48-51.
Project Based Learning: Personalizing the Learning Environment
12