Enhancing Elementary Students' Creative Problem Solving through Project-Based Education
pdf version of articleA Critique of:
“Enhanced Elementary Students’ Creative Problem Solving through Project-Based Education,” a Research Article
by Romina M. J. Proctor
I. Bibliographic Information
Author: Romina M. J. Proctor
Title: “Enhancing Elementary Students’ Creative Problem Solving through Project-Based Education”
Published in: Building on the Future: The 22nd National Educational Computing Conference Proceedings (Chicago, IL—June 25-27, 2001)
II. About the Author
Romina M. Jamieson-Proctor has taught for Queensland University of Technology as well as the Centre for Learning Research at Griffith University. She has authored/co-authored several articles on the benefits of modern technology in promoting classroom learning.
III. About the Publisher
This article/study was published in the proceedings report for the National Educational Computing Conference, which is the primary annual meeting for the National Educational Computing Association (NECA). The NECA’s mission is to:
"advance educational philosophies, practices, policies, and research that focus on the appropriate use of current and emerging technologies to empower all individuals to reach their full potential." The conference is for those “interested in improving teaching and learning with technology in K-12 and teacher education” (http://www.neccsite.org/html/what_is_necc.html).
IV. Study’s Hypothesis
“The hypothesis underpinning the specific integration of classroom computing tools into the intervention program is that when computer technology is seamlessly integrated into the curriculum program, especially a program such as this which encourages creativity, the computer technology will become a medium of expression for students, a catalyst for intellectual development, and will support excellence in teaching and learning and in thinking about and with computers” (Proctor 2001).
Basically, Proctor is using past research to prop up her hypothesis, pointing to the findings of the 1999 study by Hamza and Alhalabi that computer technology:
1. Facilitat[es] the establishment and maintenance of communities of
learners;
2. Provid[es] a safe environment in which creative behavior and risk
taking is valued;
3. Provid[es] students with divergent imagery, including mindmapping tools;
4. Provid[es] students with cognitive tools with which to learn critically
and creatively; and
5. Provid[es] students with multiple means of organizing, representing and
presenting information. (Proctor 2001)
She directs the reader to several other studies that basically present the same findings/information.
V. Populations and Study’s Sample
Even though the presentation of the study took place in the United States for what, is primarily a nationally organized (U.S.) association, Dr. Proctor teaches in Australia and that is where the study was conducted.
The size of the study consisted of 520 students (346 from year 6 and 174 from year 7) from 7 schools (co-ed, outer suburban with a mixture of soci0-economic and academic ability levels).
The mean age of the participants was 10.7 years.
As far as the gender makeup of the group, 54% were male.
No information is given on ethnicity statistics for the groups studied, nor are the participating schools named, nor their locations.
From the 7 schools, there were a total of 24 classes that participated.
Of these, 7 classes were placed in the Program and Computing group (P+C). These students were put through the rigors of the assigned program but with the full integration of computer technology into that area of their studies.
Seven classes were placed into the Program Only group (PO). These students were given the assigned tasks within the program but with no extra instruction including computer integration.
Finally, ten classes were placed in the control, No Program group (NP). These students neither participated in the program requirements nor had any additional instruction on computer technology integration.
VI. Procedures and Methodology
This project was meant to enhance students’ abilities to perform the Australian Key Learning Areas (KLAs). One of the eight curriculum areas is Technology which is the main focus of the study’s hypothesis, but the project assignments consisted of exercises that incorporated all eight of the KLAs. There were four units within the “intervention project.” These were called: Toys-by-Us, Medieval Europe, Settlement and Colonization, and Multiculturalism in Australia. Only the “Toys-by-Us” unit is specifically explained. In it, students were to design and make a new toy as well as create the packaging, merchandising plan and advertising campaign.
Within the P+C and PO groups, students were sectioned off into production teams of 4 – 6 students each. The class time dedicated to project work averaged 3.5 hours per week. With the integration of technology, a four stage process was taught—investigation, design, production (making) and evaluation (IDME).
A “Creativity Checklist” was used a pre- and post- test, comprised of questions to which the teachers answered concerning each student in the study. To an unknown number of questions, the answer of “rarely” scored 1 point, while “sometimes” scored 2 and “often” scored 3. The article voices some reservations with this method/checklist, but quickly diminishes these, saying that the checklist has a “high internal consistency and is a reliable measurement instrument of the theorized construct” (Proctor 2001).
VII. Results and Conclusions
The results of the study were compiled using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) for Windows, a software program. It showed that:
For the NP group
(No Program):
Pre-test score: 2.03 (sd 0.56)
Post-test score: 2.03 (sd 0.62)
Outcome: No change during study
For the PO group (Program Only):
Pre-test: 2.11 (sd 0.51)
Post-test: 2.11 (sd 0.53)
Outcome: No change over course of study
For the P+C group (Program + Computers):
Pre-test: 2.09 (sd 0.55)
Post-test: 2.22 (sd 0.53)
Outcome: Students showed a measurable increase in creative thinking/problem solving over the course of the study.
(One must remember, however, what lead to these scores—questions that only had a 1-3 point opportunity to answer. Also, the critical judging was done by those who were not outside observers, rather teachers who could be biased. Proctor mentions neither of these issues.)
VII-B. Author’s Thoughts on Conclusions
Proctor believes that the findings mean that by integrating computer technology into the program, teachers viewed their students’ creativity and problem solving more positively, though she admits that this could only be the teachers’ perception rather than any actual change in students’ abilities themselves. She points out that the computer tools offered the P+C students more methods by which to communicate their creativity, making their creativity in the projects more visible to the teachers and others. She also makes the claim that computers may have acted as a catalyst for the students’ intellectual ability, though the way in which the study was measured, this claim is impossible at this point to prove.
Possibly most important, Proctor points out that all the schools and classes involved had basically the same technological tools—the students had access to the same types of computers, software and hardware. However, only the P+C group instructors actively worked to integrate computer technology into their teaching plans. Therefore, access does not make the difference in helping students adopt using computers to optimize their learning outcomes—it is what the teachers do with the technology within their classrooms.
VIII. Flaws in Study
I found quite a few flaws in this study, some obvious and others implied. As this is only a small dimension of a much larger study (as mentioned on page one of the published article), there seems to be some missing valuable information—information that might be well known by those conducting the study or those who have been reading their findings along the way. For those of us familiar with only this article, we’re missing necessary information such as:
More information on the project that was studied
A copy or sample questions from the “Creativity Checklist” that was used as
a pre- and post-test.
Because of the method that was used to score this study, there is no way to conclude whether of not there was a true creative change in the students or if it was only a “false sense of change,” caused by the incorporation of new (read, “fun”) technology into the classrooms. Such “new toys” might have influenced the teachers’ outlook rather than the students’ actual performance.
The study itself was done in Australia. The results may not transfer to American schools due to cultural differences. No mention is made of the ethnic makeup of the students involved (thus making the transfer doubtable).
The outcomes measured rested entirely on the subjective judgment of the teachers involved, not on any measurable output (product) from the projects themselves. Some multi-level method of judging would be more helpful.
And finally, much too little time was spent each week on the program (3.5 hours average) for any believable real change to occur, long term.
IX. Proposed Improvements in Design
There are several suggestions I have for this study:
If the findings are to be suggested as valuable for U.S. schools, a cross-
cultural study among U.S. elementary schools should be conducted.
We need more information about the original “project” that was used.
The exact questions posed in the “Creativity Checklist” should be listed
A larger answer range should be used (1-5 instead of 1-3).
In addition to the “Creativity Checklist,” also use a paneled judging group
to review/score a portfolio from each team containing their work prior to as
well as after the project.
Integration would blend into all aspects of classroom learning and not only
one minute area.
X. My Beliefs of the Study’s Value
After finding so many faults in the study, it may seem odd for me to now speak of its value. However, considering the abundance of computers in the classroom now, I think a study on better integration is not only timely, but helpful. While this particular study has several faults, it can certainly be used as a tool to instruct more thoughtful studies on computer technology and how it assists in creative problem solving in the classroom.
posted by Stash @ 10:06 AM
0 comments
