Definitions and Uses: Case Study of Teachers Implementing Project-based Learning
Main Article Content
Abstract
The purpose of this descriptive study was to explore inservice teachers’ definitions of project based learning (PjBL) and their accounts on the meaning of their PjBL implementations. A purposive sample of six teachers from grades four through twelve in public and private schools participated. Three themes evolved from inductive analysis: (1) teachers define PjBL through its perceived advantages on learning, (2) teachers vary in their use of PjBL over the continuum of the learning process, and (3) teachers adopt student-centered approaches in PjBL. Interpretations and implications of the findings are also presented.
Article Details
1. Publication and Promotion: In consideration of the Publisher’s agreement to publish the Work, Author hereby grants and assigns to Publisher the non-exclusive right to print, publish, reproduce, or distribute the Work throughout the world in all means of expression by any method now known or hereafter developed, including electronic format, and to market or sell the Work orany part of it as Publisher sees fit. Author further grants Publisher the right to use Author’s name in association with the Work inpublished form and in advertising and promotional materials
2. Copyright: Copyright of the Work remains in Author’s name.
3. Prior Publication and Attribution: Author agrees not to publish the Work in print form prior to publication of the Work by the Publisher. Author agrees to cite, by author, title, and publisher, the original Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning publication when publishing the Work elsewhere
4. Author Representations: The Author represents and warrants that the Work:
(a) is the Author’s original Work and that Author has full power to enter into this Agreement;
(b) does not infringe the copyright or property of another;
(c) contains no material which is obscene, libelous, defamatory or previously published, in whole or in part.
Author shall indemnify and hold Publisher harmless against loss of expenses arising from breach of any such warranties.
5. Licensing and Reuse: Reuse of the published Work will be governed by a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0; http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by-nc/4.0/). This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon the Work non-commercially; although new works must acknowledge the original Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning publication and be non-commercial, they do not have to be licensed on the same terms.
References
Akinoglu, O. (2008). Assessment of the inquiry-based project application in science education upon Turkish science teachers’ perspectives. Education. 129(2), 202–15.
Barron, B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Teaching for meaningful learning: A review of research on inquiry-based and cooperative learning. Edutopia.org. Retrieved May 4, 2010 from http://www.edutopia.org/pdfs/edutopia-teaching-for-meaningful-learning.pdf
Barron, B., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, T., Zech, L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem and project based- learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3–4), 271–311. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0703&4_2
Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (1994). Lessons learned: How collaboration helped middle grade science teachers learn project-based instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 94(5), 539–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/461782
Bradley-Levine, J., Berghoff, B., Seybold, J., Sever, R., Blackwell, S., & Smiley, A. (2010). What teachers and administrators “need to know” about project-based learning implementation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Denver, CO.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
Duffy, T. M. & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 170–98). New York: Macmillan.
Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02504683
Esterberg, K. G. (2002). Qualitative methods in social research. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine.
Grant, M. M. (2002). Getting a grip on project-based learning: theory, cases, and recommendations. Meridian: A Middle School Computer Technologies Journal, 5(1). Retrieved May 15, 2002 from http://www.ncsu.edu/meridian/win2002/514/project-based.pdf
Grant, M. M. (2011). Learning, beliefs, and products: Students’perspectives with project-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 5(2), 37–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1254
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.
Grant, M. M., & Hill, J.R. (2006). Weighing the rewards with the risks? Implementing student-centered pedagogy within high-stakes testing. In R. Lambert & C. McCarthy (Eds.) Understanding teacher stress in the age of accountability (pp. 19–42). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Hernandez-Ramos, P., & De La Paz, S. (2009). Learning history in middle school by designing multimedia in a PBL experience. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 151–73.
Hertzog, N. B. (2007). Transporting pedagogy: Implementing the project approach in two first-grade classrooms. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18(4), 530–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.4219/jaa-2007-559
Howard, J. (2002). Technology-enhanced PBL in teacher education: Addressing the goals of transfer. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(3), 343–64.
Jonassen, D. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed), Instructional design theories and models (Volume II ed., pp. 215–39). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kapp, E. (2009). Improving student teamwork in a collaborative project-based course. College Teaching, 57(3), 139–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.57.3.139-143
Katz, L. G., & Chard, S. D. (1992). The project approach. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED340518).
Kim, D., & Lee, S. (2002). Designing collaborative reflection supporting tools in e-project –based learning environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 13(4), 375–92.
Kintsch, W. (2009). Learning and constructivism. In S. Tobias, & T. M. Duffy (Eds), Constructivist instruction (pp. 223–41). New York: Routledge.
Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., Puntambekar, S., & Ryan, M. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle- school science classroom: Putting Learning by DesignTM into practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 495–547. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1204_2
Krajcik, J. S., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (1994). Model for helping middle grade science teachers learn instruction. The Elementary School, 94(5), 483–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/461779
Marx, R., Blumenfeld, P., Krajcik, J., & Blunk, M. (1994). Enacting project-based science: Experiences of four middle grade teachers. The Elementary School, 94(5), 517–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/461781
Mergendoller, J., Markham, T., Ravitz, J., & Larmer, J. (2006). Pervasive management of project based learning. In C. M. Evertson, C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 583–615). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Meyer, D. K., Turner, J. C., & Spencer, C. A. (1997). Challenge in a mathematics classroom: Students’ motivation and strategies in PBL. The Elementary School, 97(5), 501–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/461878
Mitchell, S., Foulger, T. S., Wetzel, K., & Rathkey, C. (2009). The negotiated project approach: PBL without leaving the standards behind. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36(4), 339–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10643-008-0295-7
Neo, M., & Neo, T.-K. (2009). Engaging students in multimedia-mediated constructivist learning—Students’ perceptions. Educational Technology & Society, 12(2), 254–66.
Park Rogers, M. A., Cross, D. I., Gresalfi, M. S., Trauth-Nare, A. E., & Buck, G. A. (2010). First year implementation of a project-based learning approach: The need for addressing teachers’ orientations in the era of reform. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(4), 893–917. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9248-x
Pope, M., Hare, D., & Howard, E. (2002). Technology integration: Closing the gap between what preservice teachers are taught to do and what they can do. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(2), 191–203.
Ravitz, J. (2003, March 26). Balancing teachers’ willingness to change with classroom realities: Moving towards an error model in professional development research. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Information Technology in Teacher Education, Albuquerque, NM.
Ravitz, J. (2008, March 27). Project based learning as a catalyst in reforming high schools. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
Ravitz, J. (2010, October 28). Assessing the impact of online technologies on PBL use in US high schools. Draft of paper to appear in Proceedings of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Anaheim, CA. Retrieved from http://www.bie.org/research/study/online_supports_for_pbl_use
Ravitz, J., Mergendoller, J., Markham, T., Thorsen, C., Rice, K., Snelson, C., & Reberry, S. (2004, October 21). Online professional development for project based learning. Paper presented at meetings of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Chicago.
Snyder, L. G., & Snyder, M. J. (2008). Teaching critical thinking and problem solving skills. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 50(2), 90–99.
Stake, R. (2003). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stone, C. (1998). The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 344–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002221949803100404
Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of PBL. Retrieved March 3, 2010, from http://www.bie.org/research/study/review_of_project_based_learning_2000/
Thomas, J. W. & Mergendoller, J. R. (2000). Managing PBL: Principles from the field. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Tobias, S., & Duffy, T. M. (2009). Constructivist theory applied to instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 3-10). London: Routledge.
Vratulis, V., Clarke, T., Hoban, G., & Erickson, G. (2011). Additive and disruptive pedagogies: The use of slowmation as an example of digital technology implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(8), 1179–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.06.004
Wolk, S. (1994). PBL: Pursuits with a purpose. Educational Leadership, 52(3), 42-45.