Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 17
  • Print publication year: 2014
  • Online publication date: November 2014

14 - Project-Based Learning

from Part III - Practices that Foster Effective Learning

References

Atkin, J. M., & Coffey, J. E. (2003). Everyday assessment in the science classroom (science educators’ essay collection). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Associations.
Azmitia, M. (1996). Peer interactive minds: Developmental, theoretical, and methodological issues. In P. B. Baltes & U. M. Staudinger (Eds.), Interactive minds: Life-span perspectives on the social foundation of cognition (pp. 133–162). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Blumenfeld, P. C, Fishman, B. J., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (2000). Creating usable technology – embedded project-based science in urban schools. Educational Psychologist, 35, 149–164.
Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (1996). Learning with peers: From small group cooperation to collaborative communities. Educational Researcher, 24(8), 37–40.
Blumenfeld, P. C, 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 K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 229–270). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32–42.
Cahill, C., Kuhn, A., Schmoll, S., Pompe, A., & Quintana, C. (2010). Zydeco: Using mobile and web technologies to support seamless inquiry between museum and school contexts. In Proceedings of the 9th international Conference on interaction Design and Children (Barcelona, Spain, June 09–12, 2010). IDC ’10. ACM, New York, 174–177.
Carver, S. M. (2006). Assessing for deep understanding. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 205–221). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Choi, J. I., & Shin, N. (2009). Digital textbook design principles Adapting the universal design for learning. Journal of Educational Technology, 25(1), 29–59.
Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15–42.
Dewey, J. (1959). Dewey on education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Duschl, R., Schweingruber, H., & Shouse, A. (Eds.) (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies 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.
Edelson, D. C., & Reiser, B. J. (2006). Making authentic practices accessible to learners: Design challenges and strategies. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 335–354). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fishman, B. J., & Davis, E. A. (2006). Teacher learning research and the learning sciences. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 535–550). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fortus, D., Abdel-Kareem, H., Jin, H., Nordine, J. C., & Weizman, A. (2012). Why do some things stop while others continue going? In J. S. Krajcik, B. J. Reiser, L. M. Sutherland, & D. Fortus (Eds.), Investigating and questioning our world through science and technology (IQWST). New York: Sangari Science.
Fortus, D., & Krajcik, J. S. (2011). Curriculum coherence and learning progressions. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), The international handbook of research in science education. Second Edition (pp. 783–798). Dordrecht: Springer.
Geier, R., Blumenfeld, P., Marx, R., Krajcik, J., Fishman, B., & Soloway, E. (2008). Standardized test outcomes of urban students participating in standards and project based science curricula. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(8), 922–939.
Haberman, M. (1991). The pedagogy of poverty versus good teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(4), 290–294.
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 P. Bell, R. Stevens, & T. Satwicz (Eds.), Keeping learning complex: The proceedings of the Fifth International Conference for the Learning Sciences (ICLS). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
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 Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 522–549.
Kolodner, J. L. (2006). Case-based reasoning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 225–242). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kolodner, J., Krajcik, J., Reiser, B., Edelson, D., & Starr, M. (2009–2013). Project-Based Inquiry Science. It’s About Time, Publisher. (Middle School Science Curriculum Materials). Mt. Kisco, NY.
Krajcik, J. S., 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 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 Schools Journal, 94(5), 483–497.
Krajcik, J. S., & Czerniak, C. M. (2013). Teaching science in elementary and middle school classrooms: A project-based approach. Fourth Edition. Taylor and Francis: London.
Krajcik, J. S., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2006). Using driving questions to motivate and sustain student interest in learning science. In K. Tobin (Ed.), Teaching and learning science: An encyclopedia. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Krajcik, J. S., McNeill, K. L., & Reiser, B., (2008). Learning-goals-driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Science Education, 92(1), 1–32.
Krajcik, J. S. & Merritt, J. (2012). Engaging students in scientific practices: What does constructing and revising models look like in the science classroom? Science and Children, 49(7), 10–13.
Krajcik, J. S., Reiser, B. J., Sutherland, L. M., & Fortus, D. (2011). IQWST: Investigating and questioning our world through science and technology, (Middle School Science Curriculum Materials). Sangari Global Education/Active Science, USA.
Krajcik, J. S., Slotta, J., McNeill, K. L., & Reiser, B. (2008). Designing learning environments to support students constructing coherent understandings. In Y. Kali, M. C. Linn, & J. E. Roseman (Eds.), Designing coherent science education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, O., & Buxton, C. A. (2010). Diversity and equity in science education: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Cultivating model-based reasoning in science education. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 371–387). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Linn, M. C. (1997). Learning and instruction in science education: Taking advantage of technology. In D. Tobin & B. J. Fraser (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 265–294). The Netherlands: Kluwer Publishers.
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.
McNeill, K. L. (2009). Teachers’ use of curriculum to support students in writing scientific arguments to explain phenomena. Science Education, 93(2), 233–268.
McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. S. (2008). Middle school students’ use of appropriate and inappropriate evidence in writing scientific explanations. In M. Lovet & P. Shah (Eds.), Thinking with data (pp. 233–265). New York: Taylor and Francis.
McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. S. (2012). Supporting grade 5–8 students in constructing explanations in science: The claim, evidence and reasoning framework for talk and writing. New York: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.
Merritt, J., Sutherland, L., Shwartz, Y., van de Kerkhof, M. H., & Krajcik, J. (2011). How can I smell things from a distance? In J. Krajcik, B. Reiser, L. Sutherland, & D. Fortus (Eds.), IQWST: Investigating and questioning our world through science and technology, (Middle School Science Curriculum Materials). Sangari Global Education/Active Science, USA.
Metcalf-Jackson, S., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2000). Model-It: A design retrospective. In M. Jacobson & R. B. Kozma (Eds.), Innovations in science and mathematics education: Advanced designs for technologies and learning (pp. 77–116). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Moje, E. B., Collazo, T., Carrillo, R., & Marx, R. W. (2001). “Maestro, what is ‘quality’?”: Language, literacy, and discourse in project-based science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(4), 469–498.
Moje, E. B., Peek-Brown, D., Sutherland, L. M., Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P., & Krajcik, J. S. (2004). Explaining explanations: Developing scientific literacy in middle-school project-based science reforms. In D. Strickland & D. E. Alverman (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 (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
National Research Council (NRC). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Norris, C., & Soloway, E. (2009). A disruption is coming: A primer for educators on the mobile technology revolution. In A. Druin (Ed.), Mobile technology for children: Designing for interaction and learning (pp. 125–139). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier, Inc.
Novak, A., & Gleason, C. (2001). Incorporating portable technology to enhance an inquiry, project-based middle school science classroom. In R. Tinker & J. S. Krajcik (Eds.), Portable technologies: Science learning in context (pp. 29–62). The Netherlands: Kluwer Publishers.
Novak, A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2004). Using learning technologies to support inquiry in middle school science. In L. Flick & N. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science: Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education (pp. 75–102). The Netherlands: Kluwer Publishers.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2007). PISA 2006 Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World. Paris: OECD.
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., Crismond, D., Simmons, R., & Unger, C. (1995). Inside understanding. In D. Perkins, J. Schwartz, M. West, & M. Wiske (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 students work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273–304.
Rivet, A., & Krajcik, J. (2002). Contextualizing instruction: Leveraging students’ prior knowledge and experiences to foster understanding of middle school science. In P. Bell, R. Stevens, & T. Satwicz (Eds.), Keeping learning complex: The proceedings of the fifth international conference for the learning sciences (ICLS). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
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.
Rose, D. H., Meyer, A., & Hitchcock, C. (2005). The universally designed classroom: Accessible curriculum and digital technologies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
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 the 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.
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.
Shin, N., & Stevens, S. Y. (June 2012). Development and validation of a scale to place students along a learning progression. Paper presented at the International Conferences of the Learning Sciences, Sydney, Australia.
Shin, N., Sutherland, L. M., & McCall, K. (April 2011). Design research of features in inquiry-based science materials. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
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.
Smith, C. L., Wiser, M., Anderson, C. W., & Krajcik, J. (2006). Implications of research on children’s learning for standards and assessment: A proposed learning progression for matter and the atomic molecular theory. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives 14(1 and 2), 1–98.
Spitulnik, M. W., Stratford, S., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (1997). Using technology to support student’s artifact construction in science. In B. J. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 363–382). The Netherlands: Kluwer Publishers.
Stevens, S. Y., & Shin, N. (April 2012). Developing and validating a “ruler” to locate and follow students along a learning progression. Poster presented at American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, Canada.
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.
Weizman A., Shwartz, Y., & Fortus, D. (2008). The driving question board: A visual organizer in project-based learning. Science Teacher Journal, 75, 8.
Williams, M., & Linn, M. (2003). WISE inquiry in fifth grade biology. Research in Science Education, 32(4), 145–436.