Skip to main content

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
Cancel
×
×
Home
  • Home
Chapter
  • Print publication year: 2005
  • Online publication date: June 2012

19 - Project-Based Learning

Export citation
Summary

Any teacher or parent can tell you that many students are bored in school. But many of them tend to assume that boredom is not a problem with the best students, and that if students tried harder or learned better they wouldn't be bored. In the 1980s and 1990s, education researchers increasingly realized that when students are bored and unengaged, they are less likely to learn (Blumenfeld et al., 1991). Studies of student experience found that almost all students are bored in school, even the ones who score well on standardized tests (Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde, & Whalen, 1993). By about 1990, it became obvious to education researchers that the problem wasn't the fault of the students; there was something wrong with the structure of schooling. If we could find a way to engage students in their learning, to restructure the classroom so that students would be motivated to learn, that would be a dramatic change.

Also by about 1990, new assessments of college students had shown that the knowledge they acquired in high school remained at a superficial level. Even the best-scoring students, those at the top colleges, often had not acquired a deeper conceptual understanding of material – whether in science, literature, or math (Gardner, 1991). Educators still face these critical problems today.

Recommend this book

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this book to your organisation's collection.

The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences
  • Online ISBN: 9780511816833
  • Book DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816833
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to *

CAPTCHA *

Skip to the audio challenge
×
References
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford Press.
Atkin, J. M., Coffey, J. E. (2003). Everyday assessment in the science classroom (science educators' essay collection). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Associations.
Atwater, M. (1994). Research on cultural diversity in the classroom. In Gabel, D. L. (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 558–576). New York: Macmillan.
Azmitia, M. (1996). Peer interactive minds: Developmental, theoretical, and methodological issues. In Baltes, P. B. & Staudinger, U. M. (Eds.), Interactive minds: Life-span perspectives on the social foundation of cognition (pp. 133–162). New York: Cambridge.
Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is – or might be – the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6–8.
Blumenfeld, P., Fishman, B. J., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (2000). Creating usable innovations in systemic reform: Scaling-up technology-embedded project-based science in urban schools. Educational Psychologist, 35, 149–164.
Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., Kam, R., Kempler, T. M., & Geier, R. (2005, April). Opportunity to learn in PBL for middle school science: Predicting urban student achievement and motivation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Research in Education, Montreal, Canada.
Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J, Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (1994) Lessons learned: A collaborative model for helping teachers learn project-based instruction. Elementary School Journal, 94(5), 539–551.
Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (1996). Learning with peers: From small group cooperation to collaborative communities. Educational Researcher, 25(8), 37–40.
Blumenfeld, P., 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.
Bransford, J., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In McGilly, K. (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 229–270). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992). The Jasper series as an example of anchored instruction: Theory, program description, and assessment data. Educational Psychologist, 27, 291–315.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented teenagers: The roots of success and failure. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14.
Dewey, J. (1959). Dewey on education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Edelson, D. C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for integrating content and process learning in the design of inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 355–385.
Fishman, B., Marx, R., Best, S., & Tal, R. (2003). Linking teacher and student learning to improve professional development in systemic reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(6), 643–658.
Fishman, B., Marx, R., Blumenfeld, P., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2004). Creating a framework for research on systemic technology innovations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 43–76.
Fretz, E. B., Wu, H.-K., Zhang, B., Krajcik, J. S., Davis, E. A., & Soloway, E. (2002). An Investigation of software scaffolds as they support modeling practices, Research in Science Education, 32(4), 567–589.
Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind: How children think and how schools should teach. New York: Basic Books.
Geier, R., Blumenfeld, P., Marx, R., Krajcik, J., Fishman, B., & Soloway, E. (in press). Standardized test outcomes of urban students participating in standards and project based science curricula. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.
Haberman, M. (1991). The pedagogy of poverty versus good teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(4), 290–294.
Heubel-Drake, M., Finkel, L., Stern, E., Mouradian, M. (1995). Planning a course for success. The Science Teacher, 62, 18–21.
Hoffman, J., Wu, H-K, Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2003). The nature of middle school learners' science content understandings with the use of on-line resources. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(3), 323–346.
Hogan, K., & Maglienti, M. (2001). Comparing the epistemological underpinnings of students' and scientists' reasoning about conclusions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 663–687.
Hug, B., & Krajcik, J. (2002). Students, scientific practices using a scaffolded inquiry sequence. In Bell, P., Stevens, R., & Satwicz, T. (Eds.), Keeping learning complex: The proceedings of the Fifth International Conference for the Learning Sciences (ICLS). Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum.
Hurd, P. D. (1970). New directions in teaching secondary school science. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Kesidou, S., & Roseman, J. E. (2002). How well do middle school science programs measure up? Findings from Project 2061's curriculum review. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 522–549.
Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 313–350.
Krajcik, J. S., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (1994). A collaborative model for helping middle grade teachers learn project-based instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 94(5), 483–497.
Krajcik, J. S., Czerniak, C. M., & Berger, C. F. (2002). Teaching science in elementary and middle school classrooms: A project-based approach (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Linn, M. C. (1997). Learning and instruction in science education: Taking advantage of technology. In Tobin, D. & Fraser, B. J. (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 265–294). The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., Geier, R., Revital, T. T. (2004). Inquiry-based science in the middle grades: Assessment of learning in urban systemic reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1063–1080.
Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (1997). Enacting project-based science. Elementary School Journal, 97(4), 341–358.
McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. S. (in press). Middle school students' use of evidence and reasoning in writing scientific explanations. In Lovet, M. & Shah, P. (Eds.), Thinking with data: The proceedings of the 33rd Carnegie symposium on cognition.
Metcalf-Jackson, S., J. S. Krajcik, & E. Soloway. (2000). Model-It: A design retrospective. In M. Jacobson, & Kozma, R. B., (Eds.), Innovations in science and mathematics education: Advanced designs for technologies and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 77–116.
Moje, E. B., Peek-Brown, D., Sutherland, L. M., Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P., & Krajcik, J. (2004). Explaining explanations: Developing scientific literacy in middle-school project-based science reforms. In Strickland, D. & Alvermann, D. E., (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Improving literacy learning for preadolescent and adolescent learners in grades 4–12 (pp. 227–251). New York: Teachers College Press.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
Novak, A., & Gleason, C. (2001). Incorporating portable technology to enhance an inquiry, project-based middle school science classroom. In Tinker, R. & Krajcik, J. S. (Eds.), Portable technologies: science learning in context (pp. 29–62). The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Novak, A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2004). Using learning technologies to support inquiry in middle school science. In Flick, L. & Lederman, N. (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science: Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education (pp. 75–102). The Netherlands: Kluwer Publishers.
O'Neill, K., & Polman, J. L. (2004). Why educate “little scientists”? Examining the potential of practice-based scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(3), 234–266.
Palincsar, A., Anderson, C. S., & David, Y. M. (1993). Pursuing scientific literacy in the middle grades through collaborative problem solving. The Elementary School Journal, 93, 643–658.
Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Perkins, D., D. Crismond, Simmons, R., & Unger, C. (1995). Inside understanding. In Perkins, D., Schwartz, J., West, M., & Wiske, M. (Eds.), Software goes to school: Teaching for understanding with new technologies (pp. 70 –88). New York: Oxford University Press.
Polman, J. (1999). Designing project-based science: Connecting learners through guided inquiry. New York: Teachers College Press.
Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273–304.
Reiser, B. J., Krajcik, J., Moje, E. B., & Marx, R. (2003, March). Design strategies for developing science instructional materials. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.
Rivet, A., & Krajcik, J. (2002). Contextualizing instruction: Leveraging students' prior knowledge and experiences to foster understanding of middle school science. In Bell, P., Stevens, R., & Satwicz, T. (Eds.), Keeping learning complex: The proceedings of the fifth international conference for the learning sciences (ICLS). Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum.
Rivet, A., & Krajcik, J. (2004). Achieving standards in urban systemic reform: An example of a sixth grade project-based science curriculum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 41(7), 669–692.
Ruopp, R. R., Gal, S., Drayton, B., & Pfister, M. (Eds). (1992). LabNet: Toward a community of practice. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rutherford, J. F. (1964). The role of inquiry in science teaching.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2(2), 80–84.
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536.
Salomon, G., Perkins, D. N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20, 2–9.
Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345–372.
Schneider, R. M., Krajcik, J., Marx, R., & Soloway, E. (2001). Performance of student in project-based science classrooms on a national measure of science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 821–842.
Schofield, J. W. (1995). Computers and classroom culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Scott, C. (1994). Project-based science: Reflections of a middle school teacher. The Elementary School Journal, 95(1), 75–94.
Sherwood, R., Kinzer, C. K., Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. J. (1987). Some benefits of creating macro-contexts for science instruction: Initial findings. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(5), 417–435.
Singer, J., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J., & Chambers, J. C. (2000). Constructing extended inquiry projects: Curriculum materials for science education reform. Educational Psychologist, 35, 165–178.
Spitulnik, M. W., Stratford, S., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (1997). Using technology to support student's artifact construction in science. In Fraser, B. J. & Tobin, K. (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 363–382). Netherlands: Kluwer Publishers.
Stratford, S. J., Krajcik, J., Soloway, E. (1998). Secondary students' dynamic modeling processes: Analyzing, reasoning about, synthesizing, and testing models of stream ecosystems. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 7(3), 215–234.
Tinker, R. (1997). Thinking about science. http://www.concord.org/library/papers.html. Cambridge, MA: Concord Consortium.
Tinker, R., & Krajcik, J. S. (Eds.) (2001). Portable technologies: Science learning in context. Innovations in science education and technology. New York, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Williams, M., & Linn, M. (2003). WISE Inquiry in fifth grade biology. Research in Science Education, 32(4), 415–436.
Yager, R. E., & Penick, J. E. (1986). Perceptions of four age groups toward science classes, teachers, and the value of science. Science Education, 70(4), 355–363.
Cancel
Confirm
×