ning, a problem that is often lost in educational processes: the need for students to think. We often make the mistake that knowledge and information are synonymous, (for example, with grading and high-stakes tests that often assess a student's ability to memorize information), rather than their deep understanding or knowledge. The reason thinking is so critically important is that thinking is what causes information to become knowledge. This idea is the basis for what amounts to the F=ma of learning: Knowledge is equal to the [complex] product of Information and Thinking, or K=IT. Each of these early learning theories (project-based, problem-based, and inquiry learning) are attempts to highlight the importance of constructing or deconstructing ideas through thinking and building knowledge, which is why they are all philosophically constructivist and therefore highly related.
The second dilemma these early learning theories attempted to solve was students' difficulty with ungrounded abstractions (concepts) or symbols. To remedy this difficulty, our bodies are replete with sensory perception (sight, sound, taste, touch, smell, and experience in general) that allows us to ground our thinking. So, again, all of these theories are early attempts to create ways of grounding knowledge.
My research lab has made progress in developing contemporary theories, based upon these early ones, of better ways to both build and ground knowledge, as well as many other learning techniques such as prior knowledge, metaphor and storytelling, case- and service-based, experiential, NLR, tactile manipulatives, labs, artifacts, field trips, gamification, initiative games, expeditionary learning, and even gap years. We have found that they all share a single similar purpose that can go by a lot of names (e.g., activation, reification, etc.): All have to do with grounding knowledge. We now know that these two concepts--building and grounding--are the essential ingredients of human knowing.
Response From Christopher Panna
Christopher Panna is a social studies teacher and technology integrator at the Walworth Barbour American International School in Israel. Follow him on Twitter @signorpanna:
These three approaches have much in common aside from their potential to provide authentic and powerful experiences for students. Rather than using an instructional standard as the goal, students are charged with completing a task or answering a question. The teacher's role becomes that of facilitator and students take greater responsibility for their progress.
Inquiry based learning is built around investigating one or more key questions. These can be content-specific or general and enduring. For example, my Ancient History students could tackle a question like: How did the natural environment shape the course of Mesopotamian civilization? Or we could ask something that applies to both the lives of the Mesopotamians and ourselves: What are the pros and cons of living in a highly organized society?
In a problem-based unit, students have to produce a solution to a challenge. Much of the growth occurs as students develop the skills and knowledge necessary to reach a solution. In my Economics class, students chose a country and developed a financial plan for its government. To do this they needed to understand the country's economic indicators (GDP growth, unemployment rate, etc.) and the likely effects of various policy choices. The summative assessment involved a presentation in which they explained and defended their policy recommendations.
Project-based learning is similar in that students respond to a challenge, but here they must create something concrete rather than produce a hypothetical solution. For example, US History students could make a video to educate citizens about the Bill of Rights. Projects like this have the potential for great rewards as students take ownership of their creation and share it with a wider community. What begins as an assignment for school could transform them into community organizers or Youtube stars.
Response From Heather Wol