Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2021-2
Putting PjBL to the Test: The Impact of Project-Based Learning on Second Graders’ Social Studies and Literacy Learning and Motivation in Low-SES School Settings
This cluster randomized controlled trial investigated the impact of project-based learning with professional development supports on social studies and literacy achievement and motivation of second-grade students from low–socioeconomic status school districts. At random in within-school pairs, 48 teachers were assigned to the experimental or comparison group. Experimental group teachers were asked to teach four project-based learning units designed to address nearly all social studies and some literacy standards. Comparison group teachers were asked to teach social studies as they normally would except to teach a target number of lessons. The experimental group showed higher growth in social studies and informational reading but not writing or motivation. Greater consistency with project-based learning session plans was associated with higher growth in writing, motivation, and reading.
AralN.KandirA.AyhanA. B.YaşarM. C. (2010). The influence of project-based curricula on six-year-old preschoolers’ conceptual development. Social Behavior and Personality, 38(8), 1073–1079. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2010.38.8.1073
BarronB. J. S.SchwartzD. L.VyeN. J.MooreA.PetrosinoA.ZechL.BransfordJ. D. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem- and project-based learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3–4), 271–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.1998.9672056
5.
BenekeS.OstroskyM. M. (2009). Teachers’ views of the efficacy of incorporating the project approach into classroom practice with diverse learners. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 11(1). https://ecrp.illinois.edu/v11n1/ostrosky.html
6.
BillmanA. K. (2008). Inquiry-based instruction in very high- and very low-SES second grade classrooms [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Michigan State University.
7.
BoalerJ. (1997). Experiencing school mathematics: Teaching styles, sex, and settings. Open University Press.
8.
BrasslerM.DettmersJ. (2017). How to enhance interdisciplinary competence—Interdisciplinary problem-based learning versus interdisciplinary project-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1686
9.
BrykA.RaudenbushS. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models for social and behavioral research: Applications and data analysis methods. Sage.
ChuS. K. W.TseS. K.ChowK. (2011). Using collaborative teaching and inquiry project-based learning to help primary school students develop information literacy and information skills. Library & Information Science Research, 33(2), 132–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2010.07.017
DanishJ. A.GresalfiM. (2018). Cognitive and sociocultural perspectives on learning: Tensions and synergy in the learning sciences. In FischerF.Hmelo-SilverC.GoldmanS.ReimannP. (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 34–43). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315617572-4
15.
DavisE. A.KrajcikJ. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X034003003
16.
DavisE. A.PalincsarA. S.SmithP. S.AriasA. M.KademianS. M. (2017). Educative curriculum materials: Uptake, impact, and implications for research and design. Educational Researcher, 46(6), 293–304. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X17727502
17.
DeweyJ. (1902). The child and curriculum. University of Chicago Press.
18.
DrakeC.LandT. J.TyminskiA. M. (2014). Using educative curriculum materials to support the development of prospective teachers’ knowledge. Educational Researcher, 43(3), 154–162. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14528039
19.
DresdenJ.LeeK. (2007). The effects of project work in a first-grade classroom: A little goes a long way. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 9(1). https://ecrp.illinois.edu/v9n1/dresden.html
20.
DukeN. K. (2000a). For the rich it’s richer: Print experiences and environments offered to children in very low- and very high-socioeconomic status first-grade classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 441–478. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312037002441
21.
DukeN. K. (2000b). 3.6 Minutes per day: The scarcity of informational texts in first grade. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(2), 202–224. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.35.2.1
22.
DusekJ. B.JosephG. (1983). The bases of teacher expectancies: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(3), 327–346. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.75.3.327
23.
EisnerE. W. (1985). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs. Macmillan.
24.
FitchettP. G.HeafnerT. L. (2010). A national perspective on the effects of high-stakes testing and standardization on elementary social studies marginalization. Theory & Research in Social Education, 38(1), 114–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2010.10473418
25.
FitzgeraldM. S.PalincsarA. S. (2019). Teaching practices that support student sensemaking across grades and disciplines: A conceptual review. Review of Research in Education, 43(1), 227–248. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X18821115
26.
FurtakE. M.SeidelT.IversonH.BriggsD. C. (2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 300–329. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457206
27.
GeierR.BlumenfeldP. C.MarxR. W.KrajcikJ. S.FishmanB.SolowayE.Clay-ChambersJ. (2008). Standardized test outcomes for students engaged in inquiry-based science curricula in the context of urban reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(8), 922–939. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20248
28.
GrahamS.BollingerA.Booth OlsonC.D’AoustC.MacArthurC.McCutchenD.OlinghouseN. (2012). Teaching elementary school students to be effective writers: A practice guide (NCEE 2012-4058). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/writing_pg_062612.pdf
29.
GuvenY.DumanH. G. (2007). Project based learning for children with mild mental disabilities. International Journal of Special Education, 22(1), 77–82.
30.
HabokA. (2015). Implementation of a project-based concept mapping developmental programme to facilitate children’s experiential reasoning and comprehension of relations. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 23(1), 129–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2014.991100
31.
HalvorsenA.DukeN. K.BrugarK. A.BlockM. K.StrachanS. L.BerkaM. B.BrownJ. M. (2012). Narrowing the achievement gap in second-grade social studies and content area literacy: The promise of a project-based approach. Theory & Research in Social Education, 40(3), 198–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2012.705954
32.
HalvorsenA.DukeN. K.StrachanS. L.JohnsonC. (2018). Engaging the community with a project-based approach. Social Education, 82(1), 24–29.
HillH. C.EricksonA. (2019). Using implementation fidelity to aid in interpreting program impacts: A brief review. Educational Researcher, 48(9), 590–598. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X19891436
35.
HoD.ImaiK.KingG.StuartE. A. (2007). Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference. Political Analysis, 15(3), 199–236. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpl013
JeongJ.GaffneyJ. S.ChoiJ.-O. (2010). Availability and use of informational texts in second-, third-, and fourth-grade classrooms. Research in the Teaching of English, 44(4), 435–456.
40.
KaldiS.FilippatouD.GovarisC. (2011). Project-based learning in primary schools: Effects on pupils’ learning and attitudes. Education 3-13, 39(1), 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004270903179538
41.
KaraçalliS.KorurF. (2014). The effects of project-based learning on students’ academic achievement, attitude, and retention of knowledge: The subject of “electricity in our lives.”School Science and Mathematics, 114(5), 224–235. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12071
42.
KilpatrickW. H. (1918). The project method: The use of the purposeful act in the education process. Teachers College Record, 19, 319–334.
KokotsakiD.MenziesV.WigginsA. (2016). Project-based learning: A review of the literature. Improving Schools, 19(3), 267–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480216659733
45.
KrajcikJ. S.BlumenfeldP.MarxR. W.BassK. M.FredricksJ.SolowayE. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3–4), 313–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.1998.9672057
46.
KyndtE.RaesE.LismontB.TimmersF.CascallarE.DochyF. (2013). A meta-analysis of the effectives of face-to-face cooperative learning: Do recent studies falsify or verify earlier findings?Educational Research Review, 10, 133–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.02.002
MacArthurC. A.FerrettiR. P.OkoloC. M. (2002). On defending controversial viewpoints: Debates of sixth graders about the desirability of early 20th-century American immigration. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17(3), 160–172. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5826.00042
49.
MarxR. W.BlumenfeldP. C.KrajcikJ. S.FishmanB.SolowayE.GeierR.TalR. T. (2004). Inquiry-based science in the middle grades: Assessment of learning in urban systemic reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1063–1080. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20039
McKennaM. C.KearD. J. (1990). Measuring attitude toward reading: A new tool for teachers. The Reading Teacher, 43(8), 626–639. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.43.8.3
52.
MergendollerJ. R.MaxwellN. L.BellisimoY. (2006). The effectiveness of problem-based instruction: A comparative study of instructional methods and student characteristics. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(2), Article 5. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1026
53.
MilnerH. R. (2012). Beyond a test score: Explaining opportunity gaps in educational practice. Journal of Black Studies, 43(6), 693–718. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021934712442539
54.
MitraD.SerriereS. (2012). Student voice in elementary-school reform: Extending youth development to elementary students. American Educational Research Journal, 49(4), 743–774. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831212443079
55.
MurnaneR. J.MaynardR. A.OhlsJ. C. (1981). Home resources and children’s achievement. Review of Economics and Statistics, 63(3), 369–377. https://doi.org/10.2307/1924354
56.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). How people learn II: Learners, contexts, and cultures. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24783
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf
59.
NewmannF. M.MarksH. M.GamoranA. (1996). Authentic pedagogy and student performance. American Journal of Education, 104(4), 280–312. https://doi.org/10.1086/444136
60.
PaceJ. L. (2012). Teaching literacy through social studies under No Child Left Behind. Journal of Social Studies Research, 36(4), 329–358.
61.
ParkerW.LoJ.YeoA. J.ValenciaS. W.NguyenD.AbbottR. D.NolenS. B.BransfordJ. D.VyeN. J. (2013). Beyond breadth-speed test: Toward deeper knowing and engagement in an Advanced Placement course. American Educational Research Journal, 50(6), 1424–1459. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831213504237
62.
ParkerW.MosborgS.BransfordJ.VyeN.WilkersonJ.AbbottR. (2011). Rethinking advanced high school coursework: Tackling the depth/breadth tension in the AP US Government and Politics course. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(4), 533–559. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2011.584561
Purcell-GatesV.DukeN. K.MartineauJ. A. (2007). Learning to read and write genre-specific text: Roles of authentic experience and explicit teaching. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(1), 8–45. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.42.1.1
65.
Purcell-GatesV.JacobsonE.DegenerS. (2004). Print literacy development: Uniting cognitive and social practice theories. Harvard University Press.
66.
RemillardJ. (2005). Examining key concepts in teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211–246. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075002211
67.
RevelleK. Z. (2019). Teacher perceptions of a project-based approach to social studies and literacy instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 84, 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.04.016
68.
RobinsonA.DaileyD.HughesG.CotabishA. (2014). The effects of a science-focused STEM intervention on gifted elementary students’ science knowledge and skills. Journal of Advanced Academics, 25(3), 189–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X14533799
69.
SaveryJ. R. (2019). Comparative pedagogical models of problem-based learning. In MoallemM.HungW.DabbaghN. (Eds.), The Wiley handbook on problem-based learning (pp. 81–104). John Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119173243.ch4
70.
SayeJ. S.BrushT. (2007). Using technology-enhanced learning environments to support problem-based historical inquiry in secondary school classrooms. Theory & Research in Social Education, 35(2), 196–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2007.10473333
71.
SneddenD. (1916). The “project” as a teaching unit. School and Society, 4, 419–423.
72.
StrachanS. L. (2016). Elementary literacy and social studies integration: An observational study in low- and high-SES classrooms [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Michigan State University.
TaylorB. M.PearsonP. D.ClarkK.WalpoleS. (2000). Effective schools and accomplished teachers: Lessons about primary-grade reading instruction in low-income schools. Elementary School Journal, 101(2), 121–166. https://doi.org/10.1086/499662
75.
TealeW. H.PacigaK. A.HoffmanJ. L. (2007). Beginning reading instruction in urban schools: The curriculum gap ensures a continuing achievement gap. The Reading Teacher, 61(4), 344–348. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.61.4.8
ToledoW.HughesR.DukeN. K.HalvorsenA.StrachanS. L. (2018). Practices of teachers whose students experience high and low growth in the context of project-based learning [Unpublished manuscript]. University of Michigan.
78.
TrettenR.ZachariouP. (1995). Learning about project-based learning: Self-assessment preliminary report of results. Autodesk Foundation.
79.
TurnerJ. (2005). Orchestrating success for African American readers: The case of an effective third-grade teacher. Reading Research and Instruction, 44(4), 27–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388070509558435
80.
VanFossenP. J. (2005). “Reading and math take so much time . . .”: An overview of social studies instruction in Indiana. Theory & Research in Social Education, 33(3), 376–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2005.10473287
81.
VoglerK. E.LintnerT.LipscombG. B.KnopfH.HeafnerT. L.RockT. C. (2007). Getting off the back burner: Impact of testing elementary social studies as part of a state-mandated accountability program. Journal of Social Studies Research, 31(2), 20–34.
82.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (ColeM.John-SteinerV.ScribnerS.SoubermanE., Eds.; LuriaA. R.Lopez-MorillasM.ColeM. [with J. V. Wertsch], Trans.). Harvard University Press.
