Abstract
Project-based teaching is nothing new; it originates from the work of authors like Dewey and Kilpatrick. Recent decades have seen renewed interest in this approach. In many countries, it is currently considered to be an innovative approach to science and technology (S&T) teaching. In this article, we present a systematic review of what recent scientific publications teach us about this approach: How is this approach identified in these publications? How is the use of this approach in school S&T justified? What are the main research questions covered by studies in the field? What do these studies on this approach teach us? To answer these questions, we have selected and analysed articles published, between 2000 and 2014, in journals that are specialised in school science and technology education and that are indexed in ERIC database. In the synthesis based on this analysis, we present: (a) the theoretical constructs used by the authors to refer to this approach and the features identified to define it; (b) the justifications for this approach; (c) the research questions covered by studies in the field; (d) the data collection and analysis methods used in these studies; and (e) the main findings. In addition to presenting a synthesis of current research in this field, we offer a critical discussion thereof with a focus on two aspects, namely the way PBSTL is conceptualised and the rigour of the research methods used to ensure the validity of findings.
Introduction
Knoll (Citation1997), in his historical study, maintains that the idea of the project method (or project work) grew out of the architectural and engineering education movement that began in Italy during the late sixteenth century. He and other authors (Fallik, Eylon, & Rosenfeld, Citation2008) consider, moreover, that the work of John Dewey and his student William Heard Kilpatrick, at the beginning of the twentieth century, heavily influenced the use of this approach in schools (Knoll, Citation1997). Based on Dewey’s pedagogy of knowledge, learning by doing, in 1918, Kilpatrick defined ‘the project method’, which became popular in the progressive era worldwide (Fallik et al., Citation2008; Knoll, Citation1997). Sometimes advocated by supporters, sometimes criticised by detractors, this approach was strongly associated with Dewey’s work and was for a long time the subject of heated debates in the American public school system, especially after the launch of the Russian Satellite Sputnik (Kliebard, Citation1986; Miller & Nowak, Citation1977). After a drop in popularity in the 1960s and 1970s, this approach started gaining ground again in the 1980s (Blumenfeld et al., Citation1991; Ducharme, Citation1993; Fallik et al., Citation2008; Knoll, Citation1997).
Governments, teachers, and researchers from various countries currently consider the project to be among the main innovative approaches to science and technology (S&T) in schools (K-12) (Fallik et al., Citation2008; Krajcik, McNeill, & Reiser, Citation2008). This is the case, for instance, in the United States (Ducharme, Citation1993; Krajcik et al., Citation1998; Krajcik, Czerniak, & Berger, Citation2002; Linn & Clark, Citation1997; National Academy Foundation, Citation2010; National Research Council, Citation2012; Polman, Citation2000; Rogers, Cross, Gresalfi, Trauth-Nare, & Buck, Citation2011), in Australia (Goodrum, Hackling, & Rennie, Citation2000), in England (Millar & Osborne, Citation1998), in Canada (Chard, Citation1992; Grégoire & Laferriere, Citation1998; Hasni & Bousadra, Citation2011; Larmer, Ross, Mergendoller, Arpin, & Capra, Citation2012), in France (Hérold & Ginestié, Citation2011), in Hong Kong (Curriculum Development Council, Citation2001; Lam, Cheng, & Ma, Citation2009), in Israel (Barak, Citation2002, Citation2004; Barak & Shachar, Citation2008; Mioduser & Betzer, Citation2008; Verner & Hershko, Citation2003), in Turkey (Karaman & Celik, Citation2008; Tural, Yigit, & Alev, Citation2009), and in Singapore (Chin & Chia, Citation2004, Citation2006).
How is this approach characterised or defined in today’s educational setting? How is its use in school S&T justified? What are the main studies that have been conducted in the field and what do they teach us? The answers to these questions are important in order to understand the potential benefit of this approach on S&T teaching and learning. Achieving this understanding requires, among other things, analysing scientific publications in the field.
Many recent syntheses and meta-analyses have studied various other teaching methods commonly used in S&T, for example, inquiry science instruction (Anderson, Citation2002; Furtak, Seidel, Iverson, & Briggs, Citation2012; Minner, Levy, & Century, Citation2010); problem-based instruction (Dochy, Segers, Van den Bossche, & Gijbels, Citation2003; Gijbels, Dochy, Van den Bossche, & Segers, Citation2005; Walker & Leary, Citation2009); context-based and science-technology-society approaches (Bennett, Lubben, & Hogarth, Citation2007); and integrated approaches (Gresnigt, Taconis, van Keulen, Gravemeijer, & Baartman, Citation2014). For their part, Schroeder, Scott, Tolson, Huang and Lee (Citation2007) considered in their meta-analysis the effects of eight categories of teaching strategies on student achievement: questioning strategies, manipulation strategies, enhanced material strategies, assessment strategies, inquiry strategies, enhanced context strategies, instructional technology (IT) strategies and collaborative learning strategies.
Nonetheless, the only recent synthesis on project methods that we were able to find was the review of research conducted by Thomas in 2000 (Thomas, Citation2000). Even if this review provides significant insight, it (1) was based on publications prior to 2000, and (2) is not based on a systematic analysis. Our article provides a complementary contribution to this review as it (1) is conducted on publications released between 2000 and 2014, and (2) is based on a systematic review in which the method used to select and analyse these publications is explicit and reproducible (Bennett, Hogarth, Lubben, & Robinson, Citation2005; Oxman & Guyatt, Citation1993; Rakes, Valentine, McGatha, & Ronau, Citation2010).
Before presenting our research questions, we would like to point out that several different expressions are used in the scientific publications to refer to project methods in S&T. Examples include the following expressions: project-based pedagogical approach (Krajcik et al., Citation2008); project-based learning (Fallik et al., Citation2008; Lam et al., Citation2009; Marshall, Petrosino, & Martin, Citation2010); project-based teaching (O’Neill & Polman, Citation2004); project-based instruction (Marshall et al., Citation2010); project-based science (Frank & Barzilai, Citation2004; Krajcik & Blumenfeld, Citation2006; Moje, Collazo, Carrillo, & Marx, Citation2001); project-based pedagogy (Krajcik, McNeill, & Reiser, Citation2008); and project work (Thomas et al., Citation2001). In this article, we will use the expression project-based science and technology teaching and learning (PBSTL) to refer to this approach. This expression emphasises that the teaching processes and the learning processes in the context of the project method (Knoll, Citation1997) are equally taken into consideration.
Research questions
A variety of publications could have been analysed, including scientific papers, professional papers, research reports, doctoral theses, government reports and curricula, and books. For this research, we chose to target publications that address researchers, are peer-reviewed and are published in journals that specialise in science and technology education.
The general research question is as follows: What do the peer-reviewed articles published in S&T education research journals between 2000 and 2014 teach us about PBSTL from kindergarten to the end of secondary school (K-12)? Our synthesis is based on the following specific questions:
| (Q1) | What concepts or expressions do the authors use to refer to PBSTL and what features are used to define this approach? | ||||
| (Q2) | What justifications for PBSTL are proposed? | ||||
| (Q3) | What are the main goals or questions studied by the research presented in the articles identified? | ||||
| (Q4) | What data collection and analysis methods are used in this research? | ||||
| (Q5) | What do the findings from this research teach us? | ||||
Methods
We adapted the methodology used by Hasni, Bousadra and Marcos (Citation2011) and by Potvin and Hasni (Citation2014) to select articles, and to develop and use the analysis grid.
Selecting articles
After discussing among the team the different possibilities for selecting articles, we decided to limit the research to the Education Resources Information Centre (ERIC: http://www.eric.ed.gov/), which is by far the most popular and complete indexing system for S&T educational research. The search for articles in the database was conducted using five inclusion criteria. For an article to be selected, it had to:
| (1) | deal explicitly with PBSTL (the word ‘project’ had to be in the title of the article). Given that authors use numerous expressions to refer to PBSTL, and that it is difficult for us to identify all of these expressions beforehand, we preferred to be cautious and chose to start by using the common denominator for these expressions – which is ‘project’ – for our research; | ||||
| (2) | be published in a peer-reviewed journal that addresses the research community; | ||||
| (3) | be published in a journal that specialises in science and technology educationFootnote1; | ||||
| (4) | have studied this approach in general education, at the primary and secondary (K-12) levels, or in the context of teacher training; and | ||||
| (5) | be published between 2000 and 2014. | ||||
Using this search criteria in ERIC (May 2014 [final query])Footnote2, we obtained 667 articles that were eligible for analysis.
In order to only use those of the 667 articles that correspond to our research goals, exclusion criteria were used in two steps.
Step 1: Exclude journals that do not address the academic community or that do not specialise in science and technology education:
| (1) | Exclude articles published in journals that mainly address teaching professionals or in practical journals (Hand, Yore, Jagger, & Prain, Citation2010). To do so, we used the information available on the website of each journal. We wrote to the journal’s editorial committee to request the information if it was unclear. We therefore excluded from our analysis articles published in journals such as Science and Children, Science Scope, Journal of Chemical Education, Primary Science Review, Physics Education, Teaching Science and so onFootnote3. | ||||
| (2) | Exclude journals that have the words ‘science’ or ‘technology’ in the title but that do not specialise in science and technology education. This is the case, for example, with the Journal of Information Technology Education. | ||||
Step 2: Exclude articles in which the word ‘project’ does not refer to PBSTL. Examples include: research projects, school projects, department-wide projects to develop curriculum materials and so forthFootnote4. We also excluded articles that focus on PBSTL at the post-secondary level.
To complete this second step, each abstract of the identified articles was read by three members of the team and an inter-rater agreement was reached. If the abstract did not provide enough information to decide whether or not to include the article, the entire article was read. In the rare case that the three members reading the article arrived at different decisions regarding including or excluding the article, the latter was discussed during team meetings until a consensus was reached.
Following this process, 48 articles met the selection criteria and were identified for the analysis. The list of these articles can be found in Appendix 1. To distinguish them from the articles cited as references in our article, we will use numbers in brackets ([1,2], etc.) when referring to them.
Developing and validating the grid
An analysis grid was developed based on the grid that was initially used in previous, similar research (Hasni, Bousadra, & Marcos, Citation2011; Potvin & Hasni, Citation2014). The grid was then validated, pre-tested and adapted to the present research questions. The final version of the analysis grid contained multiple-choice and open-ended items divided into six main sections (see Appendix 2)Footnote5. Four of these sections are directly related to our research questions:
| (1) | Concepts or expressions used to refer to PBSTL and the features used to define this approach (items 9–13). | ||||
| (2) | Proposed justifications for PBSTL (items 14–16). | ||||
| (3 | Description of interventions illustrating PBSTL (items 17–22). | ||||
| (4) | Information on the empirical dimensions of the research (justifications for the research, research questions or goals, conceptual frameworks used, data collection and analysis methods, and findings) (items 23 to 32). | ||||
The other two sections of the grid contain items that help either contextualise the publications analysed or identify additional information on the section on justifications for using PBSTL (identify potential criticisms of this approach):
| (5) | General information on the articles analysed (geographic location of the study, grade level, discipline in question and so on) (items 1–8). | ||||
| (6) | Potential criticisms of PBSTL (items 33–36). | ||||
The grid was validated in two stages:
| (1) | Each of the six members of the team applied the grid to four articles. Two meetings then served to compare the information gathered by the members for each of the items in the grid. This comparison made it possible to ensure that these items are understood the same way. Adjustments were made to the grid further to these meetings. | ||||
| (2) | These six team members then applied the new version of the grid to 10 new articles. Each article was analysed by two members of the team. Three meetings served to achieve inter-rater coding and discussions allowed us to produce the final version of the grid. | ||||
Analyses
Once the grid was validated, each of the 48 articles was analysed by two members of the team. They then integrated their information into a final common grid. When differences were observed, the team discussed them to reach a consensus.
The data from the 48 grids were then entered in the Sphinx Lexica® software for analysis. The advantage of this software is that it facilitates qualitative analyses (response categorisation), all the while offering the possibility of conducting quantitative analyses.
For the data taken from the closed response questions in the grid, we calculated the frequency. For the data from the open-ended questions (definitions, justifications, research goals or questions, findings), we used a thematic content analysis technique (Bardin, Citation2007; Robert & Bouillaguet, Citation2007). In short, the analysis was made using the following four main iterative steps:
| (1) | For each item in the grid, excerpts identified in all of the articles analysed were collected and read repeatedly by the analysts in order to propose thematic categories. | ||||
| (2) | The excerpts were divided into units of meaning (shorter segments of text that can be associated with a category). For the data taken from certain items, this step was not necessary. This is the case, for example, for the data pertaining to the research questions (or goals) (items 24 and 25 in the grid). In fact, each question or goal is in itself a unit of meaning as the two following research questions taken from articles [38] and [19] illustrate: | ||||
| • | ‘Our research questions were: 1. Do students’ achievements (as regards to Machine Control concepts) increase as a result of their engagement in PBL and in comparison with students learning by traditional methods?’ ([38], p. 62). | ||||
| • | ‘In this study, we addressed two research questions: 1. How do novice teachers evaluate their knowledge of PBLSAT skills before and after the first support framework (PBLSAT workshop)? […]’ ([19], p. 571). | ||||
The first research question (unit of meaning) aims to study the impact that PBSTL has on students (thematic category (1); the second aims to study the impact on novice teachers (thematic category (2).
| (3) | Each unit of meaning was then assigned to one of the thematic categories (see Supplementary material 1, 2 and 3). | ||||
| (4) | An inter-rater agreement made it possible to ensure that each unit of meaning was associated with the proper thematic category. Cases of disagreement were discussed within the team until a consensus was reached. | ||||
Lastly, note that with this iterative method, the choice of thematic categories was based on the following three principles: (a) the categories must be explicit and mutually exclusive (each unit of meaning must only fall under one category);(b) they must make sense in terms of research in the field; and (c) there must be a ‘reasonable’ number of them.
Supplementary material 1, 2 and 3 present the thematic categories determined when the analysis method was applied (a) to the definitions of PBSTL; (b) to the justifications for using this approach in S&T; and (c) to the research questions or goals stated in the articles analysed. Each category is illustrated using several units of meaning. Each of these categories is presented and discussed in the following section.
In Supplementary material 4, we provide methodological information on each of the 48 analysed articles (authors, country, research questions or objectives addressed, sample, data collection tools and data analysis techniques).
Results
Following an initial section that gives a general overview of the articles analysed, the findings are presented in three sections that take our research questions into account:(a) the concepts and their characterisation (Q1); (b) the justifications for using PBSTL (Q2); and (c) the questions (or goals), methods and findings (Q3, Q4 and Q5). In this section, we present the main results of the analysis of the 48 publications, without commenting on them. The purpose of this section is to describe current trends in the research on PBSTL and to synthesise what they can teach us, taking into account the dimensions of PBSTL definitions and justifications; research goals; and methods and findings. Observations and critiques arising from the analysis of these publications will be formulated in the ‘Discussion’ section.
General overview of the articles analysed
Slightly more than one-third of the articles were from the USA (18 articles), whereas the others came from the following countries: Israel (13), Turkey (3), Canada (3), Taiwan (3), England (1), Singapore (2), France (1), the Netherlands (1), New Zealand (1), Norway (1) and Cyprus (1).
The articles analysed mainly present findings from studies conducted with secondary students (32 articles). Studies conducted with primary students are presented in six articles and those conducted with in-service or preservice teachers, in 14 articles. The disciplines examined in the studies are either S&T in general (12 articles) or various specific disciplines: technology (12), biology (10), physics (4), chemistry (4), geology (1) and astronomy (2). Two articles studied the relationship between mathematics and S&T.
The concepts and features used to define them (Q1)
Our first research question was as follows: What is PBSTL for the authors of the articles analysed?
The researchers use a variety of expressions to refer to what we have given the generic name of PBSTL. The analyses show that these researchers do not make any explicit distinction between these expressions. And yet, even when the authors use one expression in the title of their article, they often use a number of other expressions later in the article when referring to this approach. This is the case, for example, in article [13], in which the authors use the following expressions in the same text: project-based approach, project-based learning, project-based teaching and project-based curriculum. The authors of article [29] use the expressions project-based pedagogy, project-based science and project-based learning.
The expressions used seem to depend on the educational setting being considered when the authors refer to PBSTL: (a) to describe teaching processes (project-based teaching, project-based instruction, project-based situation); (b) to refer to learning processes (project-based learning); (c) to emphasise the fact that this approach is used in a specific manner in S&T (project-based science, technology project-based approach); (d) to describe how PBSTL is used in the curriculum (project-based learning curriculum, project-based curriculum); or (e) to refer to this approach in general, without associating it with a specific context (project, project-based approach, project-based pedagogy, project-based pedagogical approach).
Regardless of the expression used, overall, the same features are used by the authors to define this approach. In 33 articles (for example, [1,4,5,11,12,19,29,43–45]), the authors provided a definition of PBSTL,Footnote6 either in a clearly identified section (25 articles) or indirectly throughout the text (8 articles). In 15 texts, the authors did not provide a definition for this approach (for example, [6–9,14,15,18,39]).
When the authors do provide a definition of PBSTL, they generally do so by listing and then explaining a series of features. The following quote illustrates how the majority of the articles present these definitions:
Project-based science pedagogy is built around five features used to design activities that: (a) engage students in investigating a real-life question or problem that drives activities and organises concepts and principles; (b) result in students developing a series of artefacts, or products, that address the question or problem; (c) enable students to engage in investigations; (d) involve students, teachers, and members of society in a community of inquiry as they collaborate about the problem; and (e) promote students’ use of cognitive tools. ([43], p. 411)
Table 1. The main categories of features used to define PBSTL.
There is an authentic scientific problem or question
This feature is reported in 27 of the 33 articles that provided a definition of PBSTL. For the authors of these articles, the problem or question must, among other things:
| (a) | be anchored in students’ real world (authentic, out-of-school, real-world problem or question) and be interesting to them (for example, [29,33,36,38]); | ||||
| (b) | be open-ended and present an intellectual challenge for the students, lead to complex intellectual tasks, all the while being accessible (for example, [11] and [38]). For the authors of article [13], for example, the problem ‘should not be so constraining as to predetermine the project’s outcomes, nor should it be so broad that it would overwhelm and de-motivate students’ attempts to learn and engage in problem-solving’ (p. 25); and | ||||
| (c) | create the need for the scientific understandings that encounter (and struggle with) the central concepts and principles of the disciplines studied ([4,19]). | ||||
The students are engaged in investigations or design activities
This feature is reported in 23 articles. It is a question of the students being involved in the S&T processes used to solve the problem or answer the central question: scientific inquiry ([19,26,38,43]); investigation ([1,4,19, 25,29,31,32,43,44]); and engineering design ([25,29]). Most authors distinguish:
the range between guided inquiry, in which the teacher defines the problem, and the students choose the method and instruments for their study, and open inquiry, in which the students come up with the problem and continue by suggesting methodology for their investigation. ([44], p.365)
The project results in students developing a final product (or artefact)
In 21 articles the authors state that students creating a product or artefact constitutes a feature of PBSTL. These authors also state that: (a) the product must be realistic, tangible, able to be reflected upon, and not only meaningful on a personal level but also on a level that can be shared with others at school or outside of school (for example, [5] and [33]); and (b) the students must acquire and apply S&T knowledge (for example, [4,31,36,38]).
Collaboration
This feature is reported in 20 articles. Collaboration, which may occur among students or among students, teachers and potentially other contributors from the community, mainly aims to allow students to communicate their ideas and promote discourse around the phenomena under exploration. For the authors who used this feature, collaboration skills (including turn taking, listening and respecting others) can be learned through tasks that involve students interacting with peers in small groups or as part of large class discussions or even interactions with teachers and others ([4,32,35,36,44]).
The use of learning technologies
In 15 articles, the authors mention this feature and emphasise the possibilities that ICT, for example, affords to students with regard to (a) accessing information, (b) being involved in the learning in general and in the inquiry process in particular, or even (c) finding and communicating solutions and creating artefacts (for example, [1,4,12,13,19,37,44,46,47]). According to the authors, these tools ‘provide opportunities for students to visualise and explore phenomena that would not otherwise be possible in classrooms through manipulating multiple dynamic representations’ ([38], p. 672). A variety of technological tools (e.g. portable technology, computers, digital cameras, probes, dynamic simulations, electronic resources and computer-based modelling tools) are often identified, along with ICT, as cognitive tools that characterise PBSTL.
In addition to the five main features listed above, other features are reported by the authors as appearing less frequently, such as giving students the opportunity to work over extended periods of time (several class periods) and autonomously ([5]).
Justifications for PBSTL (Q2)
Our second research question was the following: for the authors of the articles analysed, why should schools use PBSTL?
Justifications for this approach are reported in the research issues sections or in the conceptual frameworks of almost all of the articles (46). Analysing these justifications enables the identification of five main thematic categories (Table ). In Supplementary material 2, we present excerpts (units of meaning) to illustrate each of these categories.
Table 2. Main justifications for PBSTL.
Acquisition by students of S&T specific knowledge and competencies
The 31 articles that reported this justification category consider that PBSTL facilitates the learning of various components of the structure of S&T disciplines (Bartos & Lederman, Citation2014; Schwab, Citation1964). On the one hand, the authors consider that PBSTL facilitates a meaningful understanding of important science concepts and core scientific ideas ([1,17,22,25,29,36,43,47]). On the other hand, they argue that this approach promotes the development of S&T skills and competencies: scientific inquiry, technological capability, design process and problem-solving skills ([1,4,10,12,16,17,19,22,23,26,29,30,33,36,43,47]).
For the authors who make reference to this justification category, PBSTL increases student engagement in S&T processes, as practised by specialists in these fields: understanding the nature of scientific research or how science functions as a discipline (understanding how scientists build, evaluate and apply scientific knowledge) ([7,29]). Some authors also point out the fact that PBSTL constitutes an innovative approach that makes it possible to have a meaningful understanding of standards-based science and technology ([1,19,25,29,38]).
Acquisition by students of non-specific S&T knowledge and competencies
The following quote illustrates the kind of learning that makes up this category:
[Project work] develops […] (b) the ability to work with others; (c) divergent and convergent thinking by giving due consideration to intuitive inspiration, guesses and accidental developments as well as those achieved by means of a logical step-by-step progression; (d) self-discipline and responsibility, as the success or failure of the project is pupil-centred; (e) creative abilities and encourages enterprise and dedication; and (f) speculative thought and exercises ingenuity. ([4], p. 28)
Learning is anchored in the real world
According to the justifications that make up this category, PBSTL would allow students to learn S&T as it relates to the real world. Various expressions are used to refer to these relationships (see Supplementary material 2), for example, ‘real-world questions’, ‘everyday world’ or ‘real-world’ ([1,15,19,21,25–27,33,35,38]); ‘real-life’ or ‘everyday life’ ([1,15,16,27,29,43,46]); ‘real situations’ ([18,19]); and so forth.
Overall, this connection between learning and the real world is tackled from two different angles in the justifications proposed by the authors of the articles analysed:
| (a) | Epistemological: connections with the real world would allow students to formulate investigation questions and problems that are relevant to them. Acquisition of scientific knowledge would therefore be easier. | ||||
| (b) | Utilitarian: connections with the real world would allow students to use scientific knowledge in their private and public lives (for example, gain a better understanding of human nutrition or how technological inventions work, propose local solutions to environmental problems and so forth). | ||||
Student motivation and interest in S&T are increased
The authors of 22 articles justify using PBLST by arguing that this approach would have a positive emotional and cognitive (learning) impact on students. For these authors, PBSTL would improve motivation and interest ([4,13,24,26,33,42,46]); attitude ([2,26,46]); self-efficacy, self-esteem or self-image ([2,3,13,24,27]); and even enthusiasm towards S&T ([3]).
PBSTL is in keeping with constructivist and socioconstructivist perspectives
According to the authors of the 25 articles that use these justifications, the school must employ PBSTL because this approach is a good way to teach S&T from a constructivist or socioconstructivist perspective. PBSTL would encourage students to get involved, among other things, in conducting or designing scientific investigations; solving problems; interacting with peers; forming questions, explanations and conclusions; and building prototypes. The work of Dewey, Piaget and Vygotsky is often cited by the authors to support this PBSTL justification category. It should be pointed out, however, that even if the concepts of constructivism and socioconstructivism are used in differing ways in the literature (Le Moigne, Citation2007), the authors of the articles opting for this justification category do not aim at defining or discussing these concepts. Some are satisfied with claiming that PBSTL is a good means for incorporating S&T teaching into these perspectives (e.g. [4,19,21,26]). Others emphasise an attribute in their definitions because, for them, PBSTL provides a mean for promoting it: the active engagement of students in learning and knowledge construction (e.g. [20,22,25,35,39,43]). The two quotes below illustrate these definitions; others are provided in Supplementary material 2:
With strong roots in constructivist theories […] PBL [project-based learning] engages the students as active agents in a learning process characterised by recurrent cycles of analysis and synthesis, action and reflection. ([35], p. 61)
Heavily anchored in constructivist theories, learning based on project activity means that pupils become active subjects in a process characterised by recurrent cycles of analysis and synthesis, action and reflection. ([20], p. 56)
The main research questions and findings (Q3, Q4, Q5)
Table provides the main categories of research questions (or goals) reported in the articles analysed. In Supplementary material 3, each category is illustrated using a few examples of questions. Table indicates the number of articles that fall under the category in question and not the total number of research questions. In other words, if an article has two questions that fall under the same category, they are only counted as one.
Table 3. Main categories of research questions (or goals) studied by the 48 articles.
Note that our selection criteria and the nature of the data collected through our research do not enable us to use quantitative analyses like those used, for example, in meta-analyses. Our analyses are qualitative. For each of the six categories of questions, we present the main research findings reported by the articles analysed and illustrate these findings through examples.
Description of the impact on students
For this category, we looked at articles in which the research questions explicitly state that they aim to study the impact (or effect or influence) of PBSTL or some of its components (such as the ill-structured nature of a problem in a PBL, [12]) on students. There are 14 studies in this category.
The majority of articles in this category reported studies on the cognitive dimension of learning. It includes, for example, the impact of PBSTL on: scientific literacy and subject matter learning [4]); understanding science content [25]; performance and science achievement, especially with exams ([4,15,26,35,43]); and understanding how to solve problems [12]. Several articles studied the influence of PBSTL on the emotional dimension of learning, such as self-efficacy, motivation and attitude ([15,26,35]).
The methodologies used in these studies help distinguish between two groups of articles, depending on whether or not they used pre- and post-tests.
(a) Approximately half of the studies used pre- and post-tests to measure the impact of PBSTL on students (for example, [25,26,34,38]). Among these studies, very few used control groups (as is the case with study [35]).
Articles [25,38,35] illustrate this research category. In study [25], a project-based curriculum was developed by the researchers and enacted by 12 teachers in 37 classrooms with 652 sixth-, seventh- and eighth-grade students. Pre- and post-tests were designed to measure the students’ degree of understanding of the main science content addressed in the project (organs, tissues and cells; how organs work together in body systems; and how three body systems work together in getting energy from food). The findings show that students had a significantly better understanding of this content after PBSTL.
In study [38], the authors present the influence that PBSTL has on students in urban settings. The researchers worked with teachers to design project-based curriculum material that contextualises the learning of balanced and unbalanced forces, simple and complex machines, and mechanical advantage. Twenty-four teachers and over 2500 students in Detroit participated in enactments of this project over four years. Pre-and post-achievement tests were administered each year to measure both content understanding (for example, balanced and unbalanced forces, simple and complex machines) and process understanding (for example, inquiry process skills, including conducting investigations, interpreting bar graphs and writing conclusions supported by evidence). The findings show significant improvement in the students’ understanding of the content and processes.
In addition to studying the impact of PBSTL on technological knowledge as measured by standardised matriculation exams, study [35] also measured the impact of this approach on students’ attitude. In order to test whether PBL contributes ‘to changes in students’ attitudes towards technology (regarding issues such as technological studies, gender and technology, technology-related careers, social consequences of technology)’ (p. 62), the authors used the Pupils’ Attitudes Towards Technology (PATT) questionnaire.
The data shows significant difference as regards to attitude towards technology between the experimental and control groups after the learning process […]. In addition, significant and positive change in attitude between the pre- and post-test was observed for the participants in the experimental group, but not for the control group. (p. 71)
(b) Approximately half of the studies in this category (describe the impact of PBSTL on students) used other techniques to collect data than pre- and post-tests. These studies often used questionnaires to gather students’ and teachers’ views on what was learned from project-based learning (for example, [3,4,15,24]). In some of these studies, the authors also used a variety of other data collection tools.
For example, to study the ‘impacts of an interdisciplinary project-based programme on students’ technological–scientific literacy and subject matter learning’ (p. 31), the authors of study [4] used, in addition to a student feedback questionnaire (Likert-type questions and open-ended questions): (a) a weekly school visit by a tutor to observe the classroom activities, establish direct contact with the students and collect ‘direct and authentic information […] regarding the processes occurring in the classroom and the impact of the programme on the students’ (p. 32); and (b) a feedback interview with the students after one year.
The findings from these data enabled the authors to confirm, among other things, that, with PBSTL, students gained significant knowledge in physics and technology:
Within the framework of physics studies, pupils learned the theory of heat and associated phenomena, including specific heat, condensation, and Newton’s law of cooling […] From a technological point of view, pupils were engaged in the design and construction of the heating system. ([4], p. 33)
In article [3], the researchers present a study in which they used various means to collect data from students working on a technology project (units of electricity and electronics): observations of laboratory lessons, semi-structured interviews with students, and analysis of students’ projects and portfolios. Analysing the findings allowed them to conclude that the students had a higher level of achievement, all the while developing greater autonomy.
Study [15] was conducted with 54 students who were low-achievers at junior high school in three different grades: grades 10 (15 years old) to 12 (18 years old). Applying project-based learning to electronics and electrical systems was paired with a variety of data sources: interviews with teachers and students; observations of class activities (and discussions with teachers); an analysis of the students’ work, projects and other documents; a questionnaire to assess students’ attitudes. ‘The findings indicate that scientific-technological PBL elevated pupils’ motivation and self-image in all levels’ ([15], p. 269).
In general, whether they were studies that used pre- and post-tests or studies that used other methods to collect data, the findings maintain that PBSTL has a positive impact on students’ learning. Two studies also maintain that this approach has a positive impact on students’ attitude towards S&T ([35,15]), and a third study shows no impact of this kind ([26]).
Description of the impact on teachers
The research questions that aim to study the impact of PBSTL on teachers or preservice teachers appear in 12 articles. In terms of the methodology used, our analysis shows that:
| (a) | the majority of studies are conducted in the context of teachers’ professional development activities, either during initial training, or in workshops led by researchers for in-service teachers; | ||||
| (b) | slightly less than half of the studies used pre- and post-tests (for example, [2,19,26,32,33]), but without necessarily using control groups, except article [2]. The researchers also used other methods to collect data: classroom or school observations, questionnaires, and interviews. | ||||
The findings reported by all of these studies maintain that the teachers’ commitment to PBSTL training or to using this approach in their teaching practices had a positive impact on: (a) teachers enacting this approach; (b) the acquisition of S&T knowledge; (c) the development of collaboration skills; and d) self-concept and attitude towards S&T.
(a) Article [19], for example, reports the findings from a study conducted with three groups of novice teachers (N = 65) engaged in professional development (PBLSAT workshops on design and technological development). In total, 58 participants agreed to complete a questionnaire at the beginning and end of the workshops. Closed-ended and open-ended questions were used to test the level of mastery of PBLSAT (project-based learning in science and technology) skills. The results ‘show that teachers experienced a significant improvement in most PBLSAT skills as a result of the three PBLSAT workshops’ (p. 573). All of the teachers also mentioned that they continued using PBLAST in their teaching after their participation in the experiment.
Based on the data collected in the (pre- and post-) questionnaire, study [32] reports different findings from the aforementioned study: the perceptions of PBSTL (its characterisation) changed very little among a group of 65 preservice teachers after the training. ‘In general the preservice teachers held superficial views of PBI, as compared to the researcher framework’ (p. 370). This study is nonetheless the only one to indicate that PBSTL has no impact on the teachers.
(b) Even though studies [25] and [26] primarily aimed to study the impact of PBSTL on students, they also tested the impact of this approach on teachers enrolled in professional development courses. A test made up of items on calorimetry and body systems was used before and after the professional development programme to measure the impact of a project called I, Bio on teachers’ content knowledge (CK) and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). The findings show that engaging teachers in this project had a positive impact on what they learned: ‘In both the calorimetry and body systems content areas, the teachers who taught the I, Bio (project) curriculum with the accompanying professional development course […] ended up with levels of post-PCK dramatically higher than those with which they began’ ([26], p. 870). Additionally, ‘these teachers also achieved high levels of post-CK in both the calorimetry and body systems content areas’ ([26], p. 871).
Article [33] presents the findings from a study that aimed to verify the impact of being involved in PBLST on the problem-solving skills of preservice teachers and their pedagogical content knowledge about technological problem-solving. Based on the data collected from 82 participants through pre-, mid- and post-tests, the authors conclude that the project ‘has a significant influence in improving pre-service teachers’ understanding and application of problem-solving strategies within the area of design and technology education’ (p. 97).
(c) Articles [4] and [15] report positive findings on the development of collaboration and interactions among teachers of a variety of subjects [4] or from different schools [15]: ‘Studying together the same course, and the joint meetings at school with the tutor from Technion (project), created an environment for effective cooperation between the teachers to the extent that they coordinated which subjects each would teach every week’ ([4], p. 39).
(d) The findings presented by three studies maintain that being involved in PBSTL has a positive impact on teachers’ self-efficacy regarding scientific inquiry and/or technological design ([4]) or on motivation for promoting student-led science inquiry projects [9]: ‘that elements of a university-based science teacher education methods course led student-teachers to become motivated to include student-directed (SD), open-ended (OE) science project work in their future teaching’ (p. 154).
Description of the teaching and learning process
This category of research question appears in 15 articles. These questions strive to describe the various aspects of classroom teaching and learning when implementing PBSTL, but without explicitly studying the impact (or effect or influence) of this approach on the students or teachers. The processes studied are nonetheless highly varied and it is difficult to group them together under a restricted number of dominant directions: the patterns of teacher–student discursive interactions [1]; the type of classroom discourse (scientific or common-sense) [36]; the nature of knowledge the students deal with in working on their projects in science [5] or technology [6]; students’ tasks or learning processes in general ([17,20,48]) or gender differences (comparison between boys and girls) ([22]); the ways teachers integrate technology into their courses [37]; collaborative learning [21]; and incorporating concept mapping and other tools [41].
With regard to the methodology used, the majority of studies in this category used classroom observations. Another characteristic specific to these studies is the simultaneous use of a variety of data collection techniques. For example, the data sources for article [11] included observations and field notes, students’ written documents, audiotapes and videotapes of students working in groups, and student interviews. In study [13], the authors used audio and video tapes, field notes and salient artefacts from the unit such as teacher documents and student written responses. Study [5] observed the students in the laboratory and spoke with them freely, and also conducted interviews with each student and their teachers, analysed student portfolios, and administered two questionnaires to both students and teachers.
The findings reported in this category of studies make it possible, on the one hand, (1) to characterise the learning processes that promote the use of PBSTL and, on the other hand, (2) to describe the challenges and difficulties observed in the classroom by researchers when implementing this approach.
| (1) | The findings that describe the learning processes all maintain that PBSTL offers students a better environment and better opportunities to learn S&T compared with other teaching methods, such as traditional methods. For example, in study [5] the findings reported by the researchers led them to conclude that the students mainly used procedural knowledge (for example, drawing an electronic circuit) with PBSTL. Study [6] found that students, when faced with technological problems, eventually come up with inventive solutions, especially if they had previous experience with projects. Study [23] shows that the interactive process during project design is an essential element for the joint construction of knowledge with peers. However, the authors of article [1] show that PBSTL enabled teachers to use discussions more often, which promoted student engagement in learning key concepts in biology (the relationship between genes and proteins, incorporating molecular mechanisms into explanations of phenotypes, etc.). Difficulties managing these discussions were, however, observed. | ||||
| (2) | The challenges and difficulties with PBSTL observed by researchers in classrooms are varied. They mainly deal with managing important tasks for which student involvement is required as part of this approach: formulating problems to study, employing inquiry methods, participating in discussions, etc. For example, the findings in study [23] indicate ‘that it is not an easy task to determine how to introduce design activities, or the stages connected to a problem-solving process’ (p. 10). Study [12] shows that, even if students have improved in their ability to formulate scientific problems and were inspired to do so, numerous difficulties were observed when they were required to participate in an investigation process that uses ill-structured problems: | ||||
The issues and challenges identified included identifying a problem for investigation; asking questions to negotiate the learning pathway; deciding what areas to pursue, given a multitude of possibilities; and figuring out how to extract relevant information from the available mass. (p. 44)
For the authors of this study, time constraints made the challenge even greater. With this approach, students must take more time to explore avenues that do not always correspond with the mandated school curriculum and teachers are not always prepared to provide them with much assistance with this process:
particularly in school systems which have standardised tests, many teachers may view PBL activities as a luxury that they cannot afford, given their time limitations. They may be afraid that their students would be disadvantaged as precious time may be wasted. (p. 61)
As our analysis illustrated, a number of powerful and rich oral and written texts are used or generated as part of the project curricula we examine, but the meaning making of these texts across different Discourses (disciplinary, classroom, and everyday) was not scaffolded for students in either the curriculum documents or the enactment that we observed […] Moreover, we observed little attention to the specialised Discursive practices of science and science learning. (p. 488)
Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of the benefits and challenges of PBSTL
This category (13 articles) includes research questions that aim to ask students and teachers to express their views on PBSTL (for example, how much they appreciate this approach, the benefits, the perceived challenges or difficulties). In this category, the views of students and teachers on the benefits and challenges are looked at and not those taken from the researchers’ classroom observations (previous category).
The methods used to study these questions are based, in most of the studies, on questionnaires and interviews.
The findings in this category of studies indicate that despite the perceived challenges and difficulties, PBSTL is generally appreciated equally by (1) students and (2) teachers
(1) Students appreciate PBSTL for a variety of reasons: the link that this approach makes between scientific practices and the real world; the open-ended nature of the problems studied; the involvement in investigative tasks; the meaning of learning (contextualisation) associated with this approach as compared with traditional teaching methods. For example, study [7] (projects on galaxies) reports that ‘all students felt that the projects had taught them a lot about what is involved in real scientific research and most preferred these open-ended projects to set practical work’ ([7], p. 300). Most students ‘were happy to have spent less time in lecture sessions in order to spend more time on the galaxy projects’ ([7], p. 301). The findings from study [11] (project on food and nutrition) show, among other things, that 94.9% of the students enjoyed working on the project and that 76.9% of them ‘agreed that they were inspired to do the project because of some related daily life experiences’ ([11], p. 72). Many students also liked the ill-structured nature of their problems and feel that what they learned would be helpful to them. Study [15] reports that ‘98% of the pupils enjoyed PBL and it was interesting for them’ ([15], p. 266).
In study [42], the students were asked if they preferred open-inquiry or guided-inquiry projects. The results indicate that the students who used the open-inquiry project mentioned a greater benefit of the project than their peers who used the guided-inquiry project. For example: (a) ‘open inquiry students were more satisfied and believed that they gained benefits from implementing the project, to a greater extent than guided inquiry students’ (p. 838); and (b) ‘open inquiry students felt more involved in their project, and felt a greater sense of cooperation with others, in comparison to guided inquiry students’ (p. 832).
Despite this positive perception of PBSTL by the students, certain challenges and difficulties were raised by the latter in a couple of studies. For example, study [4] indicates that ‘the most important aspects in the pupils’ opinion are the challenge, the interpersonal relationships in the classroom (pupil–pupil, pupil–teacher, teacher–teacher) and the combination of physics with technology’ (p. 37). In study [47], high school students experienced difficulties in data gathering: ‘they claim that their experimental skills are insufficient and they do not have the habit of doing research, planning a project and documenting the results’ (p. 10). In study [42], the open-inquiry students claim that, for them, the discussion stage was the most difficult part of the project.
(2) The teachers who participated in the various studies were generally in favour of PBSTL. For example, in study [24], ‘the vast majority of teachers (93.3%) said that the project’s objectives were widely accepted at school; and all teachers (100%) agreed that the project’s impact was positive’ (p. 282). This adherence by teachers to this approach seems to be justified by the fact that the perceived benefits for students outweigh the difficulties.
For example, in study [19], the 58 novice teachers who participated in the study identified three categories of benefits and difficulties, as relating to (a) students, (b) teachers and (c) the school. When the teachers speak about the students, they mostly say that PBSTL has many benefits (95% of the answers), such as active learning, motivation and collaboration. When the teachers speak about themselves, they say that PBSTL causes them more difficulties (57% of the answers). The teachers also say that PBSTL has more difficulties than benefits for the school system.
The majority of the difficulties perceived by the teachers are those encountered when attempting to involve students in the learning processes. For example, in study [3], the main challenge lies in supervising the students ‘with a wide scale of experience and confidence, in order to promote their development from novice designers to more competent learners’ ([3], p. 181). For the teachers who participated in study [39], the ‘PBL approach to teaching science required a level of metacognition that their ninth grade students were unfamiliar with’ (p. 905). In study [41], the teachers also point out that the students have difficulty with certain forms of thinking used with PBSTL, like concept mapping. In studies [32] and [41], the teachers say that one of the difficulties that they encountered is the lack of student initiative and engagement.
In addition to the challenges and difficulties with regard to student engagement in the learning process, the teachers who participated in the various studies also mention the lack of resources (time and material resources, such as technological tools and access to the school laboratory) ([32,41,42]) and the culture of the school system (which requires, for example, standardised tests) ([32,42]). The findings in study [32] summarise this category of challenges: The most common barriers
were inadequate time to implement PBI, lack of initiative or discipline on the part of precollege students, and curriculum specifications by the department or school, all of which were cited by more than one-third of the ATs (apprentice teachers). These were followed by resource limitations, state testing requirements, school culture, and mandates from cooperating teachers, all cited by 10% or more of the responding ATs. Some ATs (fewer than 10%) also cited ‘PBI won’t work,’ objections from parents, their own lack of experience, and the difficulty of designing PBI curriculum as barriers to PBI implementation. ([32], p. 375)
Guiding principles for designing curriculum materials based on PBSTL or for using this approach
Nine studies used research questions that fall into this category (see Table ) and they mainly aim to propose a process to design or implement PBSTL in schools. Some of these studies targeted specific phases of this process. This is the case with studies [11] and [12], which described the procedure for implementing a biology project and which later formulated, based on this description, propositions regarding the design, management and implementation of project work through problem-based learning.
Other articles (for example, [25,29,38]) propose a complete process for designing and validating PBSTL curriculum materials, all the while testing the impact of this content on students and describing the conditions of its applicability. The methodologies used by these authors fall under what can be qualified as research and development (R&D).
For example, in article [29], the authors present a learning-goals-driven design model that aims ‘to allow designers to create materials that blend content standards with project-based pedagogy’ (p. 4). The process used by the authors to develop this model can be summed up in the four iterative steps below:
| (1) | Specifying goals. The principles identified for designing project-based curriculum materials were presented and discussed: ‘(1) rigorous treatment of science-learning goals (as represented by local, state, and national standards) and (2) use of an innovative pedagogical approaches (project-based pedagogy) to make science learning more meaningful and support learners in authentic scientific practices’ (p. 2). | ||||
The authors also presented and discussed certain tensions that arose when these two principles were paired together. For example, (1) tension between content choices dictated by the problem context versus the standards; and (2) tension between the depth of coverage of content in PBS and the need to address a full year’s curriculum of standards.
Given the theoretical principles and challenges presented and discussed, the authors describe the main tasks that students must accomplish to learn explicitly stated scientific inquiry standards and conceptual content.
| (2) | Developing materials. Once the goals, S&T content and student tasks are clearly identified, the authors present their model using examples drawn from a project-based seventh-grade chemistry unit. This unit aims to develop three central ideas in chemistry: the conservation of matter, substances and their properties, and chemical reactions. The unit developed by the authors specifies the following elements, among others: (a) contextualisation (the connection between the learning goals and students’ own experiences and real-world problems); (b) the students’ learning tasks; (c) the instructional sequence; and (d) assessments. | ||||
| (3) | Gathering feedback. The unit designed in step 2 was implemented in the classes of two teachers (119 seventh-grade students) in urban areas. A variety of data sources were used ‘to identify and triangulate design issues to be addressed in subsequent curriculum revisions’ (p. 11), e.g. student pre- and post-tests, student artefacts, field notes, selected classroom videos, teacher feedback and expert feedback. | ||||
| (4) | Producing improved curriculum materials. Challenges were identified after analysing the preceding data, and adjustments were targeted. For example, better alignment of learning performances with standards, information on inquiry practices and coherence of evaluations with the learning goals. The adjustments identified were used to produce a second version of the curriculum materials based on PBSTL. | ||||
This second version was enacted in the classes of nine teachers (751 students in seven different schools). Pre- and post-tests were administered to the students to evaluate the impact of these materials on their learning performances. The students showed significant improvement in their learning, proving the importance of the proposed materials.
The method used by the authors of article [25] is comparable to this one. These authors propose methods to prepare project-based science curricula that improves students’ understanding of science content: ‘Using existing curriculum design frameworks, we identified the learner’s need to ‘create the demand’ for the science content, anticipating how to use it in the performance, and to ‘apply’ the science content, both being necessary to ensure meaningful understanding’ (p. 526).
To design this project-based science curriculum, the authors suggest using some guiding principles: (a) encourage learners to be active in constructing their understanding of science content; (b) help learners develop a need to acquire knowledge (motivation and desire to be involved in the learning tasks); and (c) organise the content knowledge so as to connect ‘new knowledge structures to old ones to support future retrieval and use’ (p. 528). These principles were used by the team to develop a first version of the curriculum materials on the ‘topic of energy interconversion, that is, how the human body’s organ systems, composed of specialised cells, work together to derive energy from food’ (p. 529).
The authors were then ‘able to identify specific curriculum design challenges that would stand in the way of the meaningful understanding of science content in pPBSc’ (p. 540). Essentially, this consists of: (a) creating the demand for unfamiliar content; (b) applying all content; and (c) applying all content in time. The challenges encountered by the team were taken into consideration when designing a second version of the curriculum materials. The impact of these was then tested on students by 12 participating teachers. The findings allowed the authors to validate the efficacy of the materials produced.
Description of teachers’ understanding of PBSTL (or its components)
To describe the understanding that in-service teachers and preservice teachers have of PBSTL (its definition, the key elements that characterise it, its foundations, etc.), the authors of five (5) articles (Table ) used mainly questionnaires and interviews. The findings from the studies that fall under this category show that teachers generally have a limited understanding of this approach compared with its characterisation in scientific publications. For example, study [32], based, among other things, on interviews and questionnaires from 79 participants (three cohorts), leads the researchers to conclude that
the preservice teachers surveyed tended to focus on the more general characteristics of PBI as a student-centred approach (hands-on, discovery learning, group work) and on its more superficial aspects (length or existence of an activity labelled as a ‘project’), as opposed to the unique characteristics identified by experts (e.g. driving question; tangible outcome or product; authentic, student-driven task) or the elements necessary for ‘doing with understanding’ (cognitive tools, continuous assessment, and other scaffolds). (p. 379)
Research limitations
Before discussing the findings of our research, we should note its main limitations.
We have chosen to limit our analysis to peer-reviewed articles published in research journals. This choice is based on our goal of providing a synthesis of publications that have been reviewed by peers and that, as a result, (a) present the theoretical foundations and the most credible results; and (b) are published by authors who belong to the scientific community and mainly address this community. We are aware that this choice forces us to exclude certain publications (books, research reports, etc.) which could provide high value scientifically. It is worth noting, however, that we have no criteria to systematically select these publications.
To ensure that the research was systematic, we also limited our study to articles from journals indexed in ERIC. This choice imposes another limitation for us: considering articles published in English only and not those published in other languages (French, Italian, German, Mandarin, etc.). However, since the use of English is widespread in the research tradition and most researchers for whom English is not their first language nevertheless understand and sometimes write in this language, we chose to make this lesser compromise (Potvin & Hasni, Citation2014).
For feasibility reasons, we also limited our research to journals specialised in science and technology education. Researching articles that address S&T projects among all indexed journals would have been very difficult to systematise. We feel, however, that this choice does not weaken our research since the articles that give a better portrait of the PBSTL issue are those published in journals specialised in science and technology education.
Lastly, note that our analysis is qualitative and descriptive. The data collected did not allow us to use, for example, a meta-analysis to quantitatively estimate the impact of PBSTL – or of certain of its features – on students and teachers.
Despite the above-mentioned limitations, the research that we just presented allows us to draw important findings that could contribute to reflections on the curricula and teaching practices that employ PBSTL as well as on research in the field.
Discussion
In the previous section, we offered a synthesis of what can be learned from the selected publications on PBSTL, without discussing the results of our analyses. In this section, we critically examine the results by looking at two aspects related to our research goals: the conceptualisation of PBSTL in the analysed publications and the rigour of the methodologies used to ensure the validity of published findings. We will conclude this discussion by identifying research questions that would warrant further examination in the field.
Comments on the definitions and justifications: aspects of PBSTL conceptualisation to be consolidated
It is surprising to note that, even if justifications for PBSTL are reported in almost all of the articles, in approximately one-third of them, the authors provide no definitions or features to characterise this approach. This absence of conceptualisation constitutes a significant limitation of the research reported in these articles.
The justifications and definitions reported by the authors are centred on several thematic anchor categories that seem to be a point of consensus in the research community. The authors name five main features that define PBSTL: (1) there is an authentic scientific problem or question; (2) the students are engaged in investigations or design activities; (3) the project results in students developing a final product (or artefact); (4) collaboration among students, teachers and others; and (5) the use of learning technologies (mainly ICT). The arguments put forward by the authors to justify using this approach echo and complete the characteristics used to define it: (1) acquisition by students of specific S&T knowledge and competencies; (2) acquisition by students of non-specific S&T knowledge and competencies; (3) learning is anchored in the real world; (4) student motivation and interest is increased; and (5) PBSTL is in keeping with constructivist and socioconstructivist perspectives.
Aside from the quantitative results we have just recalled (number of articles that define or give justifications for PBSTL, and number of articles containing each feature or justification), the data analysis allows us to formulate three important remarks from a qualitative perspective. These remarks would suggest that researchers should more strongly consolidate conceptualisation of PBSTL.
(1) The first remark is that in most of the analysed publications, PBSTL conceptualisation is essentially based on providing a list of features. Some of these features, such as scientific inquiry or the technological design process, are properly conceptualised in most of the articles. The authors discuss the meanings of these processes by basing themselves on publications in the field and on curricula and national standards. However, other features are used by the authors as mere labels without being sufficiently defined. This is the case of the ‘authentic scientific problem or question’ feature, which the authors refer to using a variety of expressions (e.g. ‘real situation’, ‘real word’, ‘everyday life’, ‘real life’, etc.). All these expressions are justified by the ‘contextualization’ of learning (see supplementary material). In the very few cases where the concept of contextualisation is explicitly defined ([29]), it is in very general terms and drawing on the previously mentioned expressions: ‘The contextualization step in design connects the treatment of learning goals to students’ own experiences and real-world problems’ ([29], p. 8).
To understand the meaning assigned to this feature and its associated expressions, we have analysed examples of scientific or technological problems as well as content from the lessons (units of study) described in certain articles ([1,4,7,14,16,20,21,24–29,34,36,38,43,44]). This analysis suggests four principal meanings implicitly assigned to contextualisation (and to its associated expressions). Although these four categories are not exhaustive, they may serve as a springboard for further conceptualising the notion of contextualisation (and authentic problem) in the context of PBSTL.
| • | Engaging students in learning contexts that are similar to researchers’ knowledge production contexts (following the example of university research). An example would be students working collaboratively with researchers in the context of a partnership between schools and research institutes to study the global carbon cycle, with the partnership falling under a broader European research programme and involving many schools across a number of countries ([14]). | ||||
| • | Using an immediate environment with which students are familiar in order to learn S&T content, as illustrated by the following article excerpt [38]: ‘The project is further contextualised as students take a walking tour of a local active construction site in the neighbourhoods around their school’ (p. 674). Generally speaking, contextualisation in this category might mean, for example, that students are asked to produce a short-term local weather forecast [20]; to explore and investigate connections between the biological, physical and chemical aspects of a local creek [43]; or to study the quality of their community’s air or its river water [36]. | ||||
| • | Teaching S&T content by showing students how it can be useful to them. This is the case of projects that aim to teach students how the human body’s organ systems, composed of specialised cells, work together to derive energy from food ([25] and [26]). The students are then invited to draft a menu that would meet their energy needs. The project presented in the study [1] asked students to make comparisons at many biological levels between themselves and other humans and themselves and other animals. | ||||
| • | Studying S&T content through what certain authors refer to as socio-scientific issues (Lederman, Antink, & Bartos, Citation2014; Sadler, Citation2009). In the analysed articles, this category of contextualisation essentially involves environmental issues: studying climate change and understanding the role of human beings therein [43]; designing a battery plant in the neighbourhood, creating a plant for recycled paper products, and designing and manufacturing environment-friendly games [16]; building a real model solar village inside schools, which uses only solar energy [24]; etc. | ||||
The ‘product’ or ‘artefact’ (students’ ultimate creation in the context of PBSTL) is another feature that is insufficiently conceptualised in the analysed articles, especially when describing projects in disciplines other than technology. In this last discipline, the examples of ‘artefacts’ reported in the analysed articles appear to share certain hallmarks: they tend to be (physical or non-physical) creations intended for a specific (real or hypothetical) use. This is the case, for example, of projects in which students are led to build a three-level elevator (by using electrical and mechanical knowledge, among others) [3]; design a ‘light organ’ – an electronic device that automatically converts a rhythmic music signal into multicoloured light effects, as is often seen in discotheques and dance parties – [5]; organise a technology fair [33]; and design electrical motors with location and motion control [35].
The articles that described projects in disciplines other than technology (biology, physics, chemistry, etc.) either do not discuss student creations (artefacts or products) or relate examples that are not always characteristic of (or specific to) PBSTL. These creations can be produced in the context of any S&T course aiming to contextualise learning. The following study excerpt [43] illustrates the general nature of such products: ‘Student artefacts created during these projects included concepts maps, essays, computer-based dynamic models, reports, and Web pages’ (p. 414). The authors do not specify how, for example, the lab reports, models, concept maps, etc. constitute creations specific to PBSTL. In other cases, it is not a product that is intended, but rather a contextualisation leading students to make use of their chemistry [29], environmental [27] or biology [1] learning in their own lives. In a few rare cases, the intended creation has a specific use: in studies [25] and [26], the students are asked to draw from their learning on energy needs and conversion in the human body in order to redesign school lunch choices to meet bodily needs (balancing the measurement of calories consumed in school lunch choices with the calories used up doing chosen activities). The intended product in this case is a school menu.
(2) The second remark has to do with the importance assigned, in PBSTL conceptualisation, to each of the features used by the authors to define and justify this approach.
These definitions and justifications clearly demonstrate the key role played by student involvement in learning S&T (conceptual understanding; acquisition of scientific thinking and investigation skills; understanding how scientists construct and evaluate scientific knowledge; and applying this knowledge in the real world). Nonetheless, these learning objectives specific to S&T are placed on equal footing with the features (for example, collaboration, ICT) and justifications (for example, motivation, acquiring knowledge and collaboration skills) that are not specific to S&T.
The authors do not suggest ranking these features and justifications. However, doing so would help those in the education world (teachers, designers of curriculum materials, etc.) understand and apply PBSTL. In this regard, it should be noted that the few research projects that studied the understanding that teachers have of this approach (for example, [32,39,42]) show that teachers generally tend to focus on the superficial aspects that do not foster S&T learning. In study [39], for example, ‘the emphasis PBL places on self-motivation, collaboration with others, and accountability for completing work as designated by the group’ (p. 905). The author of the text cautioned against an understanding of PBSTL centred on performance at the expense of understanding S&T. However, in studies that we have conducted on classroom practices in a regular context (projects planned by teachers, not by researchers), we noted deviations in the understanding and implementation of this approach (Bousadra & Hasni, Citation2012; Hasni & Bousadra, Citation2011). Even if the teachers who participated in this research cited scientific knowledge and investigation methods, it is essentially other features that are mainly used to characterise PBSTL: the creation of a product (artefact), student autonomy and teamwork. In their critical analyses of project-based teaching, Bordallo and Ginestet (Citation1993) and Hubert (Citation2005) caution against derivatives that include focusing on producing an artefact or on student motivation at the expense of acquiring disciplinary knowledge.
In order to avoid derivatives that would make the project a mere pretext for collaboration, student motivation, using ICT and so forth, we feel it is important to rank the features and justifications for PBSTL. To contribute to the advancement of PBSTL conceptualisation, we suggest distinguishing features that fall under the aims of learning S&T (which must be central) from those that qualify as means or conditions required for learning S&T. To illustrate this notion of ‘means’, take the feature collaboration: collaborating to learn S&T does not mean the same thing as learning to collaborate. We feel that in an S&T class, even if the second meaning should not be neglected, the first should take priority. In this case, collaboration is considered a means: a pedagogic strategy that promotes interactions between learners and, as a result, the construction of S&T knowledge, as per Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s theories.
In Figure , we make a distinction between (1) the features that form the central core of project-based S&T teaching and that fall under the aims of this learning and (2) the secondary features, which fall under the means and conditions required for this central learning. Qualifying these secondary features does not mean that they should not be cultivated in school or that they are not important; it simply emphasises that they are not the primary aim of S&T teaching.
Figure 1. Characteristics of and justifications for PBSTL.
Accordingly, (a) having an authentic scientific problem or question and (b) creating a product or artefact (material or non-material) are two primary organising and distinguishing characteristics of PBSTL (Figure ). Of course, as previously mentioned, we believe that the problem must have a certain number of characteristics in order for it to be a scientific or technological problem. Without going back over all of these characteristics, note that the problem formulation must be based on prior science and technological knowledge; it must be anchored in the real world (make sense to individuals and society); provide students with a challenge that borders on their ‘zone of proximal development’ (not too easy, but not too hard either) (Vygotski, Citation1997); and so on. The product itself has to meet certain criteria, including feasibility and be intended for (real or purported) use.
Consideration of these two features when planning project-based teaching is based on other features that are deemed central to S&T learning (Anderson, Citation2002; Bartos & Lederman, Citation2014; Chinn & Malhotra, Citation2002; Minner et al., Citation2010):
| (c) | Using scientific investigation or technological design methods to solve the problem and create the desired product. Note that this does not involve merely looking for information in manuals or on the Internet, but employing methods that promote the use of S&T investigation and communication skills. | ||||
| (d) | Developing conceptual S&T knowledge and implementing it in other learning contexts or real-world situations. | ||||
| (e) | Understanding how S&T works (for example, how we produce and validate scientific knowledge; how we come up with solutions that will improve our lives). | ||||
Satisfying these central features in PBSTL depends nonetheless on other features, which, according to our proposal, are means (left side of Figure ). This includes, for example, collaboration; the use of learning technologies (including ICT) or extracurricular resources (such as museums or field trips); an interdisciplinary approach; or various pedagogical approaches that motivate students. Of course, these features could themselves be the subject of structured learning in S&T courses.
Lastly, note that science and technology education with PBSTL – characterised by these central and secondary features – is based on various justifications (or goals), the main ones having been reported in the studies analysed and that we summarise on the right side of Figure . Some of these justifications were tested by studies analysed in our synthesis.
This way of conceptualising PBSTL leads to considering it not as an end in itself, but rather as a tool for S&T learning.
(3) The third remark on PBSTL conceptualisation in the analysed articles concerns the relationship between PBSTL and other similar approaches such as problem-based learning (PBL). Even if problem-solving is central to both approaches, none of the analysed articles suggests any explicit avenues for distinguishing the two.
Syntheses and meta-syntheses of PBL (Dochy et al., Citation2003; Gijbels et al., Citation2005; Strobel & van Barneveld, Citation2009; Walker & Leary, Citation2009) show, first, that it is difficult ‘to construct a clear statement about what is and what is not PBL’ (Walker & Leary, Citation2009, p. 13). Second, they also show that certain fundamental characteristics consistently appear across most of the publications on the subject: the solving of open and contextualised problems in order to acquire general or disciplinary knowledge and skills; collaboration; the mediating role of the teacher; the active engagement of students; development of the ability to mobilise knowledge in real-life contexts outside of school; etc. These characteristics strongly echo those we have just identified from the analysis of publications on PBSTL. Moreover, in terms of educational foundations, the conceptualisation of PBL is based on the same authors as those reported in the publications that conceptualise PBSTL, among others Bruner, Dewey and Piaget. These similarities make it difficult to distinguish between the two approaches. The analytical findings presented above lead us to suggest two avenues for reflection in this regard:
| • | Students’ creation of a product intended for specific use would be a characteristic feature of PBLST; | ||||
| • | Accordingly, PBSTL may be viewed as a specific case of PBL. | ||||
Comments on the methodologies and findings: More rigorous data collection and analysis is needed
The research questions studied by the 48 articles in this synthesis cover a range of concerns and give a general overview of various facets of PBSTL. The studies that verified the impact of this approach on students (category 1, Supplementary material 3) report positive findings: (a) PBSTL improves students’ ability to learn concepts in a variety of disciplines, including astronomy, biology, chemistry, physics and technology; (b) this approach greatly improves students’ ability to learn S&T skills, competencies and knowledge, such as problem-solving, and scientific inquiry, or even general skills like critical thinking; and (c) it generates overall positive effects on students’ attitude towards and interest in S&T. Comparable findings were observed among teachers (category 2, Supplementary material 3): (a) improved learning of content knowledge (CK) and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK); (b) a positive change in teachers’ understanding and practice in S&T and S&T teaching; (c) a better understanding of PBSTL and its use in classrooms; (d) increased collaboration with peers; and (e) a better attitude and more motivation towards S&T and this approach.
The studies that analysed classroom teaching and learning processes (category 3 of Supplementary material 3), without measuring the effects on the students and teachers, also conclude that PBSTL provides students with the best opportunities to learn. Additionally, the studies that documented how students and teachers view this approach (category 4, Supplementary material 3) show that, overall, they both seem to appreciate it, even if they sometimes find it difficult and challenging.
The studies analysed do not report any negative effects of PBSTL on students and teachers or any findings that suggest that the latter are opposed to this approach. It is therefore difficult to know if this approach always has a positive impact or if the researchers do not wish to publish any findings that report negative effects.
Our analysis of the 48 articles that make up our corpus allows us, however, to formulate several comments to guide future research in the field. These comments essentially concern the rigour of the methodologies used in the analysed studies in order to ensure the validity of published findings.
The articles analysed are all published in peer-reviewed journals, which attests to the pertinence and validity of the research methods used by the authors. However, our analyses lead us to formulate certain limitations, especially with regard to (a) the studies that looked at the impact of PBSTL on students and teachers (categories 1 and 2, Supplementary material 3), and (b) those that analysed the teaching and learning process in the classroom (category 3, Supplementary material 3).
(a) We pointed out in the ‘analysis’ section that 22 studies had the main goal of verifying the effect (impact, influence, etc.) of PBSTL (or of some of its components) on students or teachers. In these types of studies, methodological rigour requires the use of certain techniques in order to prove beyond doubt that an observed effect is a result of a tested variable (PBSTL or one of its components). Essentially, these techniques involve the use of control groups and pre- and post-tests. However, our analysis indicates that, in most of the studies, these two methodological principles are not observed. Indeed, only nine (9) of the studies involved pre- and post-tests ([2,19,25,26,32,33,34,35,38]). A large number of other studies used other data collection methods allowing teachers and students to express their point of view on the impact of this approach. Examples include semi-structured interviews to verify whether PBSTL enables students to become independent learners and creative thinkers [3]; student feedback questionnaires, feedback from teachers and in-class observations to study the impact of a project-based programme on students’ technological-scientific literacy and subject matter learning [4]; and analysis of pupil activity to study the effects of specific help on the acquisition of technological knowledge and know-how in a project activity. The spatial constraints of this article do not allow for a presentation of each of these articles’ methodologies (see supplementary material). However, the examples we have just briefly described do illustrate this category of data collection methods and emphasise that it is not well adapted for testing the effect of the variables in question.
In addition, only three studies explicitly used control groups ([2,35,42]).
Furthermore, in the case of study [42], it is not really a control group per se that is involved, but rather a comparison of student attitudes towards a project across two groups that received different instructional treatment: one group was instructed using guided inquiry, the other using open inquiry.
The absence of control groups or pre- and post-tests detracts from the validity of the findings reported by these studies. On the one hand, without pre- and post-tests, it is difficult to associate the changes observed in the students with this approach. On the other hand, even when pre- and post-tests were used, the difference in scores is not enough to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this difference is linked to PBSTL only. This difference (or part of it) may simply be the result of the teaching received by students (regardless of the approach used). This methodological limitation is worth correcting in future research. Incidentally, certain authors of the articles analysed (for example, [25] and [26]) recognised that their research findings had limitations because there were no control groups:
While we have argued the theoretical basis for why a PBS curriculum and teacher professional development programme might reasonably impact minority student science achievement, attitudes, and career plans, and reported our findings, to make progress in proving that such a curriculum and professional development programme causes these outcomes, we recognise that we would need to continue our programme of research by pursuing a rigorous experimental design that employs a control group. ([26], p. 881)
Certain authors proposed alternative research methods that deserve special attention. For example, in study [43], the impact of PBSTL on students was measured using National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) test items. Doing so allowed the researchers to compare the findings from these students (the experimental group) with the findings from students across the country. This study enabled the authors to see if students in a PBSTL programme perform as well as students nationally on achievement test items. In study [15], the authors compared the end-of-year exam results of students in the PBSTL programme with the national average of students in the same grade. In both of these studies, the student population that participated in national tests was used as a base of comparison (as a control group). However, it should be stressed that this type of study has other limitations: the impact of PBSTL is determined according to test performance and not the quality of learning.
To conclude this section discussing the methodologies used in the articles studying the impact of PBSTL on students or teachers, we would like to suggest another remark. The nine studies belonging to this category adopt data collection methods that study different elements and that use different items (questions). It is consequently impossible to hope to conduct meta-analyses in this field. Accordingly, even if PBSTL has garnered renewed interest in recent decades and has been the main subject of study of certain teams (such as the Krajcik team at the University of Michigan, since the 1990s: Blumenfeld, Krajcik, Marx, & Soloway, Citation1994; Blumenfeld et al., Citation1991; Krajcik et al., Citation1998; Krajcik, Blumenfeld, Marx, & Soloway, Citation1994; Schneider, Krajcik, Marx, & Soloway, Citation2002), studies attempting to prove the effects of PBSTL using rigorous methodologies are not yet sufficiently developed, as is also the case with other approaches including PBL.
(b) In several of the studies that analysed the classroom teaching and learning process (category 3, Supplementary material 3), the authors used several data collection techniques simultaneously. For example, in study [41],
data collected were an initial project survey, three online threaded discussions on concept mapping, four threaded discussions about PBL, a reflective journal, progress and final reports, e-mail correspondence, concept maps constructed by participants and their students, and participants’ presentations at the state science teachers’ conference. ([41], p. 382)
Even if the rationale behind this choice – combining different data sources – is laudable, it has major limitations. Often in these studies, how rigorous the data collection and analysis process is, is not revealed. For instance, the explanations presented in the articles do not allow the reader to understand how the data from all of these sources were analysed in connection with the research goals.
Complementary avenues of research to consider
We end this discussion by stressing that certain problems that raise important educational issues received little attention in the analysed studies, and would merit greater examination. Three of these problems are presented here.
Current teaching practices not well documented
In most of the studies analysed, the project-based teaching units (courses) in classrooms are either proposed by the researchers or designed by the teachers with the help of researchers (often as part of professional development). Few studies analysed the understanding that teachers have of this approach or how they use it in their regular teaching practices (without the help of researchers). This observation concurs with the recent remark made by Rogers et al. (Citation2011): these authors reiterate that even if a lot of research has studied the impact of PBSTL on students, ‘research that illustrates teachers’ initial experience with implementing PBL and their thoughts on how this approach aligns with their existing orientation towards teaching their discipline is scant’ (Rogers et al., Citation2011, p. 894).
This observation shows that this approach, despite its potential to improve student learning and interest, has yet to gain the space hoped for in curricula, S&T standards and practices (Krajcik et al., Citation2008): ‘To date, efforts at project-based pedagogy have primarily explored a ‘replacement unit’ approach, in which units are integrated into teachers’ ongoing curricula’ (p. 4).
Developing and distributing successful PBSTL teaching material templates and implementation models among teachers and decision-makers would greatly help secure the use of this approach in schools. This was the very route taken by certain studies reported in our synthesis ([25,29,38]). However, there are still very few of these publications and they deserve to be further developed and widely distributed to those involved in S&T teaching and learning.
PBSTL studies in specific contexts need to be developed
While most of the studies in our synthesis were conducted in what we can call regular classes and schools, some of them analysed the benefits of PBSTL in specific contexts, by measuring, for instance, its impact on: (a) students with learning difficulties ([20]); (b) students from urban and ethnic groups underrepresented in science careers ([26]); (c) students attending schools located in lower socio-economic-scale neighbourhoods ([38]); and (d) students labelled as low-achievers ([15]). The findings from these studies are encouraging and should inspire researchers to conduct more studies in these specific contexts. In fact, if PBSTL can elevate the quality of teaching and learning and student motivation in general, then students coming from these specific contexts have an even greater need for the possible advantages of this innovative approach (Doppelt, 2003).
Studies on the relationship between PBSTL and student interest in S&T should be consolidated
In 22 of the 48 articles analysed, the authors feel that schools should employ PBSTL because, in their opinion, this approach helps improve the relationship (interest, motivation, attitude, self-concept) that students have with S&T. However, very few of the studies sought to use the research to show the impact that this approach has on this relationship. Moreover, the handful of studies that considered this question (for example, [25,26,35]) did not use conceptual frameworks or research tools developed in the field (for example, Ainley & Ainley, Citation2011; Hasni & Potvin, Citation2015; Krapp & Prenzel, Citation2011; Renninger & Hidi, Citation2011). Studies that aim to describe the impact of PBSTL on the interest (or motivation or attitude) of students, by integrating conceptual frameworks and methodologies specific to these constructs, deserve to be developed and consolidated. The hypothesis behind this orientation is that heightened interest in S&T would have a positive impact on student engagement in tasks (Ainley, Corrigan, & Richardson, Citation2005; Ainley, Hidi, & Berndorff, Citation2002) and in scientific studies and, consequently, in the development of the desired science and technological culture and the decision to pursue studies or a career in the field (Hidi & Harackiewicz, Citation2000). This hypothesis led the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to include interest in their PISA studies in 2006 (OECD, Citation2006).
Conclusion
Our study intended, on the one hand, to understand how recent publications define and justify the use of PBSTL within schools. A further aim was to present a systematic review of what the findings of studies conducted in the field teach us. Our chosen methodology led us to only consider articles published in peer-reviewed journals that were specialised in science and technology education, that were indexed in ERIC, and that covered teaching primary and secondary education (K–12). These choices allowed us to identify 48 articles. These articles were analysed using a grid that was adapted to our research goals.
The findings show that the authors use five main features to define PBSTL: there is an authentic scientific problem or question; the students develop a final product (artefact); the students are engaged in investigations or design activities; there is collaboration among students, teachers and others in the community; and learning technologies, such as ICT, are used. The arguments put forward by the authors to justify using this approach echo and complete the characteristics used to define it: acquisition by students of specific S&T knowledge and competencies; acquisition by students of non-specific S&T knowledge and competencies; learning is anchored in the real world; student motivation and interest are increased; and PBSTL is in keeping with constructivist and socioconstructivist perspectives. We have also shown that conceptualisation of this approach would be deserving of greater consolidation and development, for example by specifying the meaning and status assigned to certain features. To ensure that PBSTL makes a better contribution to S&T learning and to the number of derivatives in how this approach is understood and applied, we propose ranking the features and justifications reported in the publications analysed. The aim of ranking them is to enable those in the education sector to distinguish between the features that fall within the aims of S&T learning and those that fall within the means or conditions required for learning.
Analysing the research questions, methods and findings of the 48 studies allows us to draw a picture of the benefits observed and the potential benefits of PBSTL, as well as the challenges and difficulties encountered by teachers when implementing this approach. This analysis also allowed us to identify areas of the research that deserve attention in future projects in the field: improving how rigorous the data collection methods are; documenting how teachers understand this approach or how they use this approach in their regular teaching practices (without the help of researchers); developing studies on the impact of PBSTL on students in specific contexts (students with learning difficulties, minority students, students from low socio-economic groups, and so forth); and consolidating studies on the relationship between PBSTL and student interest in S&T.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This work was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, Canada (project n 435–2013-22186). Project title: Project-based science and technology teaching at primary and secondary levels: meanings, purposes and implementation modalities.
Supplemental data
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.
Notes on contributors
Abdelkrim Hasni is a full professor of science and technology education at the Université de Sherbrooke, Canada. Co-chair of the Chaire de recherche sur l’intérêt des jeunes à l’égard des sciences et de la technologie (CRIJEST), he is also the founder of the Centre de recherche sur l’enseignement et l’apprentissage des sciences (CREAS). His fields of research include interest in S&T, science curriculum, teaching methods, integrative approaches (interdisciplinary and project-based teaching) and teaching practices.
Fatima Bousadra is a professor of science and technology education at the Université de Sherbrooke (Canada) and member of the Centre de recherche sur l’enseignement et l’apprentissage des sciences (CREAS). Her research interests are related to K-12 STEM learning and teaching, especially understanding the nature of student’s knowledge in the context of doing hands-on investigations and engineering design tasks. She is also involved in the development of representations of ways to describing what teachers need to know and do to support STEM learning.
Vincent Belletête is a research professional at the Université de Sherbrooke, Canada. He holds a master’s degree in science education and works with the Centre de recherche sur l’enseignement et l’apprentissage des sciences (CREAS) since 2012.
Ahmed Benabdallah is a PhD student in science education at the Université de Sherbrooke, Canada. He is also engaged in the research activities of the Centre de recherche sur l’enseignement et l’apprentissage des sciences (CREAS) and the Chaire de recherche sur l’intérêt des jeunes à l’égard des sciences et de la technologie (CRIJEST) since 2011.
Marie-Claude Nicole holds a PhD in molecular biology. She is a research professional in science education at the Centre de recherche sur l’enseignement et l’apprentissage des sciences (CREAS), Université de Sherbrooke, Canada.
Nancy Dumais is a full professor of virology at the Université de Sherbrooke, Canada. Her laboratory investigates factors that modulate cell migration and HIV-1 pathogenesis. In addition, she is interested in science education and is an active member of the Centre de recherche sur l’enseignement et l’apprentissage des sciences (CREAS). She is also organising science outreach activities for youths.
RSSE_1226573_supplemental_material.zip
Download Zip (85.9 KB)Acknowledgements
We thank Marie-Claude Beaudry, Annie Corriveau, Youssef Essiaf and Patrick Roy for their punctual help in reading articles.
Notes
1. Regarding the list of words used to select journals, we selected the list of core disciplines that generally make up the primary and secondary programmes in OECD countries, such as those reported in the PISA studies (OECD, Citation2006).
2. The search algorithm used in ERIC was the following: Title (project*) AND Journal Title (SO) (science* or technolog* or biolog* or physics or chemistr* or geology* or astronom* or engineer* or ecolog*) AND Publication Type (Journal Articles) AND Peer Reviewed/Publication AND Date Published (January 2000 to May 2014). Asterisks were used to avoid rejecting different declinations of some important words: project* for variations like ‘projects’ and ‘project-based’; technolog* for technological and technology; biolog* for biological and biology; etc.
3. Even if several of these journals are indicated as being peer-reviewed in ERIC, they mainly address teaching professionals and not the research community; they primarily describe lessons plans, activities, teaching strategies, courses or programmes. For example, the website Teaching Science (http://asta.edu.au/resources/teachingscience) shows that the journal ‘aims to promote the teaching of science in all Australian schools, with a focus on classroom practices, and contribute to the professional development of teachers of science’; and Primary Science Review (http://www.ase.org.uk/journals/primary-science/) ‘aims to share information and ideas that support effective practice in science education focused at the primary school level through transition to early secondary education’.
4. A ‘project’ is an ambiguous concept that has different meanings for different authors. We retained the articles in which this concept referred to the teaching or learning process (teaching, learning, curriculum, etc.), regardless of the exact expression used: project-based approach, project-based science, project-based instruction, etc.
5. To obtain a copy of the complete grid and the user’s guide (in French only), please contact the authors.
6. Even if we use the generic expression of PBSTL in this article, when we use excerpts from the articles analysed, we have kept the expression that was used by the authors: project-based science (PBS), project-based learning (PBL), project-based science and technology learning (PBSTL), and so forth.
References
- Ainley, M., & Ainley, J. (2011). A cultural perspective on the structure of student interest in science. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 51–71.10.1080/09500693.2010.518640
- Ainley, M., Corrigan, M., & Richardson, N. (2005). Students, tasks and emotions: Identifying the contribution of emotions to students’ reading of popular culture and popular science texts. Learning and Instruction, 15, 433–447.10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.07.011
- Ainley, M., Hidi, S., & Berndorff, D. (2002). Interest, learning, and the psychological processes that mediate their relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 545–561.10.1037/0022-0663.94.3.545
- Anderson, R. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13, 1–12.10.1023/A:1015171124982
- Barak, M. (2002). Learning good electronics, or coping with challenging tasks? Priorities of excellent students. Journal of Technology Education, 14, 20–34.
- Barak, M. (2004). Issues involved in attempting to develop independent learning in pupils working on technological projects. Research in Science and Technological Education, 22, 171–183.10.1080/0263514042000290886
- Barak, M., & Shachar, A. (2008). Projects in technology education and fostering learning: The potential and its realization. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17, 285–296.10.1007/s10956-008-9098-2
- Bardin, L. (2007). L’analyse de contenu [The content analysis]. Paris: PUF.
- Bartos, S. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2014). Teachers’ knowledge structures for nature of science and scientific inquiry: Conceptions and classroom practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51, 1150–1184.10.1002/tea.v51.9
- Bennett, J., Hogarth, S., Lubben, F., & Robinson, A. (2005). The effects of context-based and science-technology-society (STS) approaches in the teaching of secondary science on boys and girls, and on lower-ability pupils. University of London: Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI).
- Bennett, J., Lubben, F., & Hogarth, S. (2007). Bringing science to life: A synthesis of the research evidence on the effects of context-based and STS approaches to science teaching. Science Education, 91, 347–370.10.1002/(ISSN)1098-237X
- Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (1994). Lessons learned: A collaborative model for helping teachers learn project-based instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 94, 539–551.10.1086/461782
- 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, 369–398.10.1080/00461520.1991.9653139
- Bordallo, I., & Ginestet, J.-P. (1993). Pour une pédagogie du projet [Project-based pedagogy]. Paris: Hachette Éducation.
- Bousadra, F., & Hasni, A. (2012). L’approche par projets et les savoirs disciplinaires en classe de sciences et technologies au Québec: compatibilité ou incompatibilité? Études de cas. [Project-based approach and subject matter knowledge in Quebec science classrooms: Compatibility or incompatibility? Case studies]. Recherches en Didactiques, 13, 67–84.
- Chard, S. (1992). The project approach: A practical guide for teachers. Edmonton: University of Alberta Printing Services.
- Chin, C., & Chia, L.-G. (2004). Implementing project work in biology through problem-based learning. Journal of Biological Education, 38, 69–75.10.1080/00219266.2004.9655904
- Chin, C., & Chia, L.-G. (2006). Problem-based learning: Using ill-structured problems in biology project work. Science Education, 90, 44–67.10.1002/(ISSN)1098-237X
- Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175–218.10.1002/(ISSN)1098-237X
- Curriculum Development Council. (2001). The way forward in curriculum development: Learning to learn. Hong Kong: Government Printer.
- Dochy, F., Mein, S., Van den Bossche, P., & Gijbels, D. (2003). Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 13, 533–568.10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00025-7
- Ducharme, C. C. (1993). Historical roots of the project approach in the United States: 1850–1930. Paper presented at the annual convention of the national association for the education of young children, Anaheim, CA.
- Fallik, O., Eylon, B.-S., & Rosenfeld, S. (2008). Motivating teachers to enact free-choice project-based learning in science and technology (PBLSAT): Effects of a professional development model. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19, 565–591.10.1007/s10972-008-9113-8
- 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, 41–61.10.1080/0260293042000160401
- Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. C. (2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 82, 300–329.10.3102/0034654312457206
- Gijbels, D., Dochy, F., Van den Bossche, P., & Segers, M. (2005). Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis from the angle of assessment. Review of Educational Research, 75, 27–61.10.3102/00346543075001027
- Goodrum, D., Hackling, M., & Rennie, L. (2000). The status and quality of teaching and learning of science in Australian schools: A research report. Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
- Grégoire, R., & Laferriere, T. (1998). Canada’s schoolnet project-based collaborative learning with networked computers: Teachers’ guide. Retrieved from http://www.tact.fse.ulaval.ca/ang/html/projectg.html#1.1
- Gresnigt, R., Taconis, R., van Keulen, H., Gravemeijer, K., & Baartman, L. (2014). Promoting science and technology in primary education: A review of integrated curricula. Studies in Science Education, 50, 47–84.10.1080/03057267.2013.877694
- Hand, B., Yore, L. D., Jagger, S., & Prain, V. (2010). Connecting research in science literacy and classroom practice: A review of science teaching journals in Australia, the UK and the United States, 1998–2008. Studies in Science Education, 46, 45–68.10.1080/03057260903562342
- Hasni, A., & Bousadra, F. (2011). Les enseignants de sciences et technologies au Québec face aux nouvelles orientations curriculaires [Science and technology teachers in Quebec facing the new curriculum orientations]. In J. Lebeaume, A. Hasni et, & I. Hallée (Eds.), Recherches et expertises pour l’enseignement. Technologie, sciences, mathématiques [Research and expertise for teaching. Technology, science, and mathematics] (pp. 113–123). Bruxelles: De Boeck Université.
- Hasni, A., Bousadra, F., & Marcos, B. (2011). L’enseignement par projets en sciences et technologies: de quoi parle-t-on et comment justifie-t-on le recours à cette approche? [The project-based teaching in science and technology education: What does it mean and how is this approach justified?]. Nouveaux cahiers de la recherche en éducation, 14, 7–28.10.7202/1008841ar
- Hasni, A., & Potvin, P. (2015). Student’s interest in science and technology and its relationships with teaching methods, family context and self-efficacy. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 10, 337–366.
- Herold, J.-F., & Ginestie, J. (2011). Help with solving technological problems in project activities. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21, 55–70.10.1007/s10798-009-9106-8
- Hidi, S. & Harackiewicz, J. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical issue for the 21st century. Review of Educational Research, 70, 151–179.10.3102/00346543070002151
- Hubert, M. (2005). Apprendre en projet [Learning in project pedagogy]. Lyon: Chronique sociale.
- Karaman, S., & Celik, S. (2008). An exploratory study on the perspectives of prospective computer teachers following project-based learning. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 18, 203–215.10.1007/s10798-006-9021-1
- Kliebard, H. M. (1986). The struggle for the American curriculum. 1893–1958. Boston, MA: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
- Knoll, M. (1997). The project method: Its vocational education origin and international development. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 34, 59–80.
- Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (2006). Project-based science. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 317–333). New York, NY: Cambridge.
- 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, 313–350.10.1080/10508406.1998.9672057
- 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. Elementary School Journal, 94, 483–497.10.1086/461779
- Krajcik, J., Czerniak, C. M., & Berger, C. F. (2002). Teaching science in elementary and middle school classrooms: A project based approach. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
- Krajcik, J., McNeill, K. L., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). Learning-goals-driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Science Education, 92, 1–32.10.1002/(ISSN)1098-237X
- Krapp, A., & Prenzel, M. (2011). Research on interest in science: Theories, methods, and findings. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 27–50.10.1080/09500693.2010.518645
- Lam, S. F., Cheng, R. W.-Y., & Ma, W. Y. K. (2009). Teacher and student intrinsic motivation in project-based learning. Instructional Science: An International Journal of the Learning Sciences, 37, 565–578.10.1007/s11251-008-9070-9
- Larmer, J., Ross, D., Mergendoller, J. R., Arpin, L., & Capra, L. (2012). L’apprentissage par projets au secondaire : guide pratique pour planifier et réaliser des projets avec ses élèves [Project-based learning at secondary school: Prarctice guide to design and do projects with children]. Montréal: Chenelière éducation.
- Le Moigne, J.-L. (2007). Les épistémologies constructivistes [The constructivist epistemologies]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
- Lederman, N. G., Antink, A., & Bartos, S. (2014). Nature of science, scientific inquiry, and socio-scientific issues arising from genetics: A pathway to developing a scientifically literate citizenry. Science & Education, 23, 285–302.10.1007/s11191-012-9503-3
- Linn, M. C., & Clark, H. C. (1997). When are science projects learning opportunities? National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Retrieved from http://www.narst.org/publications/research/projects.cfm
- Marshall, J. A., Petrosino, A. J., & Martin, T. (2010). Preservice teachers’ conceptions and enactments of project-based instruction. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19, 370–386.10.1007/s10956-010-9206-y
- Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000. Science education for the future. London: Nuffield Foundation.
- Miller, D. T., & Nowak, M. (1977). The fifties: The way we really were. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
- Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction – What is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 474–496.10.1002/tea.v47:4
- 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, 59–77.
- Moje, E. B., Collazo, T., Carrillo, R., & Marx, R. W. (2001). Maestro, what is quality?: Language, literacy, and discourse in project-based science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 469–498.10.1002/(ISSN)1098-2736
- National Academy Foundation. (2010). Project-based Learning. A resource for instructors and program coordinators. New York, NY: National Academy Foundation.
- National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
- O’Neill, D. K., & Polman, J. L. (2004). Why educate “Little scientists?” examining the potential of practice-based scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 234–266.
- Oxman, A. D., & Guyatt, G. H. (1993). The science of reviewing research. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 703, 125–134.10.1111/nyas.1993.703.issue-1
- Polman, J. L. (2000). Designing project-based science: Connecting learning through guided inquiry. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
- Potvin, P., & Hasni, A. (2014). Interest, motivation and attitude towards science and technology at K-12 levels: A systematic review of 12 years of educational research. Studies in Science Education, 50, 85–129.10.1080/03057267.2014.881626
- Rakes, C. R., Valentine, J. C., McGatha, M. B., & Ronau, R. N. (2010). Methods of instructional improvement in algebra: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 80, 372–400.10.3102/0034654310374880
- Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. (2011). Revisiting the conceptualization, measurement, and generation of interest. Educational Psychologist, 46, 168–184.10.1080/00461520.2011.587723
- Robert, A. D., & Bouillaguet, A. (2007). L’analyse de contenu [The content analysis] (3e édition). Paris: Presses universitaires de France.
- Rogers, M. A. P., Cross, D. I., Gresalfi, M. S., Trauth-Nare, A. E., & Buck, G. A. (2011). 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, 893–917.10.1007/s10763-010-9248-x
- Sadler, T. D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: Socio-scientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45(1), 1–42.10.1080/03057260802681839
- 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, 410–422.10.1002/(ISSN)1098-2736
- Schroeder, C. M., Scott, T. P., Tolson, H., Huang, T.-Y., & Lee, Y.-H. (2007). Ameta-analysis of national research: Effects of teaching strategies on student achievement in science in the United States. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 1436–1460.
- Schwab, J. J. (1964). The structure of the disciplines: meaning and significance. In G. W. Ford & L. Pugno (Eds.), The structure of knowledge and the curriculum (pp. 6–30). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
- Strobel, J., & van Barneveld, A. (2009). When is PBL more effective? A meta-synthesis of meta-analyses comparing PBL to conventional classrooms. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 3, 44–58.
- Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. San Rafael, CA: The Autodesk Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.bobpearlman.org/BestPractices/PBL_Research.pdf
- Thomas, M., Hughes, S. G., Hart, P. M., Schollar, J., Keirle, K., & Griffith, G. W. (2001). Group project work in biotechnology and its impact on key skills. Journal of Biological Education, 35, 133–140.10.1080/00219266.2001.9655762
- Tural, G., Yigit, N., & Alev, N. (2009). Examining problems in project work executed in high schools according to student and teacher views. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 10(1), 1–13.
- Verner, I. M., & Hershko, E. (2003). School graduation project in robot design: A case study of team learning experiences and outcomes. Journal of Technology Education, 14, 40–55.
- Vygotski, L. (1997). Pensée et langage [Thinking and speech] (1re édition: 1934). Paris : La Dispute.
- Walker, A., & Leary, H. (2009). A problem based learning meta-analysis: Difference across problem types, implementation types, disciplines, and assessment levels. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 13, 12–43.
- Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2006). Evolution of student interest in science and technology studies: Policy report. Paris: OECD Global Science Forum.
Appendix 1. List of the 48 selected articles
[1] Alozie, N. M., Moje, E. B., & Krajcik, J. S. (2010). An Analysis of the Supports and Constraints for Scientific Discussion in High School Project-Based Science. Science Education, 94(3), 395-427.
[2] Aslan Efe, H., Yucel, S., Baran, M., & Oner Sunkur, M. (2012). Influence of Animation-Supported Project-Based Instruction Method on Environmental Literacy and Self-Efficacy in Environmental Education. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 13(2), 1-14.
[3] Barak, M. (2004). Issues Involved in Attempting to Develop Independent Learning in Pupils Working on Technological Projects. Research in Science and Technological Education, 22(2), 171-183.
[4] Barak, M., & Raz, E. (2000). Hot-Air Balloons: Project-Centered Study as a Bridge Between Science and Technology Education. Science Education, 84(1), 27-42.
[5] Barak, M., & Shachar, A. (2008). Projects in Technology Education and Fostering Learning: The Potential and Its Realization. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(3), 285-296.
[6] Barak, M., & Zadok, Y. (2009). Robotics Projects and Learning Concepts in Science, Technology and Problem Solving. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(3), 289-307.
[7] Beare, R. (2007). Investigation into the Potential of Investigative Projects Involving Powerful Robotic Telescopes to Inspire Interest in Science. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 279-306
[8] Bencze, J. L. (2010). Promoting Student-Led Science and Technology Projects in Elementary Teacher Education: Entry into Core Pedagogical Practices through Technological Design. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 20(1), 43-62.
[9] Bencze, J. L., & Bowen, G. M. (2009). Student-Teachers' Dialectically Developed Motivation for Promoting Student-Led Science Projects. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(1), 133-159.
[10] Bencze, J. L., Bowen, G. M., & Alsop, S. (2006). Teachers' Tendencies to Promote Student-Led Science Projects: Associations with Their Views about Science. Science Education, 90(3), 400-419.
[11] Chin, C., & Chia, L.-G. (2004). Implementing Project Work in Biology through Problem-Based Learning. Journal of Biological Education, 38(2), 69-75.
[12] Chin, C., & Chia, L.-G. (2005). Problem-Based Learning: Using Ill-Structured Problems in Biology Project Work. Science Education, 90(1), 44-67.
[13] Cook, K., Buck, G., & Park Rogers, M. (2012). Preparing Biology Teachers to Teach Evolution in a Project-Based Approach. Science Educator, 21(2), 18-30.
[14] Dijkstra, E., & Goedhart, M. (2011). Evaluation of Authentic Science Projects on Climate Change in Secondary Schools: A Focus on Gender Differences. Research in Science & Technological Education, 29(2), 131-146.
[15] Doppelt, Y. (2003). Implementation and Assessment of Project-Based Learning in a Flexible Environment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13, 255-272.
[16] Dori, Y. J., & Tal, R. T. (2000). Formal and Informal Collaborative Projects: Engaging in Industry with Environmental Awareness. Science Education, 84(1), 95-113.
[17] Drain, M. (2010). Justification of the Dual-Phase Project-Based Pedagogical Approach in a Primary School Technology Unit. Design and Technology Education, 15(1), 7-14.
[18] Espinoza, F. (2009). Using Project-Based Data in Physics to Examine Television Viewing in Relation to Student Performance in Science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(5), 458-465.
[19] Fallik, O., Eylon, B.-S., & Rosenfeld, S. (2008). Motivating Teachers to Enact Free-Choice Project-Based Learning in Science and Technology (PBLSAT): Effects of a Professional Development Model. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19(6), 565-591.
[20] Herold, J.-F., & Ginestie, J. (2011). Help with Solving Technological Problems in Project Activities. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(1), 55-70.
[21] Hong, J.-C., Chen, M.-Y., Wong, A., Hsu, T.-F., & Peng, C.-C. (2012). Developing Physics Concepts through Hands-On Problem Solving: A Perspective on a Technological Project Design. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22(4), 473-487.
[22] Hong, J.-C., Hwang, M.-Y., Wong, W.-T., Lin, H.-C., & Yau, C.-M. (2012). Gender Differences in Social Cognitive Learning at a Technological Project Design. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22(4), 451-472.
[23] Hong, J.-C., Yu, K.-C., & Chen, M.-Y. (2011). Collaborative Learning in Technological Project Design. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(3), 335-347.
[24] Hugerat, M., Ilaiyan, S., Zadik, R., Zidani, S., Zidan, R., & Toren, Z. (2004). The Impact of Implementing an Educational Project, the Solar Village, on Pupils, Teachers, and Parents. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(2), 277-283.
[25] Kanter, D. E. (2009). Doing the Project and Learning the Content: Designing Project-Based Science Curricula for Meaningful Understanding. Science Education, 94(3), 525-551.
[26] Kanter, D. E., & Konstantopoulos, S. (2010). The Impact of a Project-Based Science Curriculum on Minority Student Achievement, Attitudes, and Careers: The Effects of Teacher Content and Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Inquiry-Based Practices. Science Education, 94(5), 855-887.
[27] Kilinc, A. (2010). Can Project-Based Learning Close the Gap? Turkish Student Teachers and Proenvironmental Behaviours. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 5(4), 495-509.
[28] Kolstoe, S.D. (2000). Consensus Projects: Teaching Science for Citizenship. International Journal of Science Education, 22(6), 645-664.
[29] Krajcik, J., McNeill, K. L., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). Learning-Goals-Driven Design Model: Developing Curriculum Materials that Align with National Standards and Incorporate Project-Based Pedagogy. Science Education, 92(1), 1-32.
[30] Lawanto, O., Butler, D., Cartier, S., Santoso, H., Lawanto, K., & Clark, D. (2013). An Exploratory Study of Self-Regulated Learning Strategies in a Design Project by Students in Grades 9-12. Design and Technology Education, 18(1), 44-57.
[31] Lewis, S. P., Alacaci, C., O'Brien, G. E., & Jiang, Z. (2002). Preservice Elementary Teachers' Use of Mathematics in a Project-Based Science Approach. School Science and Mathematics, 102(4), 172-180.
[32] Marshall, J. A., Petrosino, A. J., & Martin, T. (2010). Preservice Teachers' Conceptions and Enactments of Project-Based Instruction. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(4), 370-386.
[33] Mettas, A. C., & Constantinou, C. C. (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.
[34] Miedijensky, S., & Tal, T. (2009). Embedded Assessment in Project-Based Science Courses for the Gifted: Insights to Inform Teaching All Students. International Journal of Science Education, 31(18), 2411-2435.
[35] Mioduser, D., & Betzer, N. (2007). 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.
[36] Moje, E. B., Collazo, T., Carrillo, R., & Marx, R. W. (2001). "Maestro, What is Quality?": Language, Literacy, and Discourse in Project-Based Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(4), 469-498.
[37] Petrosino, A. J. (2004). Integrating Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment in Project-Based Instruction: A Case Study of an Experienced Teacher. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(4), 447-460.
[38] Rivet, A. E., & Krajcik, J. S. (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.
[39] Rogers, M. A. P., Cross, D. I., Gresalfi, M. S., Trauth-Nare, A. E., & Buck, G. A. (2011). 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.
[40] Rozenszayn, R., & Assaraf, O. B.-Z. (2011). When Collaborative Learning Meets Nature: Collaborative Learning as a Meaningful Learning Tool in the Ecology Inquiry Based Project. Research in Science Education, 41(1), 123-146.
[41] Rye, J., Landenberger, R., & Warner, T. A. (2013). Incorporating Concept Mapping in Project-Based Learning: Lessons from Watershed Investigations. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(3), 379-392.
[42] Sadeh, I., & Zion, M. (2012). Which Type of Inquiry Project Do High School Biology Students Prefer: Open or Guided? Research in Science Education, 42(5), 831-848.
[43] 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.
[44] Tal, R., & Argaman, S. (2005). Characteristics and Difficulties of Teachers Who Mentor Environmental Inquiry Projects. Research in Science Education, 35(4), 363-394.
[45] Tal, T., Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (2006). Urban Schools' Teachers Enacting Project-Based Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(7), 722-745.
[46] Toolin, R. E. (2004). Striking a Balance Between Innovation and Standards: A Study of Teachers Implementing Project-Based Approaches to Teaching Science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(2), 179-187.
[47] Tural, G., Yigit, N., & Alev, N. (2009). Examining Problems in Project Work Executed in High Schools According to Student and Teacher Views. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 10(1), 1-13.
[48] Wu, H.-K., & Krajcik, J. S. (2006). Exploring Middle School Students' Use of Inscriptions in Project-Based Science Classrooms. Science Education, 90(5), 852-873.
Appendix 2. Main items in the analysis grid
A. Article information
| (5) | Reference | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (6) | Authors’ institution of origin | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (7) | Places where the research was carried out | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (8) | Type of paper analysed (only peer reviewed articles were selected for this grid) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (9) | Category of paper
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (10) | School grades taken into consideration (only papers that considered at least primary or secondary level were taken into account)
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (11) | S&T fields looked at in the study
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (12) | Personal comments from the reader on this section | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
B. Description of concepts
| (13) | What key concept appears in the title or descriptor?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (14) | Is this key concept
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (15) | How is it defined (dimensions, features, and indicators) and who are the authors cited in this definition? Copy excerpts from the article that correspond to the answer and paste them in the grid. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (16) | Is there a definition of the other principal concepts directly associated with the key concept? If so, how are they defined? Copy excerpts from the article that correspond to the answer and paste them in the grid. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (17) | Personal comments from the reader on this section | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
C. Justifications for PBSTL
| (18) | Which justifications for project-based teaching were put forward? For example:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (19) | Copy excerpts from the article that correspond to the answer and paste them in the grid. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (20) | Personal comments from the reader on this section | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
D. Procedure and intervention proposals for project-based teaching and learning
| (21) | Is there a proposal for an intervention with the students or the teachers? If no, go to section E. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (22) | Does the proposed intervention address:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (23) | Was a conceptual framework presented to guide the proposed intervention? Specify, if possible. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (24) | Is there a conceptual framework to validate the proposed intervention? Specify, if possible. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (25) | Brief description of the intervention (if there is one), specifying the role of students and others (teachers, researchers, family members, etc.). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (26) | Personal comments from the reader on the intervention proposal. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
E. Information on the theoretical and methodological aspects and findings of the study
| (27) | What are the main arguments that the authors propose to show the study’s relevance? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (28) | Are the research goal(s), question(s) or hypothesis(ses)
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (29) | What are they? Copy and paste the question(s) or goal(s). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (30) | Is PBSTL the focus of the study or is it a pretext to study another subject? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (31) | What are the main orientations of the conceptual framework?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (32) | Process used to collect data (indicate if the tool is available)
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (33) | Is the sample stated explicitly? If yes, describe in two lines. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (34) | What process was used for data analysis?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Clarify the procedure used to process data, if necessary.
| (35) | What are the main findings from the questions or goals mentioned and the research data? (Briefly describe the main findings for each question.) | ||||
| (36) | Reader’s personal comments on the strength of the findings. | ||||
F. Information on the theoretical and methodological aspects and findings of the study
| (37) | Criticisms of project-based teaching indicated by the authors, if applicable. | ||||
| (38) | Conditions, constraints or difficulties associated with this approach. | ||||
| (39) | Reader’s personal comments on the strength of the findings. | ||||