Defining characteristics of project-based learning
Project-based learning is a student-centred
form of instruction which is based on three constructivist principles: learning
is context-specific, learners are involved actively in the learning process and
they achieve their goals through social interactions and the sharing of
knowledge and understanding (Cocco, 2006).
It is considered to be a particular type of inquiry-based learning where
the context of learning is provided through authentic questions and problems
within real-world practices (Al-Balushi & Al-Aamri, 2014) that lead to
meaningful learning experiences (Wurdinger, Haar, Hugg & Bezon, 2007). Blumenfeld, Fishman, Krajcik, Marx and Soloway
(2000), for example, described the process of project-based science as follows:
‘The presumption
is that students need opportunities to construct knowledge by solving real
problems through asking and refining questions, designing and conducting
investigations, gathering, analysing, and interpreting information and data,
drawing conclusions, and reporting findings’ (p.150).
Project-based learning as a form of
instruction has clear connections with other pedagogical approaches, such as
problem-based learning among others (Helle, Tynjälä & Olkinuora, 2006). The focus in both is for participants to
achieve a shared goal through collaboration.
In their engagement with a project, students can encounter problems
which need to be addressed in order to construct and present the end product in
response to the driving question. The
main difference between the two is that, whereas students in problem-based
learning are primarily focused on the process of learning, project-based
learning needs to culminate in an end product (see also Blumenfeld et al.,
1991). Project-based learning has also
been compared with other pedagogical practices such as experiential or
collaborative learning. As Helle et al.
(2006) argue, project work is a collaborative form of learning as all
participants need to contribute to the shared outcome and has elements of
experiential learning with active reflection and conscious engagement rather
than passive experiences being essential.
This study focuses on a review of the relevant literature on
project-based learning as defined above looking at relevant studies
internationally that seek to evaluate benefits to learning. It concludes with six key
recommendations considered to be essential for the successful adoption of a
project-based learning approach in the mainstream school setting.
It has been argued that the freedom and
challenge that students experience as a result of solving the problems that
arise in designing and building their projects result in high levels of student
engagement (Wurdinger et al, 2007) due to the cognitive challenge as well as
the strong affective, ethical and aesthetic dimensions that form part of a
well-designed project (Wrigley, 2007). Thomas
(2000) identified five essential characteristics of projects: 1. Centrality, 2.
Driving question, 3. Constructive investigations, 4. Autonomy and 5. Realism,
with the importance of student collaboration, reflection, redrafting, and
presentations emphasised in other publications (Kwon, Warderip & Gomez,
2014; Patton, 2012). The uniqueness of project-based learning is the construction
of an end product, a ‘concrete artefact’ (Helle et al., 2006) which represents
students’ new understandings, knowledge and attitudes regarding the issue under
investigation often presented using videos, photographs, sketches, reports,
models and other collected artefacts (Holubova, 2008).
It is argued that it can help foster self-regulated learning
and can promote pupils’ conceptual knowledge within a systematic process of
documenting and reflecting on learning (Barak, 2012). Students learn to be self-reliant through
goal-setting, planning and organisation, they develop collaboration skills
through social learning and become intrinsically motivated by being encouraged
to exercise an element of choice while learning at their own level (Bell,
2010). Project-based learning has been
explored in various contexts and in different phases of schooling ranging from
the early stages of education through primary and secondary school to higher
education.
Overview of the evidence for the effectiveness of
project-based learning
Most of the reviewed studies
did not involve random allocation of participants to control and experimental
groups and, as a result, a causal link between project-based learning instruction
and positive student outcomes cannot be established with certainty. The majority of these studies were based on a
quasi-experimental pretest-posttest design with some baseline equivalence
established for the outcomes measured at the classroom level. Some studies of weaker quality were based on
observations of students’ behaviour, attitudes and accomplishments in a
project-based learning environment without the presence of a comparator group (for
example, Barak & Asad, 2012; ChanLin, 2008; Cuevas, Lee, Hart &
Deaktor, 2005; Morales, Bang & Andre, 2013). Other studies have used state standardised
test averages against which to compare the performance of 7th/8th
grade students (Geier et al., 2008) and 12th grade students
(Schneider, Krajcik, Marx & Soloway, 2002).
Sweller, Kirschner and Clark
(2007) have emphasised the importance of randomised controlled experimental
studies of different instructional procedures to provide stronger and more
reliable evidence on the effectiveness of project-based learning.
Pre-school and primary school
Implementation of a
project-based concept mapping developmental programme to facilitate children’s
experiential reasoning and comprehension of relations (Habok, 2015) reported
positive results for the experimental group that attended one of the two
kindergartens in Hungary. In particular,
even though the experimental group started with a disadvantage in achievement,
there was a significant increase in this group’s development compared to the
control group. Habok concluded that the
use of concept maps in school practice holds promise as a visual expression
tool in promoting understanding of connections and causalities. Another study with pre-school science
teachers in Sweden (Ljung-Djärf, Magnusson &
Peterson, 2014) argued that a learning study project model (a kind of action
research that combines variation theory with the concept of lesson study) has
the potential to promote pre-school science.
In their quasi-experimental study on the effectiveness of
project-based learning in primary school in Greece, Kaldi, Filippatou and
Govaris (2011) argued that primary age pupils can develop content knowledge and
group work skills in addition to motivation and positive attitudes towards
peers from a different ethnic background through project based-learning
instruction. Similarly, Karaçalli and Korur (2014)
conducted a quasi-experimental study in Turkey with fourth-grade science
students (equivalent to Year 5 in the UK) and found a statistically significant
effect in terms of academic achievement and retention of knowledge for the
project-based learning students. A US
study that explored the effectiveness of a project-based approach in 2nd
grade (equivalent to Year 1 in the UK) social studies and content area literacy
(Halvorsen, Duke, Brugar, Berka & Brown, 2012) reported positive outcomes
for low-SES students and claimed that the project-based learning approach has
the potential to help narrow the gap between low and high-SES students in
social studies and literacy for 2nd grade students. The study employed a ‘design or formative
experiment approach’ (p.10) where six teachers and a subset of their students
participated in the study. Two teachers
were from high-SES schools and four teachers from low-SES schools. The teachers in the low-SES schools
implemented project-based units in their teaching which were developed by the
researchers. In addition to student
assessments, data were also collected through classroom observations and
teacher interviews. The study had a number
of limitations, such as a small sample size (N=10-12 from each class with 43
children in low-SES and 20 children in high-SES classrooms), lack of a control
group and researcher designed assessment measures that may be less reliable and
valid in comparison to other published standardised measures.
Secondary school
Al-Balushi and Al-Aamri
(2014) conducted a quasi-experimental study with 62 11th grade
female students (equivalent to Year 12 in the UK) in Oman that explored the
effect of environmental science projects on students’ environmental knowledge
and attitudes towards science. Two
classes were randomly assigned into an experimental group and a control
group. The findings were positive with the
experimental group significantly outperforming the control group in the
Environmental Knowledge Test and the Science Attitudes Survey. The authors acknowledged, however, that a
novelty effect could not be ruled out as students’ enthusiasm in the
experimental group in using new technology to design their products could have
led to the more positive results in the post-tests.
In history learning,
Hernández-Ramos and De La Paz (2009) had eighth grade students in the US
(equivalent to Year 9 in the UK) learn to create multimedia mini-documentaries
in a six-week history unit. Compared to
students who received traditional instruction, students that engaged in the
project-based learning curriculum demonstrated positive affective benefits and
significant gains in content knowledge as well as historical thinking
skills. This was a quasi-experimental study
using a pretest-postttest design and there was no random allocation of students
or teachers to control and experimental conditions. Therefore, it cannot be inferred with
certainty that the knowledge gains are necessarily the result of
technology-enhanced project-based learning at the intervention school as other
teaching and learning activities could have contributed to the positive
results.
Another quasi-experimental study carried out in the US (Hsu,
Van Dyke, Chen & Smith, 2015) explored seventh graders’ (equivalent to Year
8 in the UK) development of argumentation skills and construction of science
knowledge in a graph-oriented computer-assisted project-based learning
environment. A significant difference in
science knowledge, counterargument and rebuttal skills was found in favour of
the treatment condition. In another US
study, Geier et al. (2008) reported that 7th and 8th
grade students that participated in project-based inquiry science units showed
increased science content understanding, better process skills and
significantly higher pass rates on the statewide test over the remainder of the
district population.
Boaler (1998) conducted a longitudinal study of mathematics
instruction comparing an open, project-based environment to a traditional
approach and it followed two cohorts of students in two British secondary
schools from Year 9 to Year 11. Even
though this study did not involve the random allocation of participants, it
employed a closely-matched control group in terms of socioeconomic status,
prior mathematics instruction and attainment.
A variety of instruments were used to measure students’ skills,
attitudes and attainment. The main
finding was that the two groups developed different forms of knowledge. The students learning mathematics in the
project-based environment developed conceptual understanding which often
required creative and deeper thinking in contrast to the procedural knowledge
acquired by the traditional instruction group which was mainly based on
information recall. In addition, more
students at the project-based school succeeded in passing the General
Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) at the end of the three-year study
than those students receiving the traditional instruction.
Other studies have shown higher learner motivation in a project-based
learning environment with fourteen and fifteen year old girls in Israel showing
increased interest in learning scientific-technological subjects (Barak and
Asad, 2012). Project-based learning as
related to STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) curriculum
design for female senior high school students in Taiwan led to gains in terms
of enjoyment, engagement with the project and
the ability to combine theory and practice effectively (Lou, Liu, Shih
& Tseng, 2011). This study was an
in-depth investigation of 84 students’ cognition, behavioural intentions and
attitudes in the project-based STEM environment and involved text analysis and
questionnaire survey as the main data collection tools.
he 10-11 year old students in ChanLin’s (2008) qualitative
study in Taiwan developed skills in synthesising and elaborating knowledge and
in engaging in scientific exploratory tasks with the use of technology. Project-based learning has also been explored
as a method of instruction with low-achieving students in Israel (Doppelt, 2003)
and the US (Cuevas et al., 2005), and with second chance school students in
Greece (Koutrouba & Karageorgou, 2013) with positive outcomes. Doppelt (2003) found that
scientific-technological project-based learning helped improve low-achieving
students’ motivation and self-image by allowing students to succeed early on in
the process and led to more students achieving the college admittance
requirements. Doppelt’s study was a
field research project that used qualitative and quantitative tools (portfolio
analysis, observations, interviews, matriculation examination results and
assessment of students’ projects) with a sample of 54 10th to 12th
grade students (fifteen to eighteen years old).
Encouraging results were also reported with high school high
achievers in Israel where 60 students from three experimental classes in
comprehensive high schools exhibited a significant increase in formal
technological knowledge and skills and more positive attitudes towards
technology in comparison to the students in the three control classes which
were drawn from technological high schools (Mioduser & Betzer, 2007). However, the different type of schools
involved suggests differences in student take-up and characteristics, and
indicate an unequal student comparison which limits the strength of the
findings.Some studies have shown mixed results.
For example, in their quasi-experimental study with 13 year old children
(grade 8) taking computer courses in Greece, Boubouka and Papanikolaou (2013)
found no significant effect of project-based learning on student achievement
but a statistically positive effect on self-perceived learning
performances.
Project-based
learning studies in higher education and in pre-service teacher training
A number of studies have
explored the effectiveness of project-based learning in higher education in
different countries. Most of these
studies have focussed on engineering education.
For example, Ruikar and Demian (2013) made links with industry
engagement through multimedia podcasting in the UK, Hassan and his colleagues
(2008) adopted an integrated, multicourse, project-based learning methodology
in electronic engineering in Spain and Fernandes et al. (2014) followed the
project-led education model developed by
Powell and Weenk (2003), to engage students in learning at a University
in Portugal. In Australia, Stewart
(2007) investigated the link between self-directed learning readiness and
project-based learning outcomes in a postgraduate management course and found
that self-directed learning readiness, such as having high self-management
skills, was a key enabler for achievement learning outcomes from project-based
learning. Another study (Gibbes & Carson,
2014) investigated project-based language learning using Activity Theory in a
university language programme in Ireland.
This study reported mixed results in learning outcomes for the study
participants because of contradictions found in the activity system (e.g.
inequitable divisions of labour, perceived lack of time due to community
obligations or opposition to the rules governing the activity in the modules).
Some studies have applied the principles of project-based
learning with pre-service teachers and claimed that student-teachers can become
better problem-solvers (Mettas & Constantinou, 2008), can gain benefits
from formative assessment (Frank & Barzilai, 2002) and become more aware of
the object of learning which can then lead to enhanced learning among
pre-school children (Ljung-Djärf, Magnusson &
Peterson, 2014).
The review of the literature indicated certain factors that
can help facilitate the adoption of project-based teaching instruction in the
classroom. These are summarised in the
section that follows.
Facilitating factors in the implementation of project-based
learning instruction
On the basis of their study
and findings, Al-Balushi and Al-Aamri (2014) concluded that project-based
instruction is not more demanding than traditional instruction in terms of
resources and time and can be implemented with few resources, inside the school
building and within the time allocated for the study of particular topics.
Modern digital technology is a major enabler for students to
comfortably engage with the process of designing and developing their project
as they can document the whole process and easily share their creations in a
digital format (Patton, 2012). Effective
use of technology as an integrated part of the pedagogical processes has been
found to help both weakly and strongly performing students construct knowledge
in the project-based learning environment (Erstad, 2002). However, Bell (2010) points out that children
need to be guided and supported in using technology safely and effectively to
gain the creativity affordances that technological involvement can offer.
Furthermore, group processes of high quality (conceptualised
as group members showing positive interdependence, individual accountability,
equal participation and social skills) have been found to play a pivotal role
to the success of collaboration in project-based learning (Cheng, Lam &
Chan, 2008). High quality group work becomes even more
important when challenges associated with social class differences, gender and
attainment hierarchies have been found to affect power relations among some
students in the project-based learning group leading to unequal learning
possibilities with some pupils enjoying more agency than others (Crossouard,
2012). Crossouard argues that teachers need to be better supported, both within
initial teacher education and continuing professional development, to develop
more sensitivity towards the social and gendered hierarchies that can often be
implicit in pupils’ discourse, particularly in relation to peer assessment
interactions. Issues of social equity
can thus become part of the pedagogic focus and the language used in the
classroom in order to explore social relations.
The successful implementation of project-based learning in
the classroom lies on the teacher’s ability to effectively scaffold students’
learning, motivate, support and guide them along the way. Effective scaffolded
instruction within high-quality experiences will help reduce students’
‘cognitive load’ (Hmelo-Silver, Duncan & Chinn, 2007), will enable them to
make small successful steps and ultimately achieve ‘cognitive growth just
beyond their reach’ (Bell, 2010, p.41).
Leaving scope for learner control of the learning process is crucial
with teachers and students having to work together to reflect upon the purpose
of the project, set clear and realistic goals, and make decisions regarding the
pace, sequencing and content of learning (Helle et al., 2006). In scaffolding students’ learning, teachers may
need to give students insight into the content of the desired response in project-based
learning in order to allow them to recognise and take up the learning
opportunities afforded in the classroom (Gresalfi, Barnes & Cross,
2012). Based on their case study
findings in the US, Grant and Branch (2005) concluded that the exploration of
cross-disciplinary units and team teaching should be emphasised so that
students can understand how their abilities can be used across domains and
avoid the fragmentation of skills and knowledge.
The level of support that teachers get from the school’s
senior management (Erstad, 2002) and from other colleagues is of particular
importance. Lam, Cheng and Choy (2010)
concluded that when teachers felt well supported by their schools in terms of
their competence and autonomy, they were more motivated to implement and
persist in using project-based learning.
The use of a two-phase project-based approach has been put
forth in the literature as an effective approach to first help the students
become sufficiently competent by developing the knowledge and skills needed to
then be able to design and make products
independently in the second phase (see, for example, Drain, 2010; Good &
Jarvenin, 2007). Drain (2010) used the
Cognitive Apprenticeship framework which, on the basis of situated cognition
theory, claims that learning is maximised when it occurs in real life contexts
and students engage with authentic problems.
This was a case study of a primary school class (Year 5) in New Zealand
and their teacher during a technology unit.
The first part of the unit aimed to help pupils develop knowledge of
technological concepts and procedures through appropriate activities while the
second half enabled pupils to be creative and exercise initiative in designing
and creating their projects. The
importance of balancing didactic instruction with in-depth inquiry methods has
also been emphasised by Grant and Branch (2005). Student assessment needs to be aligned to the
unique features of the project-based learning process and outcomes with
teachers identifying suitable assessment moments where they can first generate
‘teachable moments’ (Lehman, George, Buchanan & Rush, 2006) and then create
formative scaffolds to guide and support their students along the project
process (Hmelo-Silver et al., 2007).
Assessment in project-based learning has been described as ‘authentic’
(Bell, 2010, p.43) which, in addition to measuring a child’s performance via
rubrics, it primarily focuses on reflection, self and peer evaluation. Self-assessment skills can help students
learn to regulate their own learning and acquire ownership of the learning
process (Ertmer & Simons, 2005).
How teachers can support project-based learning in the classroom
– what the evidence shows
Mergendoller and Thomas (2005) interviewed
twelve expert teachers in project-based learning in the US to elicit the
teachers’ strategies for implementing and managing the project, and maximizing
its success. These teachers were
recognised as experts within the national PBL community, they had trained other
teachers and had made presentations on project-based learning at various professional
conferences and workshops. Forty three
questions formed part of the semi-structured interview schedule and covered
aspects of overall planning and project planning, carrying out the project and
the future of project work in the classroom.
The interview transcripts were coded into narrative segments that led to
themes about aspects of project implementation such as time management, getting
started and managing student groups.
This analysis revealed a number of successful techniques employed by
expert teachers in project-based learning and were grouped around seven overarching
themes and 18 sub-themes. Each sub-theme
comprised a number of principles or guidelines which aim to provide practical
advice to teachers and are summarised below under each theme.
1. Time management – This theme relates to scheduling projects effectively
by coordinating project schedules with other teachers, for example, or use
block scheduling to increase flexibility, and be able to hold to timelines by
building in a 20% overrun when planning a project or learning when to enforce
and when to extend a time line.
2. Getting started – This theme is about orienting students, i.e. getting
them think about the project well before they begin, giving them a rubric that
clearly explains what they are expected to search for and try to accomplish and
jointly agreeing on grading criteria before the start of the project. The ‘getting started’ theme is also about
encouraging thoughtful work early on in the project in developing a research
plan and a suitable research question while facilitating a sense of mission.
3. Establishing a culture that stresses student self-management – Here,
responsibility is shifted from the teacher to students where students are
involved in project design, they make decisions for themselves and they are
encouraged to learn how to learn.
4.
Managing student groups –
The emphasis is on establishing the appropriate grouping pattern, promoting
full participation and keeping track of each group’s progress through
discussion, monitoring and recording evidence of progress.
5.
Working
with others outside the classroom, such as other teachers, parents and people
from the community in order to work out the feasibility and nature of external
partnerships.
6. Getting the most out of technological resources, such as judging the
suitability of using technology for the project, making efficient use of the
internet by being encouraged to make informed choices in exploring relevant web
sites and developing critical thinking skills.
7. Assessing students and evaluating projects – This final theme refers,
firstly, to the importance of grading students by using a variety of assessment
methods, including individual and group grades and giving emphasis to
individual over group performance and, secondly, to adequately debriefing
projects by demonstrating reflection strategies and collecting formative
evaluation information from students about the project and how it might be
improved.
Starting from the premise that project-based teaching assumes
significant changes in classroom practices, Krajcik, Blumenfled, Mars and
Soloway (1994) described how teachers can learn to address the new challenges
presented through the dynamic interplay of three elements in middle school
science teaching: teachers’ collaboration with consultants and
university personnel to share and critique ideas, plans and teaching
activities; classroom enactment where
teachers plan and carry out new practices in the classroom in an attempt to
construct and generate understandings about what is possible in their classroom,
modify their thinking and adopt the most appropriate teaching strategies;
teachers’ reflection on their
teaching via journals, case reports or videotapes of classroom implementation
to develop the knowledge that will help promote student learning.
Recommendations
made on the basis of the evidence
On the basis of the literature review, the
following six key recommendations can be made which are considered to be essential
for the successful adoption of a project-based learning approach in the
mainstream school setting.
1.
Student support: students
need to be effectively guided and supported; emphasis should be given on
effective time management and student self-management including making safe and
productive use of technological resources.
2.
Teacher support: regular
support needs to be offered to teachers through regular networking and
professional development opportunities.
The support from the school senior management is crucial.
3.
Effective group work: high
quality group work will help ensure that students share equal levels of agency
and participation.
4.
Balance between didactic instruction with independent
inquiry method work will ensure that students
develop a certain level of knowledge and skills before being comfortably
engaged in independent work.
5.
Assessment emphasis on reflection, self and peer
evaluation: evidence of progress needs to be regularly
monitored and recorded.
6.
An element
of student choice and autonomy
throughout the project-based learning process will help students develop a
sense of ownership and control over their learning.
References
Al-Balushi, S. M., & Al-Aamri,
S. S. (2014). The effect of environmental science projects on students’
environmental knowledge and science attitudes. International Research in
Geographical & Environmental Education, 23(3), 213-227.
Barak, M. (2012). From
"doing" to "doing with learning": reflection on an effort
to promote self-regulated learning in technological projects in high school. European
Journal of Engineering Education, 37(1), 105-116.
Barak, M. & Asad, K. (2012).
Teaching image-processing concepts in junior high schools: boys’ and girls’
achievement and attitudes towards technology. Research in Science & Technological Education, 30(1), 81-105.
Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for
the 21st century: skills for the future. The Clearing House: A Journal
of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 83(2), 39-43.
Blumenfeld, P.C., Soloway, E.,
Marx, R.W, Krajcik, J.S., Guzdial, M. and Palincsar, A.
(1991). Motivating
project-based learning: sustaining the doing, supporting the
learning, Educational
Psychologist 26,
369–398.
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(3),
149-164.
Boaler, J. (1998). Open and closed
mathematics: student experiences and understandings. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(1), 41-62.
Boubouka, M., & Papanikolaou,
K. A. (2013). Alternative assessment methods in technology enhanced
project-based learning. International
Journal of Learning Technology, 8(3), 263-296.
ChanLin, L.J. (2008). Technology
integration applied to project-based learning in science. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(1), 55-65.
Cheng, R. W., Lam, S.., &
Chan, C. (2008). When high achievers and low achievers work in the same group:
the role of group heterogeneity and processes in project-based learning. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(2), 205-221.
Cocco, S. (2006). Student
leadership development: the contribution of project-based learning. Unpublished
Master’s thesis. Royal Roads University, Victoria, BC.
Crossouard, B. (2012). Absent
presences: the recognition of social class and gender dimensions within peer
assessment interactions. British Educational Research Journal, 38(5),
731-748.
Cuevas, P., Lee, O., Hart, J.
& Deaktor, R. (2005). Improving science inquiry with elementary students of
diverse backgrounds. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 42 (3),
337-357.
Doppelt, Y. (2003). Implementation
and assessment of project-based learning in a flexible environment. International
Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13(3), 255-272.
Drain, M. (2010). Justification of
the dual-phase project-based pedagogical approach in a primary school
technology unit. Design and Technology Education: an International Journal,
15(1), 7-14.
Erstad, O. (2002). Norwegian
students using digital artifacts in project-based learning. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 18(4), 427-437.
Ertmer, P.A. & Simons, K.D.
(2005). Scaffolding teachers’ efforts to implement problem-based learning. International Journal of Learning, 12(4), 319-328.
Frank, M. & Barzilai, A.
(2004). Integrating alternative assessment in a project-based learning course
for pre-service science and technology teachers. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(1), 41-61.
Geier, R., Blumenfeld, P.C., Marx,
R.W., Krajcik, J.S., Fishman, B. Soloway, E. & Clay-Chambers, J. (2008).
Standardized test outcomes for students engaged in inquiry-based science
curricula in the context of urban reform. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 45(8),
922-939.
Gibbes, M., & Carson, L.
(2014). Project-based language learning: an activity theory analysis. Innovation
in Language Learning & Teaching, 8(2), 171-189.
Good, K. & Jarvenin, E.
(2007). An examination of the starting point approach to design and technology.
Journal of Technology Studies, 33(2), 99-107.
Grant, M.M. & Branch, R.M.
(2005). Project-based learning in a middle school: tracing abilities through the
artifacts of learning. Journal of
Research on Technology in Education, 38(1),
65-98.
Gresalfi, M. S., Barnes, J., &
Cross, D. (2012). When does an opportunity become an opportunity? Unpacking
classroom practice through the lens of ecological psychology. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 80(1-2), 249-267.
Fernandes, S., Mesquita, D.,
Flores, M. A., & Lima, R. M. (2014). Engaging students in learning:
findings from a study of project-led education. European Journal of
Engineering Education, 39(1), 55-67.
Habok, A. (2015). Implementation
of a project-based concept mapping developmental programme to facilitate
children's experiential reasoning and comprehension of relations. European
Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 23(1), 129-142.
Halvorsen, A.L., Duke, N.K.,
Brugar, K., Berka, M. & Brown, J. (2012). Narrowing the achievement gap in
second-grade social studies and content area literacy: the promise of a
project-based approach. Working paper 26, The Education Policy Center: Michigan
State University.
Hassan, H., Domínguez, C.,
Martínez, J.-M., Perles, A., Albaladejo, J., & Capella, J.-V. (2008).
Integrated multicourse project-based learning in electronic engineering. International
Journal of Engineering Education, 24(3), 581-591.
Helle, L., Tynjälä, P. & Olkinuora, E. (2006). Project-based learning in
post-secondary education – theory, practice and rubber sling shots. Higher Education, 51, 287-314.
Hernández-Ramos, P. and De La Paz,
S. (2009). Learning history in middle school by designing multimedia in a
project-based learning experience. Journal
of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2),
151-173.
Hmelo-Silver, C.E., Duncan, R.G.
& Chinn, C.A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and
inquiry learning: a response to Kirschner, Sweller and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99-107.
Holubova, R. (2008). Effective
teaching methods – project-based learning in physics. US-China Education Review, 12(5),
27-35.
Kaldi, S., Filippatou, D., &
Govaris, C. (2011). Project-based learning in primary schools: effects on
pupils' learning and attitudes. Education 3-13, 39(1), 35-47.
Karaçalli, S. & Korur, F. (2014). The effects of project-based learning on
students’ academic achievement, attitude, and retention of knowledge: the
subject of “electricity in our lives”. School
Science and Mathematics, 114(5),
224-235.
Koutrouba, K., & Karageorgou,
E. (2013). Cognitive and socio-affective outcomes of project-based learning:
Perceptions of Greek Second Chance School students. Improving Schools, 16(3),
244-260.
Krajcik, J.S., Blumenfeld, P.C.,
Marx, R.W. & Soloway, E. (1994). A
collaborative model for helping middle grade science teachers learn
project-based instruction. The Elementary
School Journal, 94 (5), 483-497.
Kwon, S. M., Wardrip, P. S., &
Gomez, L. M. (2014). Co-design of interdisciplinary projects as a mechanism for
school capacity growth. Improving Schools, 17(1), 54-71.
Lam, S.-F., Cheng, R. W.-y., &
Choy, H. C. (2010). School support and teacher motivation to implement
project-based learning. Learning and Instruction, 20(6), 487-497.
Lehman, J.D., George, M.,
Buchanan, P. & Rush, M. (2006). Preparing teachers to use problem-centered inquiry-based science: lessons from
a four-year professional development project. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1), 76-99.
Ljung-Djärf, A., Magnusson, A.,
& Peterson, S. (2014). From Doing to Learning: Changed focus during a
pre-school learning study project on organic decomposition. International Journal
of Science Education, 36(4), 659-676.
Lou, S.J., Liu, Y.H., Shih, R.C.,
Tseng, K.H. (2011). Effectiveness of on-line STEM project-based learning for
female senior high school students, 27,
399-410.
Mergendoller, J.R. & Thomas,
J.W. (2005). Managing project based learning: principles from the field. Buck Institute for Education: California.
Mettas, A., & Constantinou, C.
P. (2008). The Technology Fair: a project-based learning approach for enhancing
problem solving skills and interest in design and technology education. International
Journal of Technology and Design Education, 18(1), 79-100.
Mioduser, D., & Betzer, N.
(2008). The contribution of project-based-learning to high-achievers'
acquisition of technological knowledge and skills. International Journal of
Technology and Design Education, 18(1), 59-77.
Morales, T.M., Bang, E. &
Andre, T. (2013). A one-year case study: understanding the rich potential of
project-based learning in a virtual reality class for high school students. Journal of Science Education and Technology,
22(5), 791-806.
Patton, M. (2012). Work that matters: the teacher’s guide to
project-based learning. London: Paul Hamlyn Foundation.
Ruikar, K. & Demian, P.
(2013). Podcasting to engage industry in project-based learning. International Journal of Engineering
Education, 29(6), 1410-1419.
Schneider, R.M., Krajcik, J.,
Marx, R.W. & Soloway, E. (2002). Performance of students in project-based
science classrooms on a national measure of science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
39(5), 410-422.
Stewart, R. A. (2007).
Investigating the link between self-directed learning readiness and
project-based learning outcomes: the case of international Masters students in
an engineering management course. European Journal of Engineering Education,
32(4), 453-465.
Sweller, J., Kirschner, P.A. &
Clark, R.E. (2007). Why minimally guided teaching techniques do not work: a
reply to commentaries. Educational
Psychologist, 42(2), 115-121.
Wrigley, T. (2007). Projects,
stories and challenges: more open architectures for school learning. In S.
Bell, S. Harkness & G. White (Eds), Storyline
past, present and future (166-181). University of Strathclyde: Glasgow.
Wurdinger, S., Haar, J., Hugg, R.,
& Bezon, J. (2007). A qualitative study using project-based learning in a
mainstream middle school. Improving Schools, 10(2), 150-161.
