Educator Competencies

There is a lot that I like about the educator competencies, and I think they perfectly complement the goals of PBL. I am comforted that I have the background knowledge and the experience, albeit minimal, with PBL to not view the indicators as complete game changers. Although the authors acknowledge that many of the indicators carry over from time-tested teaching techniques, I still think a teacher new to PBL would find many of the indicators overwhelming and classroom-shifting concepts. For those of us who have undertaken or are planning a project-based curriculum, this guide should not seem unfamiliar.

In terms of the cognitive domain, I find it interesting that the authors used the phrase what teachers “need to know” in order to foster student growth, which is directly modelled after PBL. The idea that we would use progression charts toward mastery would be an additional structuring goal of PBL in that each new project would have to feature new skills but also build on previously learned skills. It almost seems as though a teacher would have to plan an entire year’s worth of projects in order to work backward from the long-term mastery goals. Of course, no longer would we be able to say that mastery is passing the EOC or the class; rather, the authors call on teachers to give feedback, develop students’ ability to evaluate their own learning, and self-regulate. Metacognition, communication, and self-reflection are all significant parts of the PBL process, and we already have many tools that address these objectives. The language in one of the indicators is about having students do all of this over “extended periods of time,” which is a component to many of our projects that cannot be completed in a week or even two.

With the intrapersonal domain, there is considerable overlap with the goals of PBL. The first indicator seems almost out of place in the competencies guide – I think all teachers want to see all learners succeed, regardless of background, but I suppose they include it to remind teachers that a learner-centered classroom means a diverse population that needs individualized goals and attention. The personalized learning goal includes an indicator about knowing when to give students independence and when to step in to assist. So much of PBL is about letting students struggle to find their own answers to the questions that move them forward in a project. However, there is definitely a balance. With my own project, I had to step in and provide resources for where to find quality art other than Pinterest. If I were to redo that specific point in the project, I would have had students research museums in the US and abroad and have them determine which ones have viewable art images or virtual tours. I also really like the indicator under the third goal about using failure and mistakes as teaching opportunities for growth. This idea plays into PBL’s risk-taking focus and helps teachers anticipate how they can prevent students from getting frustrated when an idea doesn’t pan out. A key word that has come up several times already is “flexibility.” This is essential to PBL because unexpected issues will definitely arise with new projects, students will struggle at different points in the project, and technology will certainly fail if nothing else does. Finally, being reflective about our practices is nothing new in the teaching world; however, instituting learner-centered instruction does call on us to constantly tweak our lessons and rethink how students can take more ownership of their learning, something that does not happen overnight or in isolation.

The interpersonal domain requires that teachers foster collaboration among students but also model that collaboration by being a leader in the field. The three phrases (self-assessment, peer assessment, and student voice and choice) jump out immediately because all are necessary steps in the PBL process. Again, I am thankful that we have the protocols to address these needs. Building the relationships with parents, businesses, and the community is something that we have addressed several times in trying to get parent buy-in to PBL and make our projects authentic. It also seems that the ultimate goal of this domain is to take the knowledge of PBL and get other teachers on board. This could be done in team planning PLCs or through professional development presentations at conferences. Although I feel the others would not be so thrilled about this idea, I think it would be interesting if presenting about PBL at your school or a conference were a graded component of the third course.

Finally, the instructional domain incorporates a lot of the strategies and practices that we have been collecting over the past several classes. Displaying standards walls, making essential questions, using formative assessments, creating collaborative groupings, and even instating protocols such as Critical Friends would all fall under this category. Interestingly, project-based learning is first mentioned in the final domain but seems to be the only instructional mode of delivery that would encompass all of the objectives in the manual. The authors urge teachers to consider clearly defined roles in group work which reflects back to the need for students to monitor their own roles and progress in a group project. The use of standards and assessment data is also nothing new to education, but the suggestions for using portfolios, exhibitions, and public showcases is a welcome reminder, particularly for the humanities classroom. Bringing in professional from the community ensures a real-world experience and can oftentimes be achieved through a digital platform.

While much of this document correlates to my understanding of PBL, the ultimate objective is to make learning personalized for each student. I have serious concerns about my ability to achieve this goal. I fear that I do not have the work ethic needed to customize the learning experience for a diverse group of students. While I believe personalized education is a worthy goal, when I read “tracking student progress,” “document[ing] learning trajectories,” and “co-design[ing] an individual learning plan with each student and family,” I can only think that we will have to move toward a co-teaching model that would include resource teachers in the classroom, possibly another content-specific teacher, and more participation and support from parents. Out of everything in this guide, I believe this is the biggest challenge and most significant shift in thinking. I’m not sure PBL correlates with personalized instruction. If PBL predominantly functions with group projects, I wouldn’t think it is compatible with the custom learning experience that is the ultimate goal of the teacher competencies. I would be curious to see what other people think about this.