Streamlining Project-Based Learning Units With an Easy Checkpoint System

I’m a big proponent of assigning project-based learning (PBL) units, including in my own high school social studies class. These PBL units provide valuable opportunities for students to take control of their own learning.

But the tasks within PBL units can present difficulties. Rubrics are often reduced to lists of items that students have, or have not, completed. Students know what to do, but not necessarily what constitutes strong academic work. A well-meaning project risks becoming another series of boxes to check.

Students shouldn’t consider a PBL unit a “journey to the right answer.” Instead, I’m focused on ensuring that each part of the student journey is meaningful and worthwhile. I’ve worked on developing PBL units that get students to reflect and elaborate on their thinking processes. What I’ve come up with is a five-checkpoint system that emphasizes academic decisions over task completion.

Checkpoint No. 1: Inquiry Planning

Upon receiving their assignment, students should immediately consider the types of sources they might use for their inquiry question. I tell them they need to do more than simply generate an idea off the top of their heads: They need to take advantage of the material available to them, and then shape the idea.

Previously, I found that projects stalled when students had an idea they were passionate about pursuing but were flummoxed when they couldn’t find the necessary sources to support their work. A student who’s overly attached to a teacher-approved topic will spend too much time dwelling on sources that they cannot reasonably access, all to salvage their inquiry question.

By asking students to determine inquiry questions and sources at the same time, students ultimately create inquiries based on what they actually have in hand. That said, I do remind students that creating an inquiry question isn’t the be-all, end-all. The real goal is to be able to use sources to defend, or support, an idea. At the end of checkpoint No. 1, all sources are acquired by students.

Checkpoint No 2: Research and Evidence

Students should deeply read their sources, not just glance over them. During checkpoint No. 2, students evaluate source credibility for their chosen topic, identify key evidence from sources, and begin their interpretation and analysis. How can each piece of evidence be used to answer their inquiry question?

It’s important to qualify what’s considered key evidence. I give rules to students: No summaries and no information that’s solely factual. I’m looking for a chosen claim from a source, as well the evidence that the source presents to support their claim. AP history teachers may recognize this as the “claims and evidence” portion of the Claim, Evidence, Reasoning (CER) framework—which is exactly what it is! By the end of this stage, an outline should begin to appear.

Checkpoint No. 3: Teamwork and Project Management

A recurring challenge during PBL units is that when it’s time for the group portion, students have different interpretations of “teamwork.” Unless I explicitly define the term, I find that students apportion sections of work to individual team members. This makes sense to them, because it’s faster to complete. I get where they’re coming from, but an assembly-line approach to finishing a project enables students to sidestep actual teamwork. The assembly-line approach also produces a product of uneven quality.

In my experience, students interpret a lack of coherence in the final project not as a group malfunction, but as an individualistic exercise. The “good” parts are highlighted by their creators, and weaker parts are blamed on other students. This is not teamwork.

As a prevention tactic, I make clear that true teamwork means all students working on all sections. Yes, this takes more time and can lead to frustration, because students have to collaborate, negotiate, focus, and discard. But in the end, they’re practicing lifelong skills and delivering a more coherent project, which outweighs the possibility of one or two sections of the project not being up to the standards of an ambitious student who’s accustomed to taking control.

Checkpoint No. 4: Argument and Product Development

When students hone their final argument, they take a position on their inquiry question. Two things come next. First, assembled evidence needs to be communicated in the style of the CER framework. Second, students need to be able to qualify their CER. I demonstrate this to students by providing the architecture of body paragraphs that’s common in AP history courses.

• Claim: Make a category-based argument.
• Evidence: Use specific historical examples.
• Reasoning: Explain how the evidence proves transformational.
• Qualification: Show limits, unevenness, or continuity.

When students revise their writing, I offer a question for them to use as a reflection tool: What is the claim, and how does the evidence prove it?

Checkpoint No. 5: Communicating Conclusions

Students plan their final stage, which is presenting their learning. The challenge many students encounter is that they present information in chronological order. While their information is accurate, a chronological approach typically doesn’t lend itself to analysis. Thus, the critical-thinking component is missing.

As an alternative, I guide students to a common AP history “comparison formula.” They compare their findings by using similarities and differences, support with evidence, then explain why the differences matter.

Comparisons must use parallel categories. When students are challenged about what to compare, I suggest categories, events, and policies that are easily grouped. The reasoning I give them is that while history can be seen as a series of events, the job of a historian is really to establish patterns and trends.

The same general concept applies to PBL units, which aren’t supposed to be about sequentially marking off dozens of tasks until you reach an end point. The best PBL units include consistent, reflective learning opportunities, which can arise from a streamlined, five-part system as described above.