Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- 1 An Introduction to the Learning Sciences
- Part I Foundations
- 2 Foundations of the Learning Sciences
- 3 Scaffolding
- 4 Project-Based Learning
- 5 Metacognition and Self-Regulated Learning
- 6 A History of Conceptual Change Research
- 7 Learning in Activity
- 8 Cognitive Apprenticeship
- Part II Methodologies
- Part III Grounding Technology in the Learning Sciences
- Part IV Learning Together
- Part V Learning Disciplinary Knowledge
- Part VI Moving Learning Sciences Research into the Classroom
- Index
- References
4 - Project-Based Learning
from Part I - Foundations
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 March 2022
Edited by
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- 1 An Introduction to the Learning Sciences
- Part I Foundations
- 2 Foundations of the Learning Sciences
- 3 Scaffolding
- 4 Project-Based Learning
- 5 Metacognition and Self-Regulated Learning
- 6 A History of Conceptual Change Research
- 7 Learning in Activity
- 8 Cognitive Apprenticeship
- Part II Methodologies
- Part III Grounding Technology in the Learning Sciences
- Part IV Learning Together
- Part V Learning Disciplinary Knowledge
- Part VI Moving Learning Sciences Research into the Classroom
- Index
- References
Summary
In problem-based learning (PBL), students are presented with a driving question that is open-ended, without an obvious linear path to a solution. In PBL children solve authentic real-world problems while engaging in disciplinary-appropriate practices. Rather than memorizing information, students learn while engaged in an authentic process of exploring data, arguments, and explanations, and formulating their own hypotheses and tentative solutions. Students explore the driving question by participating in scaffolded practices that help them to define a problem statement and a path toward a solution. Students create a set of tangible products that address the driving question, supporting collaboration and metacognition. Research shows that PBL promotes student engagement, improves academic learning, and enhances social emotional learning. In particular, PBL promotes science learning for all students, including students who historically have not had access to STEM careers.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences , pp. 72 - 92Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Baines, A. (2015). Project-based learning increases science achievement in elementary schools and improves social and emotional learning. Lucas Education Research. Retrieved from www.lucasedresearch.org/researchGoogle Scholar
Bielik, T., Stephens, L., Damelin, D., & Krajcik, J. (2019). Designing technology rich environments to support student modeling practice. In Upmeier zu Belzen, A., Kruger, D., & Van Driel, J. (Eds.), Towards a competence-based view on models and modeling in science education (pp. 275–290). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
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(3), 149–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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(3–4), 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
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiu, M. H., Chou, C. C., Chen, Y. H., et al. (2018). Model-based learning about structures and properties of chemical elements and compounds via the use of augmented realities. Chemistry Teacher International, 1(1), Article 20180002. doi:10.1515/cti-2018-0002Google Scholar
Common Online Data Analysis Platform [computer software]. (2020). Concord, MA: The Concord Consortium.Google Scholar
Condliffe, B., Quint, J., Visher, M. G., et al. (2017). Project based learning: A literature review [Working paper]. New York, NY: MDRC.Google Scholar
Duncan, R., Krajcik, J., & Rivet, A. (Eds.). (2016). Disciplinary core ideas: Reshaping teaching and learning. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.Google Scholar
Edelson, D. C., & Reiser, B. J. (2006). Making authentic practices accessible to learners: Design challenges and strategies. In Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 335–354). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eidin, E., Bielik, T., Touitou, I., Bowers, J., McIntyre, C., & Damlin, D. (2020). Characterizing advantages and challenges for students engaging in computational thinking and systems thinking through model construction. In Gresalfi, M. & Horn, I. S. (Eds.), The Interdisciplinarity of the Learning Sciences, 14th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2020 (Vol. 1, pp. 183–190). Nashville, TN: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Harris, C. J., Krajcik, J., Pellegrino, J., & DeBarger, A. H. (2019). Designing knowledge-in-use assessments to promote deeper learning. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 38(2), 53–67.Google Scholar
Harris, C. J., Penuel, W. R., D’Angelo, C. M., et al. (2015). Impact of project-based curriculum materials on student learning in science: Results of a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(10), 1362–1385. doi:10.1002/tea.21263Google Scholar
Hasni, A., Bousadra, F., Belletête, V., Benabdallah, A., Nicole, M., & Dumais, N. (2016). Trends in research on project-based science and technology teaching and learning at K–12 levels: A systematic review. Studies in Science Education, 52(2), 199–231. doi:10.1080/03057267.2016.1226573CrossRefGoogle 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: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Jagers, R. J., Rivas-Drake, D., & Borowski, T. (2018). Equity & social and emotional learning: A cultural analysis. Frameworks Briefs, Special Issues Series.Google Scholar
Kokotsaki, D., Menzies, V., & Wiggins, A. (2016). Project-based learning: A review of the literature. Improving Schools, 19(3), 267–277. doi:10.1177/1365480216659733Google Scholar
Kolodner, J., Krajcik, J., Reiser, B., Edelson, D., & Starr, M. (2013). Project-based inquiry science: It’s about time, publisher [Middle school science curriculum materials]. Mt. Kisco, NY. Retrieved from https://activatelearning.com/pbiscience/Google Scholar
Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (2006). Project-based learning. In Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 317–334). New York, NY: Cambridge.Google Scholar
Krajcik, J. S., Codere, S., Dahsah, C., Bayer, R., & Mun, K. (2014). Planning instruction to meet the intent of the next generation science standards. The Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 157–175. doi:10.1007/s10972–014-9383-2Google Scholar
Krajcik, J. S., & Czerniak, C. M. (2018). Teaching science in elementary and middle school classrooms: A project-based approach (5th ed.). London, England: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Krajcik, J. S., Miller, E., & Chen, I. (in press). Using project-based learning to leverage culturally relevant pedagogy for sensemaking of science in urban elementary classrooms. In Atwater, M. M. (Ed.), The international handbook of research on multicultural science education. Springer.Google Scholar
Krajcik, J. S., & Mun, K. (2014). Promises and challenges of using learning technologies to promote student learning of science. In Lederman, N. G. & Abell, S. K. (Eds.), The handbook of research on science education (pp. 337–360). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Krajcik, J. S, Schneider, B., Miller, E., et al. (2020). Assessing the effect of project-based learning on science learning in elementary schools: Technical report. San Rafael, CA: George Lucas Educational Foundation.Google Scholar
Krajcik, J. S., & Shin, N. (2014). Project-based learning. In Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 275–297). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Leggett, G., & Harrington, I. (2019 ). The impact of project based learning (PBL) on students from low socioeconomic statuses: A review. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 25(11), 1270–1286. doi:10.1080/13603116.2019.1609101Google Scholar
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Cultivating model-based reasoning in science education. In Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 371–387). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
MacDonald, R., Miller, E., & Lord, S. (2017). Doing and talking science: Engaging ELs in the discourse of the science and engineering practices. In Oliveira, A. W. & Weinburgh, M. H. (Eds.), Science teacher preparation in content-based second language acquisition (pp. 179–197). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., et al. (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.Google Scholar
McNeill, K. L. (2009). Teachers’ use of curriculum to support students in writing scientific arguments to explain phenomena. Science Education, 93(2), 233–268.Google Scholar
McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. S. (2008). Middle school students’ use of appropriate and inappropriate evidence in writing scientific explanations. In Lovet, M. & Shah, P. (Eds.), Thinking with data (pp. 233–265). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
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, NY: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Miller, E. C., & Krajcik, J. S. (2019). Promoting deep learning through project-based learning: A design problem. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 1, Article 7. doi:10.1186/s43031–019-0009-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). How people learn II: Learners, contexts, and cultures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/24783Google Scholar
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2019). Science and engineering for grades 6–12: Investigation and design at the Center. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Retrieved from www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standardsGoogle Scholar
Nordine, J., & Lee, O. (Eds.). (2021). Crosscutting concepts: Strengthening science and engineering learning. Arlington, VA: National Science Teaching Association Press.Google Scholar
Novak, A. M., & Krajcik, J. S. (2019). A case study of project‐based learning of middle school students exploring water quality. In Moallem, M., Hung, W., & Dabbagh, N. (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of problem‐based learning (pp. 551–572). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Novak, A. M., & Treagust, D. F. (2018). Adjusting claims as new evidence emerges: Do students incorporate new evidence into their scientific explanations? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(3), 526–549. doi:10.1002/tea.21429Google Scholar
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2019). PISA 2018 results (Vol. I): What students know and can do. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/5f07c754-enGoogle 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
Pellegrino, J. W., & Hilton, M. L. (2012). Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Research Council.Google Scholar
Salomon, G., Perkins, D. N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20(3), 2–9.Google Scholar
Schneider, B., Krajcik, J., Lavonen, J., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2020). Learning science: Crafting engaging science environments. New Haven, CT; London, England: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Schneider, B., Krajcik, J., Lavonen, J., et al. (2020). Improving science achievement – Is it possible? Evaluating the efficacy of a high school chemistry and physics project-based learning intervention: Crafting engaging science environments [Under review]. Educational Researcher.Google Scholar
Schwarz, C., Passmore, C., & Reiser, B. J. (Eds.). (2016). Helping students make sense of the world using next generation science and engineering practices. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.Google Scholar
Schwarz, C., Reiser, B., Davis, E., et al. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 232–254.Google Scholar
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 & 2), 1–98.Google Scholar
Williams, M., & Linn, M. (2003). WISE inquiry in fifth grade biology. Research in Science Education, 32(4), 145–436.Google Scholar
- 6
- Cited by