The Project Approach in Action
Sylvia C. Chard
Introduction
Projects, like good stories, have a beginning, a middle, and an end. This temporal structure helps the teacher to organize the progression of activities according to the development of the children’s interests and personal involvement with the topic of study.
During the preliminary planning stage, the teacher selects the topic of study (based on the children’s interests, the curriculum, the availability of local resources, etc.). The teacher also brainstorms her own experience, knowledge, and ideas and represents them in a topic web. This web will be added to throughout the project and used for recording the progress of the project.
Phase 1: Beginning the Project
The teacher holds discussions with the children to find out what experiences they have had with the topic and what they already know about it. The children represent their experiences and show their understanding of the concepts involved in explaining them. The teacher helps the children develop questions that their investigation will answer. A letter about the study is sent home to parents. The teacher encourages the parents to talk with their children about the topic and to share any relevant special expertise.
Phase 2: Developing the Project
Opportunities for the children to do fieldwork and speak to experts are arranged. The teacher provides resources to help the children with their investigations; real objects, books, and other research materials are gathered. The teacher suggests ways for children to carry out a variety of investigations. Each child is involved in representing what he or she is learning, and each child can work at his or her own level in terms of basic skills, constructions, drawing, music, and dramatic play. The teacher enables the children to be aware of all the different work being done through class or group discussion and display. The topic web designed earlier provides a shorthand means of documenting the progress of the project.
Phase 3: Concluding the Project
The teacher arranges a culminating event through which the children share with others what they have learned. The children can be helped to tell the story of their project by featuring its highlights for other classes, the principal, and the parents. The teacher helps the children to select material to share and, in so doing, involves them purposefully in reviewing and evaluating the whole project. The teacher also offers the children imaginative ways of personalizing their new knowledge through art, stories, and drama. Finally, the teacher uses children’s ideas and interests to make a meaningful transition between the project being concluded and the topic of study in the next project.
This summary explains some of the common features of projects, but each project is also unique. The teacher, the children, the topic, and the location of the school all contribute to the distinctiveness of each project.
Why Does the Snow Get Dirty? My First Experience with the Project Approach
Thomas Myler
View PDF of this paper with photos.
Introduction
“Why does the snow get dirty” is the essential question my kindergartners asked the first time I attempted doing the Project Approach in my classroom. It is certainly an appropriate and logical question to ask, especially by a 5-year-old as he watches pristine white sheets of snow transform into sandy, black mountains, lining the edges of the streets and parking lots of town, in just a few days. But this wasn’t the question I had in MY head as I thought and planned my winter snow unit. And that, I discovered, is just what the Project Approach is—answering the children’s question on a subject and not the teacher’s question, no matter how child centered the teacher may think it is.
The winter of 2002–2003 was a snowy one in Connecticut. We had a snowstorm in November that closed schools the Wednesday before our Thanksgiving break. Although snow at Thanksgiving is not unheard of in the Northeast, the 8 inches that was dumped on us certainly is. When school reopened, my student teacher had started a thematic unit on “Old Favorites”: nursery rhymes, Mother Goose, fairy tales. She was reading and comparing two stories—Three Little Kittens and Jan Brett’s version of The Mitten. The Mitten was certainly an appropriate choice to study as the snow continued to fall throughout most of December. However, rather than continue in the “Old Favorites” theme, I switched gears and went into my winter/snow unit to take advantage of what was going on in the children’s world around them. I worked on building schema with the children. We read stories about winter and snow, we worked on small group reading and doing center activities that revolved around winter and snow, we brainstormed lists of things we do in winter and snow, and we wrote about winter and snow. All the while, white, powdery snow continued to fall and turn brown in front of our eyes. Black paved parking lots were slowly turning into frozen sand-covered deserts. I knew why and how this was happening, but apparently the 5-year-olds in my class did not, and unbeknownst to me, they were beginning to think about it.
Right before our holiday break, I asked the children what THEY wanted to learn about in class when we returned to school in January. My hope was, of course, that with all the snow on the ground and all the reading we were doing on snow, that snow would come up. We brainstormed a list of possible topics, and along with butterflies and flowers, winter and snow were listed. So we held a discussion and agreed as a class that we would study snow now and butterflies and flowers in the spring.
During vacation, I worked on a teacher web on “snow.” I listed all the possible topics branching off from snow, wrote down the needed materials, decided where the curriculum goals fit in, and determined possible field trips. I decided to focus specifically on this year’s kindergarten literacy goals in the area of reading comprehension: building schema, questioning, and inferring. Although these are reading comprehension goals, I knew they could also be taught through a scientific and investigative approach. I spent the rest of my vacation planning and collecting more books on snow. I had it in my mind that my students would want to learn about snow and how it is made up of six-sided crystals. I looked specifically for those types of books. I also thought the children would want to learn more about snow sports. I contacted a local ski resort to see if I could arrange a field trip. I planned and organized lessons designed to build a common background of shared experiences for all the students in class. Finally, I looked for experiments that would involve making predictions and inferences. I was ready, I thought!
Figure 1. Making a snowman on the playground.
In January, we returned to school. That first week back, I focused on building a common schema for all the students. Luckily, it snowed again, so we were able to go outside onto the playground. We did all the things they did in the books. We built snowmen, made snow angels, went sliding, threw snowballs—just had a ball. The next day, we brought snow into the classroom and put it in the water table. The children worked in small groups playing in the snow with shovels and small containers. As they worked, their comments were carefully recorded by an adult volunteer. Later, the notes were reviewed to see what the children were actually saying and asking. We used microscopes, connected to laptop computers, to look at the snow as it melted. Again, the children’s comments were scripted and reviewed.
Figure 2. Watching snow melt.
That week, we also worked on two experiments revolving around winter clothing. We kicked off the experiments by reading The Jacket I Wear in the Snow. Both experiments included making and recording predictions, based on new hands-on learning experiences, testing the predictions, and then discussing the results by comparing them to the original predictions.
Experiment 1
Which kind of cloth would keep you warmer? Four jars were wrapped in four different kinds of cloth. After the children made their predictions, hot water would be poured into the jars. A thermometer in the jar would indicate the water that stayed warmer longer. The children worked in small groups with an adult. Each child felt all four of the cloth samples. The children decided which one of the cloth samples would keep the jar, and themselves for that matter, the warmest. They indicated their choice by placing a unifix cube next to the jar. The adult recorded their comments as they worked. Next, the jars were filled with hot water, and we watched to see which jar stayed warmest the longest by reading the thermometer. It turned out that fleece won. The light bulbs went on for many of the children as they realized that they were wearing fleece pullovers. The experiment helped them to make a connection to real life and realize why much of our winter clothing is made from fleece. We later worked on a project where the children made a hat for a self-portrait of themselves. They chose the material that would keep their heads the warmest. The children all chose fleece.
Experiment 2
If you stuck your hand in snow, which kind of cloth would keep your hand warmer? Two plastic bags were lined with two different kinds of cloth. One bag was put on each hand of the child. The child placed one hand into the snow, then the other. They waited to see which hand got cold first. Before doing the experiment, though, the children felt the two different kinds of cloth. Using what they knew, they chose the one they thought would be warmer. They marked their response on a chart, completed the experiment, and then discussed if their predictions were correct.
The Project Develops
At the end of each day, we met as a class to talk about what we were learning. I kept a running list of the children’s comments and questions about the snow on chart paper. The questions and comments that kept coming up revolved not around skiing or how many sides a snow crystal has but rather why snow is slippery, how it turns to ice, why school is closed on snow days, why cars get stuck in the snow, why we shovel snow, how we get around when it snows, and why the snow turns so brown and gets so dirty. I realized that I needed to refocus my efforts in response to the interest of the children—in other words, focus on snow removal not snow crystals.
So I made another trip to the library and found Katy and the Big Snow. We read the story together and held more class discussions. The children made illustrations of plows. We began webbing all our ideas on snow to see how they related and fit together. The children were discovering that snow can be both fun and dangerous. Slowly, by answering some of our questions and asking others, sharing our experiences and insights from the experiments, we narrowed down our question to the final one: “Why does the snow get dirty?” All of this discussion was driven by the children’s interest, not the teacher’s.
Armed with this final question, I worked on the last part of the project. Rather than go on a field trip, I brought the field trip to us. I contacted the grounds department of the University of Hartford, because our school is located on their campus. They were more than happy to come over and help to answer our questions and meet with the children. I met with the lead groundsman, Jeff, on two separate occasions. I explained the project to him and shared the children’s interest and questions. We agreed that he would come back the next day with a plow truck with a sander on the back.
The following day dawned sunny but cold; the temperature was only about 20 degrees. Before the plow arrived, the children practiced asking four questions about snow removal and then our ultimate question, “Why does the snow get dirty?” We learned that questions are a way to gather information. They often start with the words why, how, what, when, or where. Precisely at 10:45 a.m., Jeff and two of his cohorts arrived. We bundled up, went outside, and stood around the plow in a sand-covered parking lot surrounded by mountains of dirty snow.
Figure 3. The children examined a snowplow.
The children began asking their questions. Jeff got into the truck and showed them how the plow could be moved up and down or side to side to push the snow off the road. He explained that plowing is the first thing they do after a snowstorm. Next, our question was asked: “Why does the snow get dirty?” Rather than ANSWER the question, Jeff SHOWED them why it gets dirty. I could not have been any happier with how he did it.
First, Jeff kicked together a small pile of snow. Then, he scraped up some sand, scattered on the parking lot, with his hand and sprinkled it on top of the pile. We all watched. The white snow, combined with the brown sand, made dirty snow! So that was it—the sand makes the snow dirty! But Jeff did not stop there.
Figure 4. Jeff demonstrated how to melt snow.
When I had met with Jeff the day before, I held told him that the children thought the sand came from the ground, or the cars' tires, and not from the plows. So he went on to demonstrate the equipment on the back of the snowplow, the sander. He explained and showed us how sand is spread through the use of a sander. He told us many places put down sand, like our school, to help make the roads less slippery after it snows. But then he added his own twist. He told us that at the university they do not use sand but rather a salt and alcohol mixture. He demonstrated why. Again, he made a pile of snow, but this time, he sprinkled the salt mixture on top. In a matter of minutes, the snow began melting. The children were amazed. Jeff went on to tell them that the salt melts the snow cleanly without leaving any residue, thus the snow will disappear and not become dirty. The children thought that was a better solution to snow removal rather than having dirty snowbanks all over the place.
We thanked the experts and went back into the classroom armed with the knowledge we had gained from our field experience. We worked on two more experiments, making predictions, testing them, and finally discussing the outcomes. One experiment was deciding which plow shape worked better. Using cardboard strips, the children acted like a plow pushing snow out of the way. They plowed sand out of the way in the sand table. They discovered that a straight plow, like Jeff’s plow, worked better than a pointed plow like Katy’s in Katy and the Big Snow. The straight plow made a larger path in the bottom of the sand table. The second experiment confirmed what we learned outside with the snow removal experts. We brought in three plates of snow. I sprinkled one with sand, the other with the salt mixture, and the third one I left alone. Using tally marks, the children indicated their choice of which would melt the fastest. The salt mixture won hands down!
Finally, the children made new illustrations of snowplows and sanders. Using their new knowledge of plows and some brochures that Jeff had given us on snowplows, the children drew far more detailed illustrations, focusing specifically on the plows than they had in earlier pictures. Below are samples of the children’s work as they drew plows and sanders.
Figure 5. The children made new illustrations of snowplows and sanders.
Figure 6. A drawing of a snowplow.
Conclusion
As I began wrapping up this, my first project, I reflected on what my students had learned. They could certainly answer our final project question as is indicated by our interactive writing piece. They would say that sand from the plows makes the snow dirty. They can even elaborate and explain that salt is better than sand because it melts the snow and DOESN’T make it dirty. Further, the children can show which plow is more effective at removing snow by placing their hands together at the fingertips, indicating a straight plow. But what of the comprehension goals that I had set out to meet: building schema, questioning, and inferring?
All three comprehension strategies were continuously addressed in real and authentic ways throughout the project. We built schema as we read about and interacted with the snow. And what better way of practicing questioning is there than actually formulating questions for a purpose as we did for the expert visit? Finally, we had to use much of our shared schema to make inferences and predictions in the experiments we undertook. So, yes, I have met those goals. In addition, by following the children’s interests, and not strictly my own, the class experienced high levels of student engagement and excitement. I was able to continue to meet the kindergarten curriculum goals, as well as involve parents.
This project was a success for me and my class! It was a meaningful, child-centered approach to teaching where the students were truly active participants. The students were empowered to make decisions about what to learn, were able to learn skills and apply them to real-life situations, and were able to work in an exciting environment. Who would have thought that dirty snow could be such a powerful teaching tool!
Deepening Project Investigations
Nancy B. Hertzog & Marjorie M. Klein
View PDF of this paper with photos.
Introduction
Is a bulldozer the same thing as a crane? Is frost the same as snow? The answers to these questions are matters of consequence to 5- and 6-year-olds. Students in the midst of project investigations are motivated to pursue answers to their own questions. The teacher’s role in facilitating inquiry is no easy task, and getting students deeply involved in a topic under study is even harder. This chapter will address how teachers can provide greater depth and complexity to project investigations. After all, it is the teacher who plays the critical role of designing activities that enhance the depth and complexity of project work.
The degree to which the students are engaged in critical thinking, designing, experimenting, and inquiring defines the richness of the learning experiences. We propose five specific strategies teachers can use to deepen the inquiry: (1) model curiosity, (2) promote and facilitate discussion, (3) hone questioning skills, (4) create contexts for experimentation and representation, and (5) use the language of thinking.
Model Curiosity
When teachers model curiosity, students have opportunities to reason. Notice in this example what the teacher said when a student shared his observation:
Konan: I dropped 3 apples in the pond. 2 apples floated and 1 sank.
Teacher: That's interesting. I wonder why.
Teachers model curiosity by listening carefully to what the students say, thereby demonstrating interest in the students’ ideas and promoting the joy of wanting to learn more about something. The teacher can model curiosity by being open to students’ ideas even though they may seem to be “far out” and not related to the topic at hand. By not ignoring the teachable moment, teachers place value on the child’s curiosity and begin the process of facilitating the child’s own investigation into the topic. The teacher probes students’ thinking by asking students to elaborate upon their ideas and helps students to formulate ways to investigate their questions. For students who have questions that may diverge from the main topic, the teacher provides an independent investigation form that articulates a plan for the inquiry. Questions for the students on the form include the following:
- What are you curious about?
- What do you already know?
- What do you want to know?
There is also a list of methods of investigation such as Interview, Internet Search, Read a Book, Experiment, and so forth, that students can circle. The last section on the form asks students how they would like to share their findings with the other students. This approach again places value on students’ inquiries and demonstrates the worthiness of pursuing their own questions. Oftentimes, the teacher brings students’ ideas to the whole group for discussion.
Promote and Facilitate Discussion
Discussion is one of the key features of project investigations, and it is important in all three phases of project work. Teachers who provide time for students to discuss and compare their ideas to those of others promote ways for students to further their inquiry and exploration. For example, in a discussion of how their ideas should be categorized, students argued over whether or not cranes or bulldozers should go into the same category:
CM: I think cranes should go with bulldozers because they are the same. They lift things.
BG: I disagree. Cranes are not the same as bulldozers because the crane has that thing that lifts that makes it different.
CM: They are the same, they do the same things. They just have different names.
JJ: Cranes knock down buildings and so do bulldozers. So they are the same.
WJ: Cranes help scoop up rocks.
Jay: Yeah. Bulldozers can't scoop, they are just for pushing things.
CM: Well, they are all machines that work on constructions.
AH: We could put tractors, machines, cranes all together. They are all machines.
Teacher: What do you think? AH is suggesting that all the machines go together in the same group.
WJ: No, I think the cranes should be separate from the others.
After arguing about whether or not cranes were the same as bulldozers, the teacher suggested that they survey students for their opinions. They graphed the results of their survey and brought it back to the group for more discussion.
Figure 1. Graph of the responses to the question,
"Are cranes the same as bulldozers?”
Facilitating discussion for young children can be rather tricky. Students often lose interest in what other children have to say. Keeping students focused on the discussion by eliciting their opinions and ideas makes for more lively and thoughtful discussions. Teachers can probe their thinking with questions such as these:
- What do you think happened?
- Would the same thing happen if we used other materials?
- How do you explain this?
While discussing, children speak, listen, and respond to peers. By listening to the conversations during discussion, teachers can assess individual understandings and note misconceptions to prepare future contexts for learning. In the following discussion about frost, the teacher noted that many students had misconceptions:
T: What happens to get frost?
JL: I think it was raining and snowing last night. It was snowy cold last night. So rain and snow that is frozen makes frost.
KH: I agree.
SG: I agree.
IK: I agree.
JL: Frost means it's frozen.
ErK: I think it was raining and snowing. It was very cold last night because I was going outside and I felt some drops on my head. I was like, "Is it raining?" and then I started to see snow.
ElK: I think that it is just so cold that it just gets there.
T: How does the frost just get there?
ElK: In the summer, we saw a dead bunny and our dad touched him with a shovel, and it was dead because of the record. He was frozen. That's how it got frost.
T: The frost got there from the bunny?
ElK: No, the record.
T: Could you tell a little bit more about this record.
ElK: It means that it's a cold record. The weather's cold outside.
CAZ: Like a weather record.
DK: Last year it set a record.
ElK: That's what I meant.
T: So you mean that last night it set a record and that's how the frost got on the grass?
The teacher returned to this conversation later in the project and reminded the students about what they discussed:
T: On October 15, we had a conversation about frost. On that day, the conversation sounded like this:
ErK: I think it was raining and snowing. It was very cold last night because I was going outside and I felt some drops on my head. I was like, "Is it raining?" and then I started to see snow.
T: Is that still your thinking about frost?
ErK: Yes.
DK: I think frost comes from grass. It's white stuff before it turns into frost.
AS: I think it's some ice.
DK: It's there in mornings. It's called dew.
AS: Not in the summer.
MG: I've heard of that.
DK: Frost is made out of dew.
AL: Frost melts in summer. Frost is dew.
MG: No, it's not.
PF: Hail storms are white. Maybe it hail stormed in the middle of the night. But I didn't hear any.
LH: When I was getting ready, frost was on the roof. It can get on cars, too.
AL: My mom said dew comes from out of the ground and frost comes from the sky.
ElK: Your mom's wrong.
JW: I've got an experiment that uses a magnifying glass. Maybe that would tell us. This is how I think frost forms. I think dew is drops of water that gets formed on grass. Dew freezes and frost is formed.
T: What are the conditions for dew? Where does dew come from?
MG: From the ground. Maybe the ground on the other side of the world, and it comes through the earth (I don't know how it gets past the hot lava), and then it comes out of the ground as dew and then frost.
New vocabulary is appearing in the conversation, as well as, for some children, a beginning understanding of dew and its relationship to frost. The conversations reinforce that not all children learn at the same rate. Understanding is not a whole class understanding, but, rather, the conversation documents where individuals are in "making sense" of their world.
Teachers listen to the conversations and ask clarifying questions to help students articulate their thinking during discussion. These questions may include:
- What do you mean?
- How did you do that?
- Why do you say that?
- How does that fit with what she just said?
- I don’t really get that, could you explain it another way?
- Could you give an example?
- How did you figure that out?
- Can anyone help (name of child)figure out his/her problem?
Teachers help children think critically when revisiting key features of the conversation, reminding students what was said, and asking for their current thinking on the topic. Anderson (1996) contends that discussions promote further understanding:
Teachers facilitate discussions where points of view are presented and debated by children to reach consensus on an answer. It is in the process of considering other children's solutions that they reach higher levels of understanding, learn more efficient procedures and/or clarify their thinking. (p. 37)
Duckworth (1996) also says, “To the extent that one carries on a conversation with a child as a way of trying to understand a child’s understanding, the child’s understanding increases “in the very process” (p. 96).
Discussions occur all throughout the phases of the project. In Phase 1, students brainstorm their previous experiences about the topic. They discuss, categorize, and label their ideas to form a topic web. Topic webs can be done several times during a project investigation—at the beginning, middle, and end. Critical thinking occurs during sorting and comparing of ideas during these discussions.
In Phase 2, students divide up into smaller study teams. Each team reports to the class in a large group meeting its observations and discoveries. This approach gives the investigators authentic opportunities to clarify their findings and speak before the group. It also gives the rest of the group the chance to ask questions, challenge assumptions, and express their own knowledge about the topic at hand.
Hone Questioning Skills
The teacher may need to help young students distinguish between something they know and something they want to know. Although some young students can write their own questions, others may need to dictate their questions to a teacher. Teachers should keep a list of all of the students’ questions throughout the project and encourage students to make predictions about the answers to their questions before pursuing the answers. In this way, teachers can note misconceptions and areas for growth. Predicting what the answer might be is another opportunity for critical thinking in project work. Teachers have to set the stage for valuing the process and not the right answer so students are willing to take that risk when predicting. Langer (1997) said:
If we respect students’ abilities to define their own experiences, to generate their own hypotheses, and to discover new ways of categorizing the world, we might not be so quick to evaluate the adequacy of their answers. We might, instead, begin listening to their questions. Out of the questions of students come some of the most creative ideas and discoveries. (p. 135)
Students find out answers to their questions by collecting data through firsthand fieldwork. Students observe, draw, and describe what they see. Student data collection includes asking the opinions of others and developing questionnaires. They tally, count, graph, and chart their findings. They also could experiment and interview experts. Answering questions leads to formulating more questions.
Create Contexts for Experimentation and Representation
For young children, a project topic must be chosen that provides opportunities for hands-on inquiry experiences. Investigation and fieldwork are also key features of project work. Teachers must design and create the contexts for students to pursue data gathering. Here is an example of how the teacher takes the lead in suggesting that students may want to experiment to find out their answers. The students report their experiences upon their return from a nearby pond:
Konan: I dropped 3 apples in the pond. 2 apples floated and 1 sank.
Teacher: That's interesting. I wonder why.
Jeff: A small apple is going to have less weight. It isn't as big so it would sink, and a big one has more place for the water to hold it up.
Teacher: You may want to try to do an experiment in our classroom with water and try things to see if we can duplicate Konan’s experiment and come up with a theory of why things float and sink.
The discussion continued with children sharing their theories of why one apple sank. Notice how the teacher again suggested students test their hypotheses by doing experiments, and a student modeled that behavior by suggesting another experiment:
Arnav: Maybe the heavier the thing, the lighter... No. If the thing has much air, then it stays up. The thing that doesn't have air stays down.
Peter: Deer like to eat apples. Maybe the deer took a bite out of the apple—a really small bite—and then the deer didn't like the apple and just left it. It was a really small bite, and Konan didn't notice it. And the bite filled up with water and sank.
Konan: I didn't see any bites.
Teacher: So we'll need to experiment with apples with and without holes.
Deren: You could do another experiment with apples the same size.
Throughout the project, the teacher focuses on how students approach and solve problems. Teachers should not emphasize whether students have right or wrong answers. This explicit interest in experimentation and problem solving empowers students to be young scientific investigators. Whole group discussions of students’ experiments most always motivate other students to conduct more and varied experiments. The following example illustrates students sharing their findings about their shadow exploration:
Kay: Mine is short.
Teacher: Why do you think it's short?
Kay: Because I shone the flashlight on top of my person.
Amy: Hers is short because the light is far away.
Andrea: I think her shadow is short because the person she made is short.
Teacher: Sandy, do you have any explanation for why yours is a long shadow?
Sandy: I think the shadow is off the paper because the person I made is tall.
This conversation was documented, transcribed, and shared with the children to rethink or reaffirm their respective positions. After more opportunities for shadow observation, the conditions needed for a long shadow were again discussed.
Kay: The conditions needed for a long shadow are the light has to be far away.
Kathy: I agree, the sun is very far away from us.
John: I disagree.
The teacher brought a flashlight to the group and tested their theories. She asked, "What do you notice when the light is far above the model person?" Teachers should gently guide students’ experiments by asking them to predict and hypothesize, getting them appropriate materials, and teaching them how to represent their findings and conclusions. Giving students time to design and build representations is another way to provide depth in project investigations.
Representation is also a key feature of project work. Students express their ways of knowing through representations. Representation may be explorative, integrative, emergent, creative, or playful for the students. Most always, creating representations are endeavors of problem solving. Students’ favorite materials to build are “boxes and junk.”
Teachers may enhance students’ representations with digital photography so students can go back and look closely at what they are trying to reproduce or re-create. Students engage in higher-level thinking skills as they represent what they see. They evaluate materials, determine size relationships, design solutions to their problems, and demonstrate their understandings through their final product. Eisner (1997) said, “In short, the processes of thinking are engaged in the process of making, and the process of making requires the ability to see what is going on in order to make it better" (p. 350).
Students should be encouraged to make representations in all phases of project work. They may represent their memories, what they see in their fieldwork, and, finally, what they have come to understand.
Use the Language of Thinking
The teachers’ role is to provide contexts for intellectual engagement. Teachers may model language of thinking by using vocabulary such as the following:
- I wonder
- What if
- I predict
- My theory is
- My hypothesis is
Tishman and Perkins (1997) labeled three categories of language related to thinking: claim to knowledge, intellectual process, and kinds of ideas. The words associated with each are represented in the table below.
| Claim to Knowledge | conjecture, conclude, believe, confirm, doubt, know, suggest, speculate, suspect, and theorize |
| Intellectual Process | analyze, contemplate, discern, interpret, investigate, ponder, examine, and recollect |
| Kinds of Ideas or Outcomes | conclusion, hypothesis, option, solution, reason, claim, and theory |
Teachers may find these terms helpful as they model and encourage students to use them. Tishman and Perkins (1997) explained how using the language of thinking engages students in critical thinking:
Frequent exposure to the language of argumentation, such terms as premise, reason, conclusion, evidence, theory, and hypothesis, draws learners into the values and commitments of critical analysis.... Using the language of thinking in the classroom helps develop learners’ sensitivity to occasions for engaging in high-level thinking. Terms like claim, option, opinion, guess, and doubt alert learners to opportunities to do such things as probe an assumption, seek evidence, identify reasons, or look at a problem from a new point of view. (p. 372)
Throughout project work, teachers have the opportunity to engage students in the language of thinking. When they ask students to brainstorm their ideas, ponder new solutions, suggest new theories, make predictions, and examine their data, they are integrating the language of thinking into their daily routines. They are making students aware of how much thinking they are really doing!
Tishman and Perkins (1997) assert:
When thinking-rich language pervades a learning environment—when it sees regular use by teachers and learners... it provides not only information but also an invitation to embrace and cultivate certain habits of the mind. (p. 372)
Conclusion
To facilitate learning and to deepen the inquiry of project investigations, teachers must make decisions about concepts that are valuable and appropriate to teach. They must become informed about the topic by gathering resources, talking to experts, and collaborating with others to seek ideas for creating the contexts students need to pursue their questions. They must provide opportunities for students to revisit their ideas and assumptions and develop activities to assess and reassess students’ knowledge, skills, and dispositions. Teachers guide students to re-create and reflect upon their experiences, and help students to find meaningful ways to represent what they have learned. Teaching strategies that enhance the depth of inquiry include modeling curiosity, promoting discussion, honing students’ questioning skills, creating contexts for experimentation and representation, and using the language of thinking. Teachers who want to deepen project work learn to probe, provoke, guide, provide, and assist students all along the way.
References
Anderson, T. L. (1996). They’re trying to tell me something: A teacher’s reflection on primary children’s construction of mathematical knowledge. Young Children, 51(4), 34-42. (ERIC Journal No. EJ523414)
Duckworth, E. (1996). The having of wonderful ideas. New York: Teachers College Press. (ERIC Document No. ED396965)
Eisner, E. W. (1997). Cognition and representation: A way to pursue an American dream? Phi Delta Kappan, 78(5), 348-353. (ERIC Journal No. EJ537564)
Langer, E. J. (1997). The power of mindful learning. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.
Tishman, S., & Perkins, D. (1997). The language of thinking. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(5), 368-374. (ERIC Journal No. EJ537567)
Meeting Individual Educational Plans Using the Project Approach
Stacie DeVries
View PDF of this paper with photos.
Introduction
Is the Project Approach appropriate for all children, including those with special needs? Of course! But some educators may be hesitant to use the Project Approach to meet individual educational plans (IEPs) because it seems too difficult to incorporate a child’s specific goals with a project topic. Some teachers become comfortable meeting IEP goals by planning more teacher-directed activities. Other teachers may feel a child’s developmental or communication delays inhibit his or her ability to be interested, to learn from the experience, or to achieve project goals. A child with special needs may require more assistance to participate in a project activity—for example, holding the paintbrush to make strokes on a representation of a refrigerator seen at the pizza parlor. Some classrooms have limited numbers of adults to spend extra time with a child with special needs; however, if they rethink their approach to meeting IEP goals, educators can accommodate children’s individual needs using the Project Approach.
According to Rebecca Edmiaston (1998), the Project Approach is well suited to meeting the needs of all young children, including those with special needs. After studying inclusive environments, Edmiaston provides five reasons in support of using the Project Approach with children who have special needs:
- Projects are collaborative—children and teachers work collaboratively, and all children contribute in their own way.
- Projects are based on children’s interests—learning experiences can be shaped to meet all the children’s needs.
- Projects include a variety of activities and experiences. Individual abilities are taken into consideration, and IEPs can be integrated.
- Small groups take on much of the work during a project, making it easier to meet individual needs and include children with special needs.
- Documentation of the project emphasizes the learning experiences and strengths of the children.
At St. Ambrose University Children’s Campus (SAUCC), the Project Approach is used to meet curriculum objectives and goals for individual educational plans involving children with special needs. The center serves as a least restrictive environment for families in a variety of school districts. The Bluebird classroom serves children 3, 4, and 5 years old. Children with individual educational plans are involved in learning experiences, and documentation supports growth and achievement for specific goals and benchmarks. If a child’s IEP goals and benchmarks are supported with documentation, school districts will see the learning that is occurring as a result of firsthand learning experiences such as those afforded by the Project Approach. Two families have given permission to use examples of their children’s IEP benchmarks and documentation to help explain how using the Project Approach can meet children’s individual needs.
Jenna
Jenna is a vibrant, 4.5-year-old young child with a medical diagnosis of cerebral palsy (CP). Her CP affects her speech and gross and fine motor movements. Jenna’s IEP focuses on goals for school readiness, language, and motor development. When Jenna was about 2.5 years old, Lori, Jenna’s mother, began noticing a gap in the interactions between Jenna and her peers. She didn’t want Jenna to be an observer of classroom life but rather an active participant. Jenna was enrolled in our center just before her third birthday. Lori writes,
I saw an immediate difference in the environment. The children, who are accustomed to seeing special needs peers, immediately warmed to Jenna and included her in their play. The gap that I saw was immediately gone! … the Project Approach to learning naturally includes all the kids and their perspectives. It allows the learning to come from them instead of solely from the teacher. Jenna’s curiosity has been stimulated, and I see that transfer to our home. Even with speech, I see Jenna’s eyes sparkle with curiosity as the group explores a project. I observe her listening and thinking intently and asking questions and carrying out some action related to the project. She is able to achieve, with whatever modifications are necessary, what her peers are able to achieve. Her self-esteem has improved, her social interactions have improved, and she has made tremendous progress in meeting her developmental milestones. Because of this type of environment and the Project Approach, I see Jenna blossoming and being involved in learning and life, which is the ultimate goal.
Jenna actively explored the guitar, cello, and bass during the Stringed Instrument Project. She used her communication device to name the instruments and request specific songs. Jenna investigated all instruments by strumming or picking the strings and participated in a variety of small group curriculum activities. Following aresome examples of her learning experiences and documentation to support IEP benchmark achievements.
Throughout the entire project, the children were exposed to a variety of guitar shapes and sizes. The guitars provided ample opportunities for comparisons of similarities and differences, as well as music-making experiences.
Jenna held the pick of the guitar with her finger and thumb (Figure 1). She requested to play “Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star” by opening and closing her hands, like a twinkling star. She used the pick on the strings while Stacie sang. In the language of her IEP, Jenna strengthened her abilities to use a pincer grasp to hold a tiny object.
Figure 1. Jenna explored a guitar during the Stringed Instrument Project.
A rolling and building game was played to strengthen Jenna’s mathematical thinking skills. After rolling the die, the dots were counted, and corresponding blocks were stacked. The stack of blocks was compared to the size of the guitar (see Figure 2).
Figure 2. Jenna pointed to dots on a die.
Jenna pointed to the dots on the die. She placed one block on top of the die and two more around the die to equal three, the same number on the die. Jenna strengthened the following IEP benchmarks: understanding quantity concepts 1 through 5 and participating in an adult-led activity.
During a field site visit to seek answers to questions, children played the cello and bass. Some children also sketched instruments.
Jenna made vertical strokes on her paper (Figure 3). She pointed to the part of the instrument she sketched. She made the strings on the bass. She met the following IEP benchmark: attempting vertical images on paper with minimal assistance.
Figure 3. Jenna sketched the strings on a bass.
Nathan
Nathan is a 5.2-year-old, energetic boy who was diagnosed with a congenital heart defect in the first days of his life. Nathan has a chromosomal abnormality and is diagnosed with severe oral apraxia. Nathan’s IEP focuses on goals for school readiness, language, and motor development. Karla, Nathan’s mother, writes,
The use of projects has allowed Nathan to demonstrate initiation as he becomes interested and excited about the topic. Nathan initiated constructing a guitar when musical instruments were available to explore. He also constructed a dog kennel when pets were the project topic.
Our child-led environment and the Project Approach have strengthened Nathan’s attention span, as well as his communication and socialization skills.
During “Doctor Tools/Casts,” Nathan (4.0 years) participated in investigating a variety of doctor tools. He learned new sign language to identify the tools and manipulated them to figure out how they are used by doctors. Nathan also investigated the texture of casts and how they are made. Following are some examples of his learning experiences and documentation to support IEP benchmark achievements.
Dramatic play was an important avenue for learning and an effective technique to include all children in our classroom, especially those who continued to build their language skills. Props allowed us to gather knowledge prior to our field site visit and after our field site visit.
Figure 4. Nathan participated in investigating a variety of tools used by doctors.
Nathan imitated, using sign language, “Look, ear,” to tell a friend to look in his ear (Figure 4). For Nathan’s IEP, he strengthened his ability to take turns with a peer and imitated sign language, increasing his communication skills.
After a visitor shared his experience with a broken finger and a new cast, children made representations of casts.
Nathan created a cast out of Model Magic dough (Figure 5). He pressed the dough on his arm and hand. He learned the sign “band aid” for the word cast. During this experience, he met the following individual benchmarks: handling materials appropriately and poking, rolling, and squeezing a dough art medium.
Figure 5. Nathan created a cast out of Model
Magic dough.
During Phase 2, the children shared knowledge and asked questions regarding several tools used by doctors. Nathan manipulated the stethoscope and tongue depressor (Figures 6 & 7).
Nathan put the stethoscope on and listened to my heart. He gave me the stethoscope and lifted his shirt, communicating that he wanted me to listen to his heart. He also demonstrated how to use the tongue depressor. Nathan met the following individual goals: waiting for and taking turns, handling materials appropriately, and expressing his needs.
Conclusion
Is the Project Approach appropriate for all children, including those with special needs? Yes, Jenna and Nathan’s experiences with project work have proven to be successful in meeting their individual educational plan goals. Both children have participated in all projects since their arrival at SAUCC, with their level of participation varying. Jenna and Nathan have both explored independently, as well as with assistance. IEP goals were incorporated with project activities on lesson plans, and several goals were strengthened and achieved. Learning experiences and documentation created evidence needed to support the individual educational plans for children with special needs. The Project Approach can meet the needs of all young children, including those children with special needs.
Figure 6. Nathan put on the stethoscope.
Figure 7. Nathan used a tongue depressor.
References
Edmiaston, R. K. (1998). Projects in inclusive early childhood classrooms. In J. H. Helm (Ed.), The project approach catalog 2 (pp. 1:19-1:22). Champaign, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education. (ERIC Document No. ED424036)
