Introduction
As a high school
language arts teacher, I have been repeatedly astonished by the adverse
reaction students have to poetry. The essence of poetry is often lost
in the delivery or teaching method used to discuss poems. By the time
students begin high school, their views about reading and writing
poetry need to be reconstructed. In the past poetry was a primary means
of expression; today it is often considered a lost art. Many students
do not connect with poetry because of its complex nature, or they are
uncomfortable with the open expression of emotions and personal
thoughts. Often students do not see the relevance of poetry to their
lives. Many students have difficulty buying into the necessity of
writing or reading poetry. Frequently, student motivation is what
determines the success of teaching (Bradford, 2005). If success can be
hindered by lack of student motivation, then teaching practice has to
motivate students to want to work and learn.
While studies
have been conducted concerning the effects of teaching methodology on
student motivation (Brophy, 1999; Burden & Byrd, 2003;
Covington, 1999), it is hard to find research that is specific to
teaching poetry. This is important because students must have a fluent
knowledge of poetic terms and be able to explicate a poem in order to
meet Gwinnett County AKS standards and be promoted. This knowledge is
also found on standardized tests, which students must take at the
county, state, and national levels (final exams, graduation test, SAT,
ACT). If project-based learning positively affects students in terms of
learning and understanding poetry, then it likewise could play a role
in student performance on standardized tests, though establishing this
relationship quantitatively is beyond the scope of the present study.
Combining
education theory and strategy, constructivists claim that when students
are active participants in authentic projects (i.e., those that are
related to real-world situations) that are shared and reviewed with
others, the learners can then create meaning or ideas (Han &
Battacharya, 2002). Allowing learners to create their own meaning,
instead of using them as receptacles for information, forces them to
become more involved with their learning experiences. Project-based
learning is based on constructivist theory that involves students
working collaboratively to produce a meaningful artifact or product
representative of the knowledge learned (Houghton Mifflin, n.d.).
While
project-based learning is often inter-curricular, the present
exploration was designed to investigate how it can enhance learning
specifically in the field of language arts. Will my students still be
able to learn required texts, processes, and critical thinking, while
participating in project-based learning? Pressures from standardized
tests, both national and local, often deter teachers from using
student-driven practices in their classrooms. Ensuring that
project-based learning coincides with standards is necessary in order
to prepare students for high-stakes achievement testing. Does
project-based learning influence student motivation in regards to
poetry? Students often feel disconnected to poetry; will project-based
learning affect this?
This case study
was designed to explore honors ninth graders’ reactions to
poetry using a new pedagogical approach. Traditionally, students read a
poem and answer questions in order to assess understanding and exhibit
mastery of knowledge. Often, the learning stops here and teachers move
on to the next unit of study. This study assessed student learning
using traditional methods and then built on this foundation of
knowledge using project-based learning.
The effects that
various approaches to poetry have on students were documented. Since
many of today’s students are far more comfortable with
technology than poetry, I connected the two in this project-based
learning inquiry. The research included student interviews, pre and
post assessments, and on-line artifacts and websites created and
presented by the students. The purpose of this research was to
determine the effect project-based learning had on student learning in
regards to poetry. The study examined student motivation,
understanding, and learning. This study did not explore the reasons why
students arrived in my class liking or disliking poetry, but focused on
how project-based learning influenced the learning of poetry.
Literature Review
Background:
Project-Based Learning
Our society has
progressed from the Industrial Age to an Age of Information and our
teaching methodology needs to meet the needs of our learners (Gonzales
& Miller, 2005). To be successful in the modern workforce,
research and interpersonal skills are necessary. Schooling helps
prepare students to become contributing members of tomorrow’s
workforce, and effective members of any workforce must be able to work
successfully with others. Our schools have a responsibility to allow
students to collaborate, while they learn and progressively build their
knowledge over time. Project-based learning differs from other forms of
learning, partly because of its emphasis on collaboration.
While projects
are often assigned to enhance learning, project-based learning should
be on a larger scale. Often it encompasses a unit of teaching, a
semester, or can carry over from year to year. Steinburg (as cited in
Preuss, 2002) has compiled a list of requirements for effective
project-based learning: authenticity, academic rigor, applied learning,
active explorations, adult relationships, and assessment practices. To
ensure that my research of project-based learning and poetry was
effective, I implemented these standards. My students’ poetry
projects are authentic because they connected poetry to their own real
world experiences in their writing. Academic rigor was required because
of the necessary application of advanced poetic devices. Students
incorporated new technology into their poetry projects that required
active exploration and collaboration for project success. Students
worked closely with the media specialists at school, therefore
establishing collaborative relationships with adults. Most importantly,
students’ artifacts were assessed based on a detailed rubric
that matched the course’s learning goals.
Project-based
learning forces students to look beyond the classroom and create
something with real world meaning or application. According to Houghton
Mifflin (n. d.), project-based learning should begin with a question(s)
based on a big idea, and end with an artifact (e.g., a paper, research
poster, etc.) that addresses the essential questions associated with
the big idea (Kame’enui, Carnine, Dixon, Simmons, &
Coyne, 2002). Students participating in project-based learning must be
responsible for knowledge acquisition, connecting new information and
skills with existing knowledge and skills, and collaborating with one
another. Teachers must learn to step back and facilitate, rather than
control what is being learned.
Teachers may
ensure that curriculum requirements are addressed by helping to
formulate the big ideas and the driving questions that students will
pursue. While the questions must be open to interpretation and not have
contrived answers, the questions should force students to stay within a
specific subject area if necessary (Houghton Mifflin, n. d.). Many
proponents of project-based learning feel that it is most effective
when students choose projects that interest them. Learners are more
intrinsically motivated to work hard to find answers to questions that
they formulate (Wolk, 1994). While this is true, sometimes student
choice must be limited due to the nature of curriculum and school in
general. If one of the goals of project-based learning is to teach
students how to seek answers and interact with others, then this
knowledge can be applied to projects that they choose to complete
outside of class. Ideally the thirst for knowledge cannot be quenched
during school hours and in conjunction solely with school assignments.
Noam (2003)
discussed the importance of project-based learning in connecting
out-of-school experiences with those of the school. This
“does not mean that all programs must become school based . .
. (but) aim to create some across-learning opportunities, achieve
integration of some learning goals, and deepen children’s
exploration and skill acquisition” (p. 124). Noam emphasizes
the value of all types of learning and how project-based learning lends
itself to a combination of inter-curricular and extra-curricular
studies. Unfortunately, in the location that I teach, the after-school
programs for high school students are athletic or social rather than
directly related to academics. It would be nice if there was a
service-learning type of program that took students’ thinking
in school even further outside of school; a program that was
community-based, but required school knowledge, such as a community
service organization in which students had a vested interest that they
could also use as a source for a school project. I think project-based
learning activities that involve the community or students’
personal lives in some way, are more authentic and, therefore, more
valuable to the learner.
Research
Papert (2001),
one of the leaders in project-based learning, feels that it can only be
effective if the idea of curriculum is set aside. A curriculum narrowly
promotes certain types of learning and restricts others, and may not
allow for students to complete self-driven projects and research,
especially when a specific topic must be learned on a particular day.
As a teacher who must give standardized tests based on a formal
curriculum (Georgia Department of Education, n. d.), completely setting
aside the state’s Quality Core Curriculum is impossible.
Papert (2001) is working in conjunction with the College Board, the
creator of many standardized tests, to ensure that such assessments
will become more authentic. Although it may be unrealistic to implement
project-based learning in its purest form in all classrooms, adopting
Papert’s way of thinking can help educators decide what
should be taught and how to evaluate it. “The way to think
is, ‘What can I do Monday that will prepare for one
day?’ And this leads to a different kind of criteria for what
you would choose” (Papert, 2001, p. 7). Although I cannot
ignore curriculum standards, the method that I use to teach the
required subject matter is my choice, and as a teacher I decide how to
assess student learning.
Howard Gardner
(as cited in Edutopia, 2005) sends a similar message about curriculum
issues. The importance lies in mastering scientific thinking, not
science. His theory of multiple intelligences converges well with
project-based learning. According to learning styles theory and
research (McCarthy, 1997; Swisher & Schoorman, 2001), some
people learn in a logical fashion, others are language oriented, and
others need to explore in a hands-on manner. Creating a
student-centered classroom that encourages projects and student-driven
learning allows students to learn in the manner that best suits their
learning preferences. However, having a student-driven project-based
classroom is likely counterproductive if the only assessment over the
learning outcomes is a multiple-choice exam. The goal of assessment is
to measure the mastery of a task, and teachers must re-evaluate
assessment methods to ensure that they are aligned with project-based
learning outcomes.
The issues
associated with the theory of project-based learning causes me to
question how I can implement such activities in my classroom and still
have my students master the required standardized tests. How can I
resist the mistakes of the past without harming my students? Will I
jeopardize their academic futures in not teaching to the high-stakes
required tests? I recognize that teaching students critical thinking
skills, collaborative skills, and the ability to seek answers will be
more valuable in ensuring their success in college and the workplace
than having them memorize lines from Romeo and Juliet. However, if the
institutions of higher learning require standardized test scores for
admittance, it appears that post-secondary training requires both a
great deal of concrete information as well as the developed capacity
for critical thinking. While these are not antithetical, both are
extremely time consuming. Most colleges want students who think
critically, but admit students based on standardized tests. How does a
student-centered classroom prepare students for objective tests? Does
good teaching ensure that learners will be successful standardized test
takers regardless of the concrete knowledge required?
According to Eva
Reeder, “project-based learning has beneficial effects on
standardized tests,” because students have truly learned the
skills on the tests; “It’s just a way of learning
information that works” (as cited in Curtis, 2002, p. 51).
When students are engaged in authentic learning they remember what they
have learned and can apply their knowledge to the real world. From
this, I conclude that, by allowing my students to participate in some
project-based learning activities, the skills and knowledge they
acquire will hopefully prepare them to perform successfully on various
assessments.
Csikszentmihalyi
(2002) discussed the importance of achieving a flow in learning. This
occurs when students are extremely involved in the process of learning
and intrinsically motivated to learn. Intrinsic motivation to learn
comes from tapping into student interest, which project-based learning
allows (Blumenfeld et al., 1991; Bradford, 2005; Gonzales &
Nelson, 2005). If students are intrinsically motivated to learn,
learning is not as likely to stop after a test.
Project-Based
Learning: Language Arts Curriculum
Georgia’s
Language Arts Quality Core Curriculum (QCC) standards require that
“Students be able to research, evaluate, make meaning,
summarize information, present information, differentiate between fact
and opinion, and convey information through writing” (Georgia
Department of Education, n. d.). Many of these standards can be
addressed through project-based learning. In the language arts
classroom, project-based learning can often be taught in the context of
instructional units. Arranging units according to a theme allows for
student choice, but also keeps projects related. Peter Smagorinsky
(2002) contends that “conceptual units are well-suited for
integrated learning, enabling students to explore a topic over time
through the lens offered by a variety of texts” (p. 17). This
allows for student-driven projects in the context of the curriculum.
For example, if you are teaching a unit on freedom and identity, the
main text of the unit could be curriculum related, but could also
inspire students to branch out and research and read texts of personal
interest. The curriculum and student interest are united when teachers
use project-based learning in conjunction with big ideas
(Kame’enui et al., 2002).
Often when
thinking about the language arts curriculum and my desire to focus on
project-based learning, I worry about writing and research
requirements. However, the artifact students create can be
writing-based and research-based, either through interviews or print
resources. An interesting marriage between project-based learning,
thematic units, and research papers is the multi-genre research paper.
Tom Romano (1995) suggests tweaking the traditional research paper into
a student-driven project that requires the exploration of multiple
genres of writing. Students choose a topic or theme that is related to
the curriculum in some way or completely determined by the student. An
aspect of the topic is researched and students then connect their
findings by creating a unique artifact. This artifact looks very
different from traditional research papers because students must use
different genres (usually a minimum of five to seven) to relay their
information. For example, a student researching The American Dream
could have several traditional research paper paragraphs interspersed
with a personal poem about his or her American dream. Pictures,
diagrams, and technology based genres are encouraged. Students may
choose any genres that interest them and create an extremely
challenging, personal, and interesting artifact that forces them to
make connections between different modes of expression.
The educational
experiences that worked twenty years ago, does not work as well today.
That is not to say that there were not great educators and
opportunities for education in the past, but our worlds have evolved so
much due to shifts in culture, technology, and the requirement of
advanced skills that our students need additional experiences to
matriculate.
One skill that
many students lack that project-based learning requires is the ability
to collaborate. Students are required to work with other students and
often with adults in the community as well. Hull and Schultz (2002)
interviewed lower socio-economic students about school, and one of the
most common complaints was that students “were looking for
–and not finding –footholds that would let them
chart meaningful paths in school, to see school as a place of
promise” (p. 133). Project-based learning allows students to
make meaning out of something that they find important, an outcome
supported by the American Psychological Association (1997). Literature
and writing open up a plethora of possibilities for student inquiry and
the creation of artifacts.
Project-Based
Learning: Technology’s Role and the Language Arts Classroom
Learning
standards and requirements have changed due to the role that technology
plays in society and the role it can play in student learning. In
addition to QCC standards requiring students to be taught reading,
writing, and communication skills, a technology aspect has been added
to the language arts curriculum. For example, one of the standards is
that students “Experience(s) a variety of non-print resources
as a part of the study of technical and business applications;
create(s) multimedia presentations” (Georgia Department of
Education, n. d.). The creation of an artifact using various mediums is
recognized as an important and required skill. This coincides perfectly
with project-based learning. Students must reference sources from the
Internet and databases and differentiate between legitimate and
illegitimate sources. Interviewing an expert, or more knowledgeable
other, may also serve as a reference for information. It is quite
likely that the skills required to create a presentation from research
may be used more often (in the future) than those required to write a
research paper.
Using
presentations and projects is a critical part of teaching because they
allow for the use of PowerPoint, Dreamweaver or other webpage design
programs, computer-driven research, and the opportunities to use
print-based programs to create unique artifacts (e.g., newspapers,
magazines, etc.). Projects using these resources meet QCC standards and
could be integrated in project-based learning. For example, Carr and
Jitendra (2000) completed a problem-based learning study researching
the effects that it had on students at risk of dropping out of high
school. Students worked with a nearby homeless shelter researching the
effects of poverty. Students conducted real (i.e., authentic) research
and their final product consisted of a multimedia presentation to
leaders in the community. While working on this project, attendance
rates increased and students were able to find meaning in their
learning. Instead of being problems, they were solving them and serving
as presenters of knowledge. Writing, research, and presentation skills
are all required within the language arts curriculum. This is a project
that would benefit from a relationship between in-school and
after-school programs.
In the context of
poetry, project-based learning has helped college students in an
education program connect with the genre that they will have to teach.
One reason high school students may feel distant from poetry is because
many teachers never connected with it themselves. Warburton and
Campbell (2001) merged poetry and technology in their college education
class so that their students would be able to see modern relevance in
poetry. In addition to the aesthetic value of poetry, the importance of
poetic understanding and appreciation is largely due to its role
“in the development of the capacity to use language
well” (p. 587). Learning about poetry not only prepares
students for assessments but also improves their general language
skills; when students understand poetry they are truly able to
understand the meaning behind language. I would like to see the results
of incorporating technology and poetry with project-based learning in
my classroom.
Technology seems
to be an integral part of project-based learning. I think this is
because so much of what we create today is done with technology.
Technology can open up doors to interviewing leaders in the business
across the world. Current research requires access to the Internet and
recent articles. Many schools have Internet access, but it is not
accessible to students on a regular basis. The lack of equity of access
to these tools creates a greater divide between the haves and
have-nots. As a teacher, I cannot control funding or purchase
technology for my students, but I can create assignments that allow my
students to go into the community to access the latest technology.
Work-based
learning is nothing new. The idea of apprenticeships was around even
before formal education. Students will only have access to the most of
up-to-date technology if they are immersed in the field itself because
businesses update technology at a faster pace than schools. I could
easily connect this type of project-based learning to the language arts
curriculum if my students participated in something similar to the
Women in Technology Program (Boudria, 2002). This program is an example
of pure project-based learning because students immersed themselves in
a business environment and created authentic projects that served a
dual purpose as both school assignments and something that would
actually be used by businesses. This could connect with the language
arts curriculum because students conduct on-site research and then
create written proposals along with various artifacts. This program was
inter-curricular and involved multiple subjects immersed in a
technology-driven real world experience. I think this style of learning
is ideal, but it requires support from the community, businesses, and
the school.
Project-Based
Learning: Challenges and Problems
While
project-based learning can increase student motivation and even test
scores, there are still some problems that arise. Classroom management
is extremely important to ensure that students are on-task and
behaving. This becomes “more problematic because of the
ambiguity of project-based learning, and the likelihood that numerous
activities will occur simultaneously” (Blumenfeld et al.,
1991, p. 381). Just because students are more motivated does not mean
that they want to, or will, work. Students will be at different points
in their projects at different times, and the collaborative nature of
project-based learning makes it difficult to differentiate between work
and play. I think one solution to this problem could be requiring
process pieces along the way. This could take the form of reflective
writing pieces about the project, notes, a preliminary draft of a
project, an outline of research, or a discussion that a student has
with the teacher that displays his or her knowledge and work
accomplished thus far. (See attached flowchart.)
Cohen (2001)
completed a study comparing two prestigious schools; one very
traditional and the other a proponent of project-based learning. An
overwhelming number of students involved in project-based learning had
difficulty with “working on teams and often not knowing what
to expect” (p. 363). Project-based learning often encompasses
an entire semester. With such a large scale assignment, students often
feel lost in the process or overwhelmed. This is why detailed rubrics
are necessary and should be reviewed throughout the project. Final
grades, whether on projects or report cards, should not be a surprise
to students. Students should be able to accurately estimate their
standing in a class, based on feedback provided to them, at any time
during the grading term (Monetti & Hummel, 2004).
Project-based
learning is challenging for teachers and students. Many aspects of
traditional teaching, such as lectures, usually cannot be used and
teachers are no longer experts supplying information. In fact, one
thing that is very challenging is when students are completing projects
that the teacher knows little about. Redefining roles is necessary for
project-based learning to work. Support is often needed from the
administration, community, and other teachers for project-based
learning to be effective; this is sometimes hard to find. Despite
curriculum challenges and other various setbacks, project-based
learning can increase student motivation and help to ensure that
students are learning critical thinking skills instead of only
memorizing factual information for a test.
Discussion
Many ideas of
project-based learning overlap with other teaching theories. Good
teachers take what works from various methods and blend them together
to create a classroom where students learn and enjoy the learning
process. Having students create a meaningful and authentic artifact is
often more challenging and more representative of student learning than
a test at the end of a chapter. I am not discouraging testing, but I am
a proponent of multiple forms of assessment. It is known that
project-based learning is a motivator for students and challenges them
to think, learn, and create. Project-based learning can help increase
test scores because it requires critical thinking, which students need
to be successful on tests and in life. Much of the curriculum can be
taught through project-based learning (PBL), and many of the aspects of
PBL coincide directly with Georgia’s QCC standards.
Although there is
much research on constructivist approaches to learning and how they
benefit students, student motivation is hard to measure and evaluate.
Is motivation measured by attendance, completing the project, staying
awake? Does project-based learning really affect motivation, or would
those students be equally motivated by an entertaining teacher skilled
in the Socratic Method and direct instruction? There are many teaching
methods, and I feel it is unfair to say that one method is always bad
or uninteresting. I like project-based learning because students are
creating, but I know students who dislike projects and working in
groups. Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences
shows that different people learn best by different methods. As a
teacher, I think it is best to give several assessments and teach in
various ways. Sometimes teachers need to lecture, but not everyday.
Sometimes students need to answer questions silently, but not everyday.
I often only become a better teacher when my lessons do not produce
their intended effects on my students, at which point I re-design the
lesson. Project-based learning is not fool-proof, but I would like to
see more research about its effect on student literacy.
Figure1.
Methods
Qualitative
methodology “reflects the role of subjective judgment in
generating data” (Isaac & Michael, 1995, p. 218). In
the present study the data gathered involved the opinions of those
being researched along with the observations of the researcher. This
study employed a qualitative research method, case study, to collect
rich information regarding participants’ thoughts, beliefs,
and attitudes on the project-based learning approach. The strategy of
this case study involved mainly open-ended answers to questions
concerning poetry, student learning preferences, their attitudes about
learning poetry, and their views on projects and other group-based
activities as a major approach to learning.
The participants
in this case study included twenty-four honors ninth grade students in
a language arts class at a large urban school just outside of Atlanta.
The students were of diverse ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds.
Being enrolled in an honors class, these students are proficient
readers and writers. I met with students five days a week for
approximately an hour a day, either in the classroom or the
school’s media center.
Each participant
had access to a computer during the time spent in the media center. On
the days spent in this setting, a media specialist helped me assist
students with their work. Students worked in heterogeneous groups of
four to six based on a blend of their learning style preference,
mastery of basic poetic concepts, and student choice.
Throughout this
research study, I gathered data measuring content mastery in addition
to attitudinal aspects. The questions this case study addressed
included:
1. How does
Project-based Learning (PBL) affect the learning of poetry?
A. Specifically, using pre- and posttest measures, over the course of
the study, to what degree did students master the use of poetic terms
and display this in the writing of their own poems?
B. Were students excited about working on poetry projects?
C. Did working with others add or take away from the
students’ drive to learn about and write poetry?
D. How was the work meaningful to the students?
2. How does
technology aid in allowing students to personalize their projects and
relate to poetry?
A. Which technology tools were used, and which did the students rate as
most useful?
B. Was the technology necessary?
C. Did using technology allow students to form a modern connection to
poetry?
Data Collection
Process
Before the research began, an informed research
consent form was sent home with each participant to inform
students’ guardians of the research and ensure the
participant’s rights. The identity of the participants
remained anonymous. The initial questionnaire was distributed along
with a content-based pre-test, and a learning styles inventory before
any teaching took place. The questionnaire was used to identify the
prior knowledge my students had about poetry along with their poetic
experiences, attitudes towards poetry, and their individual
learning-styles preference; this was one of the aspects used to place
them in their groups.
The questionnaire consisted of interview-style
open-ended questions in addition to Likert-style survey questions. Some
of the information gathered from these initial questions included: the
past methods used to teach the participants poetry and how each
approach aided student understanding and appreciation, the degree to
which they enjoy reading poetry, the frequency that poetry was read
outside of school, the frequency that poetry was written outside of
school, and the themes associated with the poetry that they wrote.
Students also explained their responses by answering open-ended
interview questions. There was a blend of both qualitative and
quantitative questions in order to sufficiently analyze student data.
Students rated and explained their responses which allowed me to
aggregate some of their responses into easy to read graphs to help sort
the results of the data.
A pre-test was given to assess the
participants’ knowledge of poetic terms and their ability to
explicate a poem. A similar post-test was given after the information
had been taught using more traditional teaching methods (not
project-based learning). The pre- and post-test data was interpreted
based on student mastery of the material. Two open-ended questions were
asked of students to gather attitudinal data about learning poetry:
Explain what you liked and disliked about the recent poetry unit, and
do you feel that the experience was meaningful? Student attitudes were
then compared to student mastery.
Building from this new foundation of knowledge,
students then completed a project-based learning assignment. The
concept of hyper-poetry was explained to my students. This involved an
electronic poem that had no clear beginning, middle, or end. As a class
they brainstormed different topics and conflicts related to
Homer’s The Odyssey. Students were assigned to small groups
and chose a topic to write their poems about. Every student wrote an
individual poem, but within each group there had to be a common theme
or link. Students were required to use figurative language, similes,
personification, and alliteration in their poems. Revision occurred
within their groups to provide feedback for improvement. An agreement
had to be reached within each group not only concerning the topic, but
also in dealing with how the poems should link to each other.
At the conclusion of the writing process,
students drew on paper how they want their poems to look on their
webpages. Drawing their webpages aided in student understanding of
placement and color. Students also were required to have a minimum of
two links within their poem to the poems of other group members. One
day was spent in the lab allowing the students to become comfortable
with Dreamweaver and reviewing how and where things need to be saved.
Students then had two more days in the lab (these days were spread out
to allow time to revise and compile information outside of the lab) to
complete their webpages.
This artifact required the application of the
knowledge that they have already been assessed on and was graded based
on a clear rubric to determine their scores. These scores were
evaluated based on each participant’s scores from their pre-
and post-tests. Students were then asked to again answer the same
attitudinal questions about project-based learning.
Students also completed the Memletics Learning
Style Inventory (2003) after the pre-test to determine what kind of
learning styles they preferred. When I received these results, students
wrote whether they agree or disagree with them. This data was used to:
assign participants to their groups, compare pre- and post-test scores,
and evaluate the project-based learning artifacts. My major hope was to
discover the effect project-based learning had on students with various
learning preferences.
Data Analysis
Students’ responses to the open-ended
qualitative and survey questions were interpreted in relationship to
their pre- and post-test scores, and their PBL artifact grade. This
occurred to determine if a positive attitude about learning poetry
played a role in student learning. Do students who enjoy poetry do
better on poetry assessments? I also related students’
learning style preferences with their performance on achievement and
attitudinal measures to determine if students who prefer projects
scored higher on their PBL assessment than on their traditional test.
The data show how student achievement was affected by project-based
learning. Specifically, the students’ scores on the various
assessments were used to determine if PBL has a positive effect on
student attitudes and achievement when teaching poetry.
Limitations
This case study involves one class of honors
students, so the findings may not generalize to all students. As the
researcher and teacher, I am biased because I have taught for several
years and I use prior knowledge about what has worked and failed in
class to plan current assignments. I have used project-based learning
in my classroom when teaching other units of study, and believe it has
had a positive effect on learning. I also know and have relationships
with my students outside of this case study which could affect how I
perceive their work. To both ensure accuracy in my research and to
decrease the potential for bias, all instruments completed by students
were anonymous (students were given an identification number that they
used so that pre- and post-test changes on the surveys can be
evaluated).
All data were collected in a five week period
from the beginning of September through the second week of October,
2006. Initially the research was explained to students as a way for me
to determine the most effective and enjoyable way for them to learn the
concepts of poetry. IRB consent forms were explained, signed by
students, and then returned with parental consent.
Results and Discussion
Survey
Students seemed open and excited about
participating in this research study. Several items of the survey
questioned students about their attitudes towards poetry and their
prior knowledge. It was revealed that while all of them had been
exposed to poetry in some form, twenty percent of them had never
studied poetry in conjunction with project-based learning. Of the
students who had completed projects based on poetry, two-thirds rated
this method as the most optimal for appreciating and understanding
poetry.
Almost eighty-five percent of the students
either enjoyed poetry or were open to reading and writing it. Although
the majority of students reacted positively to poetry, some had no
interest in the genre. One student explained why she was torn on her
feelings about poetry saying, “With poetry, some are very
enjoyable to me, but only when I can understand what I’m
reading and if the poetry has a meaning to it.” Often
students fear poetry because they think that it must be complicated or
rhyme; this quote is a good example of that concern. Some examples of
feedback from students who enjoy reading poetry include: “I
love to read the emotion and suspense in their writing,” and
“because some poems help what you are going
through.” There were other similar responses from students
who have felt connected to poetry that they have read.
The connection between students who read poetry
outside of school and those that write their own poetry was not as
strong as expected. According to data from the survey, the same
students who disliked reading poetry also were disinterested in reading
and writing poetry outside of school, but there was no pattern among my
students who enjoyed poetry. Some enjoyed reading it and hated writing
it, and vice versa, and some enjoyed both. While the correlation
between reading and writing poetry is important, the topics that
students wrote about during their free time were most interesting,
which included: “Life experiences;”
“Love, joy, and sadness;” “Death, the
past, emotions, music;” and “Most of the time it is
about faith.” These topics can all be connected to various
thematic units of literature and poetry that are read in school.
Knowing the topics that they desire to write about played a role in
allowing student choice in their poetry project.
Prior Knowledge
After collecting attitudinal data, I related
students’ feelings about poetry with their knowledge and
understanding of poetic concepts. A poetry pre-test was given testing
students on poetic terms, paraphrasing a poem, and interpreting a poem.
Most students did poorly on this test, but they tended to do well on
the interpretation section. The mean score on the pre-test was 33 out
of 100 possible points, which indicated that prior knowledge was
lacking. This data supports the hypothesis that either my students had
not been taught certain terms, or that they forgot them.
Performance on the pre-test showed that the degree to which students
rated whether they liked/disliked reading or writing poetry was not
related to their entry-level knowledge of poetry. The mean score on the
pre-test for the twelve students who rated the degree to which they
enjoy reading poetry as above-average or greater was a twenty-nine. The
other twelve students rated the degree to which they enjoy reading
poetry as average, below-average, or none had a mean score of
thirty-eight. Both students that liked and disliked poetry did poorly.
Of the two students who did well on the pre-test, one was extremely
interested in all aspects of poetry, while the other student exhibited
only an average interest and does not write poetry outside of school. I
think this is important because my students started from a similar
place and had a great deal of poetic knowledge that they needed to be
exposed to and learn.
Learning Styles
In order to determine the students’
preferred learning styles, the Memlectic Styles (2003) questionnaire
was used to determine how they best learn. The learning style
categories in the questionnaire include, visual, social, physical,
aural, verbal, solitary, and logical. The preferred method of learning
in my class was social with a rating of 80%. The other methods that
ranked on the higher end include learning physically, aurally, and
verbally. There is a wide array of learning styles exhibited amongst my
students, but most students fall into the social learning category (See
Figure 2).
These results seem to reflect the behavior I have witnessed in my
classroom and the majority of students agreed with their individual
learning style. My students seem to thrive when they work in groups,
discuss the material together, and move around the classroom. These
results were attained by analyzing each student’s individual
learning preferences and averaging them together. When my students
viewed their individual results, all but one agreed. The student
responded, “I think I’m more solitary than
anything, so I have to disagree with some of the numbers.”
Some positive responses include, “Yes, it was very accurate
because I like verbal, hands-on learning and this is what it
shows,” and “I agree with my graph because I feel
more comfortable learning in groups, where everybody can ask
questions.” I feel this particular learning-styles inventory
is important because even the one student who disagreed did not
disagree with all of the results, only thought that the solitary
numbers should have been even higher.
Traditional Assessment
As expected, student scores increased from the
pre-test to the post-test due to instruction and review. Only
twenty-five percent of students failed the post-test, and these grades
were still at least a thirty point improvement over the pre-test. The
majority of students scored an eighty or above. The mean score for my
class on the post-test was a seventy-seven; the pre-test mean was
thirty-three. While the information was learned for the test, I wanted
to ensure that students could apply their knowledge to their own
writing. This can only be accomplished through project-based learning.
Even my students who prefer to work individually enjoy completing
projects because they are creating rather than reciting knowledge.
Poetry Project
The scores on the students’ poetry
projects were very high ranging from a seventy to one-hundred percent.
They were graded based on five categories, participation, creativity,
process, technology, and content. Content was the section worth the
most points because points were deducted for not using the required
poetic elements here. I only had two students not apply these correctly
and lose points in this section. The most common mistake students made
was forgetting to document where pictures were from. The
students’ mean score on the poetry-project was an eighty-two,
an increase over their traditional assessment scores. From these
results, I can assume that project-based learning is beneficial to
student learning of poetry and poetic concepts. Students were able to
apply the knowledge they learned by creating an original poem to be
published on the web. Student mastery of poetic terms can be seen by
the overall increase in scores from the test to the project. I
interpret these results to mean that project-based learning increases
students’ understanding through the application of knowledge
and skills.
Post-Project Questions
Most students reacted positively to the
hyper-poetry project; almost eighty percent of my students found the
project meaningful and were excited about completing it. Responses
included, “Yes. I felt it was meaningful because it helped me
put together a webpage and learn how to write poetry about certain
things even though it was challenging,” and “. . .
because I was able to express one of my most fears and turn it into a
beautiful poem. . . I like writing my own poetry because it’s
my feelings and how I feel. I’ve been writing poetry all my
life, so I’ve just started writing even more than
before.” Three students, or about twelve percent, felt that
the experience was not that meaningful because either they were already
extremely comfortable writing poetry or have no interest in the genre
period. Two students (slightly less than ten percent of the class) had
mixed responses. One said, “I’m actually less
comfortable writing poetry than before. Unlike narratives poetry
requires strict forms of writing and descriptions. It limits my
thoughts about writing.” I don’t interpret these
mixed responses as negative towards project-based learning because both
students enjoyed using the technology and felt that it brought meaning
to their project.
Students became excited and wanted to create
webpages beyond most peoples’ initial capabilities. Many
would have liked more time to learn the idiosyncrasies of Dreamweaver
and how best to manipulate their webpages. One of the positive outcomes
of this project is that while all students do not like writing poems,
and some do not like using the computer, none dislike both. Because of
this, students who feel threatened by technology still enjoyed the
assignment because many of them like writing poetry and vice versa. Of
the five students (twenty percent) who either claimed the project and
poetry were either not meaningful or had mixed feelings about the
project, all of them said they enjoyed using the technology.
Eighty-three percent of the students found the
computer useful because they were able to do more using the program
than they would have been able to do on paper alone. They enjoyed using
the technology because “it’s fun, entertaining, and
it’s easier to work with because if you want to change
anything you can,” “we were able to do more to our
poems and it made it more interesting,” and “it was
a new approach to poetry for me also because it made me actually want
to do the project and it was easy to be creative because I
don’t know how to draw so my project could still look
presentable with computer graphics.” The positive response my
students had to using technology was also probably due to the programs
used. Dreamweaver is user friendly and even students who were resistant
were able to master the basics of the program because all of my
students completed their artifacts (webpages).
While most of the responses were positive, I had
one student say that the project was not useful because, “I
don’t think we really need to make a webpage for just a
poem.” This particular response comes from a student who
enjoyed the technology aspect of the project, but disliked writing
poetry. Although the response questions the necessity of the
assignment, this student was more likely to write a poem because of the
technology. Some students were disappointed because they could not make
their webpages look how they had envisioned. Other students said,
“It was fun because I was able to show my emotions; also I
was able to put a background on it to make it more
emotional,” and “I thought the project was useful
because it taught us how to use dreamweaver. Also it might have
encouraged people to write more poetry.” The overall
consensus was that the computer made writing a poem more creative and
fun. One of my favorite responses is, “It was useful to use
the computer because my page could still look creative without me
having to draw and it made me work harder for my page to look
nice.” I think it is interesting that several of my students
claimed to work harder because they knew that using technology expanded
the aesthetic possibilities of their poems. I think that one of the
signs of a meaningful project is when students go beyond the
requirements and create something with personal meaning. The
hyper-poetry project allows students to form a modern and personal
connection to poetry as exhibited by their positive reactions to the
project itself and their willingness to exceed expectations.
Many students enjoyed incorporating images and
music that enhanced their poems. Several brought in photos from home or
found others on the web to enhance the message found in their poetry.
Adding music to the poems was an option that not many had time to
accomplish (mostly due to a lack of knowledge of Dreamweaver that can
only be attained through time and experience), but I did have a few
students stay after school using this additional time to incorporate a
musical element.
Figure 3. Correlation of Student Test and
Project Scores According to Learning Style
Conclusions
My students were extremely interested in poetry, but had little
knowledge of poetic terms or how to apply them. Often educators confuse
liking something with being knowledgeable of it, and my
students’ initial reactions to poetry along with their
pre-test assessment show that there is not always a correlation. While
most students enjoyed poetry on some level, few had enough prior
knowledge to pass the initial assessment. There was also no definitive
connection between enjoying reading poetry and enjoying writing it. I
think this is important because many students like poetry because it
can connect with their own feelings; some make this connection through
reading other people’s poetry, others would rather express
their feelings through writing their own, and some enjoy both.
Students
benefited from project-based learning because the scores on student
projects were significantly higher than those of the pre-test. On
average, all students regardless of learning style scored higher on the
project than the post-test as well (view Figure 3). Students who are
physical learners had the greatest increase in scores. Because the
majority of my students enjoy learning socially, I think this learning
style lends itself to working together on projects. Students were
engaged when working on their projects and would have actually liked to
have more time to complete them. While a few students (those who were
solitary learners) preferred to work alone, everyone passed the poetry
project and exhibited the required skills. In fact, students who
preferred to work alone still did better on the project, probably
because although they worked with others, the poem itself was
individually written. The project allowed students to make poetry
meaningful because they were creating their own, writing about topics
of their choice, rather than reading poetry chosen for them. Although
most of my students find reading poetry they can connect with just as
meaningful as writing it, finding a poem that all students like is an
impossible feat, that is why I prefer it when my students create their
own poems and projects.
The hyper-poetry
project received an overwhelmingly positive response from my students,
and part of this was because they were able to use technology.
Technology scaffolding was needed in order for students to master the
requirements of the hyper-poetry assignment, but all students were able
to master the rudiments of Dreamweaver and webpage design. While many
students were forced to step out of their comfort zones (none had ever
made a webpage before), they enjoyed being able to add pictures,
symbols, and colors to their poems. Although this can also be done on
paper, it does not have the same effect. Many students claimed they
were happy to be able to express themselves using pictures that they
didn’t draw. Not all students enjoy using technology or
writing poetry, but when the two were combined, all of my students were
able to find the project meaningful in some way.
Connecting
students to the curriculum is something that I think is inherent in
being a successful teacher. Poetry is a great way to accomplish this
task, but the challenge is getting students past their prior negative
experiences with poetry or their resistance to write. Incorporating
technology, in this case Dreamweaver and Internet research, alleviated
much student resistance. From a numbers only standpoint, my students
successfully learned poetic concepts without project-based learning.
Student scores rose to an acceptable class average of seventy-seven.
However, by taking an extra step in learning and teaching, more
students were able to benefit due to the exposure to multiple teaching
methods that correlate with different learning styles. I am of the
opinion that adding project-based learning to a unit can only help,
because it will not harm students who already grasp the material
traditionally and it can enhance the learning of those who still have
doubts or questions.
This case study
supports the need for project-based learning in conjunction with
poetry. Students of all learning styles and attitudes increased their
scores through applying knowledge in a project. One of the reasons for
the success of the hyper-poetry project is due to technology
integration. Students not susceptible to writing poetry tended to enjoy
incorporating technology. Future studies could occur using the same
technology (Dreamweaver) in conjunction with other literary units of
study (short stories, fiction, nonfiction, etc.) to determine whether
student interest was enhanced. Future research needs to be conducted
studying different groups of students’ (not honors, but maybe
technical or remedial students) reactions to technology integration
projects, specifically with poetry.
References
American Psychological Association. (1997). Learner-centered
psychological principles: A framework for school redesign and reform.
[Electronic version]. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved November 3,
2004 from http://www.apa.org/ed/lcp.htm
American
Psychological Association. (2001). Publication manual of the American
Psychological Association (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Blumenfeld, P.
C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., &
Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the
doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26, 369-398.
Boudria, T. J.
(2002). Implementing a project-based technology program for high school
women. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 26, 709-722.
Bradford, M.
(2005). Motivating students through project-based service learning. T H
E Journal, 32(6), 1-3.
Brophy, J. E.
(1999). Toward a model of the value aspects of motivation in education:
Developing appreciation for particular learning domains and activities.
Educational Psychologist, 34(2), 75-85.
Burden, P.,
& Byrd, D. (2003). Methods for effective teaching. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Carr, T.,
& Jitendra, A. K. (2000). Using hypermedia and multimedia to
promote project-based learning of at-risk high school students.
Technology Trends, 36(1), 40-44.
Cohen, V. L.
(2001). Learning styles and technology in a ninth-grade high school
population. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33, 355-366.
Covington, M.
(1999). Caring about learning: The nature and nurturing of
subject-matter appreciation. Educational Psychologist, 34(2), 127-136.
Creswell, J.
(2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Csikszentmihalyi,
M. (2002, April). Motivating people to learn. Retrieved March 4, 2006
from
http://www.edutopia.org/php/interview.php?id=Art_964&key=037
Curtis, D. (2002,
September). The power of projects. Educational Leadership, 50-53.
Edutopia: The George Lucas Educational Foundation. Howard Gardner on
Multiple Intelligences and new forms of assessment. [Electronic
version]. Retrieved March 3, 2006 from http://www.edutopia.org
Georgia
Department of Education. (n. d.). QCC standards and resources.
Retrieved March 3, 2006 from http://www.glc.k12.ga.us/qcc/homepg.asp
Gonzales, A. H.,
& Nelson, L. M. (2005). Learner-centered instruction promotes
student success. T H E Journal, 32(6), 1-5.
Han, S.,
& Bhattacharya, K. (2001). Constructionism, learning by design,
and project based learning. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on
learning, teaching, and technology. [Electronic version]. Retrieved
March 3, 2006 from www.coe.uga.edu/epltt/LearningbyDesign.htm
Houghton Mifflin.
(n.d.). Project-based learning space. [Electronic version]. Retrieved
March 3, 2006 from www.college.hmco.com/education/pbl/background.html
Hull, G.,
& Schultz, K. (2002). School’s Out: Bridging
out-of-school literacies with classroom practice. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Issacs, S.,
& Michael, W. (1995).Handbook in research and evaluation (3rd
ed.). San Diego, CA: EdITS.
Kame’enui, E. J., Carnine, D. W.,
Dixon, R. C., Simmons, D. C., & Coyne, M. D. (2002) Effective
teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners, (2nd ed.). Upper
Sadler River, NJ: Pearson Education.
McCarthy, B. (1997). A tale of four learners: 4
MAT’s learning styles. Educational Leadership, 54(6), 46-51.
Memlectics Learning Style Inventory (2003).
Advanogy.com: Author. Retrieved March 5, 2006 from www.memlectics.com
Monetti, D. M., & Hummel, J. H. (2004,
November). Eight educational psychology principles that contribute to
effective teaching and learning. A paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Georgia Educational Research Association, Savannah, GA.
Noam, G. G. (2003, Spring). Learning with
excitement: Bridging school and after-school worlds and project-based
learning. [Electronic version]. New Directions for Youth Development,
No. 97, 121-138.
Papert, S. (2001). Project-based learning.
Retrieved March 4, 2006 from
http://www.edutopia.org/php/interview.php?id=Art_901&key=037
Preuss, D. A. (2002, October). Creating a
project-based curriculum. [Electronic version]. Techdirections, 16-18.
Romano, T. (1995). Writing with passion: Life
stories, multiple genres. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
Smagorinsky, P. (2002). Teaching English through
principled practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice-Hall.
Swisher, K., & Schoorman, D. (2001).
Learning styles: Implications for teachers. In C. F. Diaz (Ed.),
Multicultural education in the 21st century. New York: Longman.
Warburton, J., & Campbell, R. (2001).
Finding the poetic in a technological world: Integrating poetry and
computer technology in a teacher education program. Journal of
Technology and Teacher Education 9(4), 585-597.
Wolk, S. (1994, November). Project-based
learning: pursuits with a purpose. Education Leadership, 42-45.
Appendices
Appendix 1
IRB
STUDENT ASSENT FORM
I, , understand that my guardian has given his/her permission for me to
take part in a research project about how students best learn and
understand poetry under the direction of Meghann Hummel.
I am doing this because I want to do it. I understand that I can stop
at any time and my grades (or anything else) will not be affected in
any way.
______________________________________
Student Consent Signature
Appendix 2
IRB
PARENT/GUARDIAN CONSENT FORM
I understand my student
______________________________________________ has been asked to
participate in a research project being conducted by Meghann Hummel at
UGA.
This is an anonymous study researching how
children react to different approaches to poetry. All student
information will remain confidential. Students may choose to
participate and there will be no penalty for not participating. All
students will complete the assignments, but only data gathered from
students who consent to participate will be analyzed.
_________________________________________________ __________________
Guardian Consent Date
_________________________________________________
Researcher Signature
Appendix 3
Survey
1. How have you been taught about poetry in the
past? Mark all that apply.
A. Lectures
B. Question & Answer Discussions
C. Projects
D. Other_______________________
2. Please rate how your
understanding/appreciation of poetry was influenced by each approach.
A. lecture
none avg. great
1 2 3 4 5
B. Question & Answer Discussions
none avg. great
1 2 3 4 5
C. Projects
none avg. great
1 2 3 4 5
D. Other ____________________________
none avg. great
1 2 3 4 5
3. Rate the degree to which you enjoy reading
poetry.
none avg. great
1 2 3 4 5
4. Explain why.
5. How often do you read poetry that is not a
part of an assignment?
never sometimes frequently
1 2 3 4 5
6. How often do you write your own poetry?
never sometimes frequently
1 2 3 4 5
7. What topics or themes does your poetry deal
with? Please list.
Appendix 4
Poetry Pre-Test
Poetry Terms
1. Write an example of a simile.
2. Write an example of personification.
3. _____________________ is the repetition of
the accented vowel sound and subsequent sounds in a word.
4. ______________________ is the repetition of consonant sounds in
words that appear close together.
5. Define pun.
6. Paraphrase the last stanza from this poem.
For oft, when on my couch I lie
In vacant or in pensive mood
They flash upon that inward eye
Which is the bliss of solitude;
And then my heart with pleasure fills,
And dances with the daffodils.
7. Interpret This Poem
“We Never Know How High We
Are” Emily Dickinson
We never know how high we are
Till we are asked to rise
And then if we are true to plan
Our statures touch the skies—
The Heroism we recite
Would be a normal thing
Did not ourselves the Cubits warp
For fear to be a King—
Cubits=ancient measure of length
Warp=twist or distort
Write 3-5 sentences explaining what you think
Dickinson is saying.
Appendix 5
Post-test
Poetry Terms
5. Write an example of a simile.
6. Write an example of a pun.
7. _____________________ is the repetition of
the accented vowel sound and subsequent sounds in a word.
8. ______________________ is the repetition of consonant sounds in
words that appear close together.
5. Define personification.
9. Paraphrase this stanza of Robert
Frost’s poem.
I shall be telling this with a sigh 10.
Somewhere ages and ages hence: 11.
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I— 12.
I took the one less traveled by, 13.
And that has made all the difference 14.
Interpret This Poem
“A Dream Deferred” by
Langston Hughes
What happens to a dream deferred?
Does it dry up
like a raisin in the sun?
Or fester like a sore--
And then run?
Does it stink like rotten meat?
Or crust and sugar over--
like a syrupy sweet?
Maybe it just sags
like a heavy load.
Or does it explode?
Write 3-5 sentences explaining what you think Hughes is saying.
Appendix 6
Post-Unit Questions
1. Explain what you liked and disliked about the
recent poetry unit. Describe at least three things you liked and three
things you disliked.
2. Do you feel that the experience was meaningful? Explain why or why
not by answering the following: Do you now know more about poetry than
you
did before this unit? Are you now more comfortable writing your own
poetry? Are you now reading and/or writing more poetry?
Appendix 7
Poetry-Project Rubric
Section Details Point Value
Participation Students complete their poems, peer edit, create links,
and create a webpage that reflects sincere effort. 10
Creativity Students use their imaginations to create original poems and
representations of their poems. The principle of fearless curiosity is
reflected in the final project. 20
Process Students complete all steps in the process: write poem, edit
poem, pick links, draw out page, explore dreamweaver, create a complete
webpage 20
Technology Students document any sources (pictures they found). All
links work appropriately. The placement on the page must also make
sense. 20
Content Students use all required poetic elements in their poem. 30
Appendix 8
Post-Project Questions
1. Explain what you liked and disliked about the
recent poetry unit. Describe at least three things you liked and three
things you disliked.
2. Do you feel that the experience was meaningful? Explain why or why
not by answering the following: Do you now know more about poetry than
you
did before this unit? Are you now more comfortable writing your own
poetry? Are you now reading and/or writing more poetry?
3. Did you enjoy using technology with your
project? Explain why or why not.
4. Rate the usefulness of the computer for this
project.
unnecessary useful extremely important
1 2 3 4 5
Explain your answer.
Appendix 9
Link to Student Projects
http://www.astralspot.com/Meg/project/home.htm
