Leveraging Flexible Thinking for Scientific Sense-Making in Multiple Literacies in Project-Based Learning (ML-PBL)

• In Event: Elementary Students' Academic and Social Emotional Learning Through Project-Based Learning: Results of an Efficacy Study

Abstract

Objective
Flexible thinking (Authors, 2018) is the ability to solicit various and different possible resources for sensemaking and evaluate the power of those resources for decision making and explanation building. Project-based learning (PBL) (Authors, 2014) enhances deeper understanding of science ideas and problem-solving capacity, and motivates students from diverse backgrounds (Lee & Buxton, 2008). This study examines 1) What is the relationship between PBL instructional practices (e.g., supporting student sensemaking) and measures of students’ flexible thinking? 2) What student characteristics (e.g., engagement in science learning, figuring out, social and economic indicators are related to measures of flexible thinking?

Theoretical Framework
This research is based on our project, ML-PBL (Authors, 2015), where we designed unit materials and post-unit assessments to measure students’ 3-dimensional learning and flexible thinking. We also developed a classroom observation tool to identify teacher-student alignment on PBL features. We define flexible thinking (Authors, 2018) as using different Disciplinary Core Ideas (DCI) or Crosscutting Concepts (CCC) to make sense of phenomena. Students who think flexibly can access and critically evaluate their and others’ ideas to make sense of phenomena. Students need to consider and discard some ideas regarded as not applicable and select others that apply.

Methods and Data Sources
Four 3rd grade curriculum units with post-unit assessments ask students to make “very different” predictions about what might happen or to create a “very different” solution to an engineering problem. If students can suggest reasonable explanations that apply different CCCs or different DCIs, we describe their thinking as flexible thinking.

This analysis uses the first unit; the AERA session will include analysis of four units. The sample includes 471 valid assessment scores from 31 classrooms (interrater reliability on scoring flexibility is at or above .84). Other data sources include classroom observations (reliability between observers is .86), teacher and student interviews, and student artifacts. The observation tool accounts for instances where the teacher has used and supported student PBL practices and also students’ actual engagement in sensemaking. In this way, the PBL features have both a student and a teacher score for fidelity.

We use multivariate correlation analysis to explore the relationship between classroom variables (e.g., teacher instructional practices), building variables (student SES, ethnicity) and students’ flexible thinking.

Results
Preliminary multivariate results indicate an association between evidence of student flexible thinking and teacher support of sensemaking and equity. High sensemaking classrooms are more highly correlated with flexible thinking. Data for correlation between sensemaking and student SES and ethnicity needs further analysis.

Significance
STEM requires flexible thinkers for creative problem solving (e.g., Levin, 2012). This research builds on prior work and adds to the growing body of research that promotes PBL as a benefit for tasks that are open-ended to support creativity and critical skills in STEM. This research provides evidence that teachers who use PBL features support the growth of flexible thinking. The study also offers empirical evidence for promoting equity of underrepresented students. The variety of perspectives in a diverse classroom promotes growth in flexible thinking.

Authors

• Emily Miller, University of Wisconsin - Madison

• Tingting Li, Michigan State University

• I-Chien Chen, Michigan State University

• Susan Codere, CREATE for STEM at MSU

• Joseph S. Krajcik, Michigan State University