Effects of Innovative Project Based Learning Model on Students' Knowledge Acquisition, Cognitive Abilities, and Personal Competences
Main Article Content
Abstract
The current study addresses the limited research on knowledge acquisition in Project-Based Learning (PjBL) and assesses its development using a Multidimensional Curriculum Model (MdCM) among 563 elementary and secondary school stu-dents in Israel. The mixed-method approach involves a quantitative pre-post design, comparing intervention groups who are studying modules based on MdCM to control groups using traditional PjBL. The knowledge measured comprises three dimensions: declarative, procedural, and conditional. Qualitative measures, including semi-structured interviews and reflec-tive diaries, added information on student learning. Main findings indicated an effect of MdCM as a form of PjBL which showed significant differences between intervention and control groups in terms of total knowledge acquisition, particularly in procedural and conditional knowledge. Interviews and reflective diaries elaborated on the significant link between think-ing processes and knowledge acquisition, indicating that students perceived development of their cognitive abilities and personal competencies. In this study, implications for teaching using MdCM as a novel PjBL approach are discussed.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
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
Author (2015).
Author (2018a).
Author (2018b).
Authors (2019).
Bell, S. (2010). Project based learning for the 12st century: Skills for the future. The Clearinghouse, 83, 39-43.
Boaler, J. (1998). Open and closed mathematics: Student experiences and understanding. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(1), 41-62.
Boaler, J. (1999). Participation, knowledge and beliefs: A community perspective on mathematics learning. Educational studies in mathematics, 40(3), 259-281.
Culclasure, B. T., Longest, K. C., & Terry, T. M. (2019). Project-Based Learning (Pjbl) in three southeastern public schools: Academic, behavioral, and social-emotional outcomes. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 13(2). Available at: https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1842
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Los Angeles: Sage publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage publications.
de Bono, E. (1970). Lateral thinking: Creativity step by step. Harper & Row.
de Bono, E. (2006). Lateral thinking: The power of provocation manual. Published by de Bono Thinking Systems.
Dreyhaupt, J., Mayer, B., Keis, O., Öchsner, W., & Muche, R. (2017). Cluster-randomized studies in educational research: principles and methodological aspects. GMS journal for medical education, 34(2), 1-25.
Eberle, B. (1996). SCAMPER: Games for imagination development. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press Inc.
Hativa, N. (2003). Teaching processes in the classroom. Tel Aviv: Academic Publishing for Teachers Professional Development. (Hebrew).
Hung, C.-M., Hwang, G.-J., & Huang, I. (2012). A Project-based digital storytelling approach for improving students' learning motivation, problem-solving competence and learning achievement. Educational Technology & Society, 15 (4), 368–379.
FPSP (2001). Future problem-solving program coach's handbook. Lexington, KY: Author.
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.
Hesse, F., Care, E., Buder, J., Sassenberg, K., & Griffin, P. (2015). A framework for teachable collaborative problem-solving skills. In Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. 37-56). Dordrecht: Springer.
Hyerle, D., & Alper, L. (2011). Student successes with thinking maps. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.
Isaksen, S. G., Dorval, K. B., & Treffinger, D. J. (2010). Creative approaches to problem-solving: A framework for innovation and change. Sage Publications.
Kapur, M. (2015). The preparatory effects of problem-solving versus problem posing on learning from instruction. Learning and instruction, 39, 23-31.
Keeves, J. P. (1988). Educational research, methodology and measurement. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Li., M. and Shavelson, R.J. (2001). Examining the links between science achievement and assessment. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
McNeil, N. M., Chesney, D. L., Matthews, P. G., et al. (2012). It pays to be organized: organizing arithmetic practice around equivalent values facilitates understanding of math equivalence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104 (4), 1109–1121. doi: 10.1037/a0028997.
Neo, M., & Neo, T.-K. (2009). Engaging students in multimedia-mediated constructivist learning: Students’ perceptions. Educational Technology & Society, 12(2), 254–66.
Patton, A. (2012). Work That Matters: The Teacher's Guide to Project-based Learning. Paul Hamlyn Foundation.
Passig, D. (2004). Future time span as cognitive skill in future studies. Futures Research Quarterly, 19(4), 27-47.
Passig, D. (2013). Forcognito- The future mind. Mishkal- Yediot Ahronot Books and Hemed Books. (Hebrew).
Perkins, D., Tishman, S., Ritchhart, R., Donis, K., & Andrade, A. (2000). Intelligence in the wild: A dispositional view of intellectual traits. Educational Psychology Review, 12(3), 269-293.
RuizPrimo, M. A. & Shavelson, R. J. (1996). Rhetoric and reality in science performance assessments: An update. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33,1045‑1063.
Savery, J. R. (2015). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. Essential readings in problem-based learning: Exploring and extending the legacy of Howard S. Barrows, 9, 5-15.
Schneider, M., Rittle-Johnson, B., & Star, J. R. (2011). Relations between conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and procedural flexibility in two samples differing in prior knowledge. Developmental Psychology, 47(6), 1525–1538. doi: doi:10.1037/a0024997.
Seimears, M., Graves, E., Schroyer, G., & Staver, J. (2012). How constructivist-based teaching influences students learning science. The Educational Forum, 76, 265-271. doi:10.1080/00131725.2012.653092
Shavelson, R. J.; Ruiz‑Primo, M. A. & Wiley, E. W. (2005). Windows into the mind. Higher Education, 49, 413‑430.
Sugrue, B. (1993). Specifications for the design of problem-solving assessments in science: Project 2.1 designs for assessing individual and group problem-solving. Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
Sugrue, B. (1995). A theory-based framework for assessing domain-specific problem- solving ability. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 14(3), 29–36.
Thomas, J. W. 2000. A review of research on PBL. Retrieved June 28, 2019 http://www.bobpearlman.org/BestPractices/PBL_Research.pdf
Wallace, B. (2015). Using the TASC thinking and problem-solving framework to create a curriculum of opportunity across the full spectrum of human abilities: TASC – thinking actively in a social context. In H. E. Vidergor, & C. R. Harris (Eds.), Applied practice for educators of gifted and able learners (pp.113-130). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Walker, A., & Leary, H. (2009). A problem-based learning meta analysis: Differences across problem types, implementation types, disciplines, and assessment levels. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 3(1), 12-43.
Zohar, A. (1996). To learn, think, and learn to think. Ministry of Education, Pedagogical Management, Curriculum Division. Jerusalem: Branco Weiss Publishing. (Hebrew)