Skip to main content Accessibility help

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
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T02:56:32.474Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

19 - Project-Based Learning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Joseph S. Krajcik  and
Phyllis C. Blumenfeld
Edited by
R. Keith Sawyer
Joseph S. Krajcik
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
Phyllis C. Blumenfeld
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
R. Keith Sawyer
Affiliation:
Washington University, St Louis
Get access

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.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences , pp. 317 - 334
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bransford, J., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.CrossRef
Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented teenagers: The roots of success and failure. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewey, J. (1959). Dewey on education. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
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, 355–385.3.0.CO;2-M>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind: How children think and how schools should teach. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Haberman, M. (1991). The pedagogy of poverty versus good teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(4), 290–294.Google Scholar
Heubel-Drake, M., Finkel, L., Stern, E., Mouradian, M. (1995). Planning a course for success. The Science Teacher, 62, 18–21.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Hurd, P. D. (1970). New directions in teaching secondary school science. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (1997). Enacting project-based science. Elementary School Journal, 97(4), 341–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Polman, J. (1999). Designing project-based science: Connecting learners through guided inquiry. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruopp, R. R., Gal, S., Drayton, B., & Pfister, M. (Eds). (1992). LabNet: Toward a community of practice. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Rutherford, J. F. (1964). The role of inquiry in science teaching.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2(2), 80–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salomon, G., Perkins, D. N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20, 2–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Schofield, J. W. (1995). Computers and classroom culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, C. (1994). Project-based science: Reflections of a middle school teacher. The Elementary School Journal, 95(1), 75–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tinker, R. (1997). Thinking about science. http://www.concord.org/library/papers.html. Cambridge, MA: Concord Consortium.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
Williams, M., & Linn, M. (2003). WISE Inquiry in fifth grade biology. Research in Science Education, 32(4), 415–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×