This investigation studied the effects of the Multiple Literacies in Project-Based Learning science intervention on third graders’ academic, social, and emotional learning. This intervention includes four science units and materials, professional learning, and post-unit assessments; features of project-based learning; three-dimensional learning (National Research Council, 2012); and the performance expectations from the Next Generation of Science Standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013). The intervention was evaluated with a cluster randomized control trial in 46 Michigan schools with 2,371 students. Results show that students who received the intervention had higher scores on a standardized science test (0.277 standard deviation) and reported higher levels of self-reflection and collaboration when involved in science activities.
AriasA.DavisE.Carlos MarinoJ.KademianS.PalincsarA. (2016). Teachers’ use of educative curriculum materials to engage students in science practices. International Journal of Science Education, 38(9), 1504–1526. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1198059
2.
BainesA.DeBargerA.De VivoK.WarnerN. (2017). Why is social and emotional learning essential to project-based earning? LER Position Paper 2. George Lucas Educational Foundation.
3.
BartzK.ChenI. C. (2021). An equitable intervention for student science achievement. In KrajcikJ.SchneiderB. (Eds.), Science education through multiple literacies: Project-based learning in elementary sciences (pp. 95–108). Harvard Education Press Group.
4.
BaserD.Yasar OzdenM.KaraarslanH. (2017). Collaborative project-based learning: An integrative science and technological education project. Research in Science and Technological Education, 35(2), 131–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2016.1274723
5.
BaumfalkB.BhattacharyaD.VoT.ForbesC.ZangoriL.SchwarzC. (2019). Impact of model-based science curriculum and instruction on elementary students’ explanations for the hydrosphere. Journal of Research on Science Teaching, 56(5), 570–597. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21514
BloomH. (2005). Randomizing groups to evaluate place-based programs. In BloomH. (Ed.), Learning more from social experiments: Evolving analytic approaches (pp. 115–172). Russell Sage Foundation.
CheungA.SlavinR.KimE.LakeC. (2016). Effective secondary science programs: A best evidence synthesis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(1), 58–81. https://doi.org/10:10.1002/tea.21338
CurranC.KitchinJ. (2019). Early elementary science instruction: Does more time on science or science topics/skills predict science achievement in the early grades?AERA Open, 5(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419861081
12.
Darling-HammondL.BarronB.CervettiG.PearsonD.SchoenfeldA.StageE.TilsonJ.ZimmermanT. (2008). Powerful learning: What we know about teaching for understanding. Jossey-Bass.
13.
DeweyJ. (1938). Experience and education. Macmillan Publishers.
14.
DorphR.ShieldsP.Tiffany-MoralesJ.HartryA.McCaffreyT. (2011). High hopes—Few opportunities: The status of elementary science education in California. Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning at WestEd.
15.
DuncanR. G.KrajcikJ. S.RivetA. E. (2016). Disciplinary core ideas: Reshaping teaching and learning. National Science Teachers Association Press.
16.
DurlakJ. A.DomitrovichC. E.WeissbergR. P.GullottaT. P. (Eds.). (2015). Handbook of social and emotional learning: Research and practice. Guilford Publications.
17.
EasleyK. M. (2020). Simulations and sensemaking in elementary project-based science. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan].
18.
FitzgeraldM. S. (2020). Overlapping opportunities for literacy learning and social-emotional learning in elementary-grade project-based instruction. American Journal of Education, 126(4), 573–601. https://doi.org/10.1086/709545
19.
FortusD.KrajcikJ. (2012). Curriculum coherence and learning progressions. In FraserB.TobinK.McRobbieC. (Eds.), Second International Handbook of Science Education (pp. 783–798). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9041-7_52
20.
GriffithG.ScharmannL. (2008). Initial impacts of No Child Left Behind on elementary science education. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 20(3), 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF0317470
21.
HaasA.JanuszykR.GrapinR.GogginsM.LlosaL.LeeO. (2021). Developing instructional materials aligned to the Next Generation Science Standards for all students, including English learners. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 32(7), 735–756. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2020.1827190
22.
HarrisC. J.PenuelW. R.D’AngeloC. M.DeBargerA. H.GallagherL. P.KennedyC. A.ChengB. H.KrajcikJ. S. (2015). Impact of project-based curriculum materials on student learning in science: Results of a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(10), 1362–1385. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21263
JagersR.Rivas-DrakeD.WilliamsB. (2019). Transformative social and emotional learning (SEL): Toward SEL in service of educational equity and excellence. Educational Psychologist, 54(3), 162–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2019.1623032
25.
KlagerC. (2017). Project-based learning in science: A meta-analysis of science achievement effects [Working paper]. Michigan State University.
26.
KohlhassK.LinH.ChuK. (2010). Science equity in third grade. Elementary School Journal, 110(3), 393–408. https://doi.org/10.1086/648985
KrajcikJ.SchneiderB. (2021). Science education through multiple literacies: Project-based learning in elementary school. Harvard Education Publishing Group.
29.
KrajcikJ.SchneiderB.MillerE.ChenI.BradfordL.BartzK.BakerQ.PalinscarA.Peek-BrownD.CodereS. (2021, January11). Assessing the effect of project-based learning on science learning in elementary schools: A technical report. Michigan State University.
30.
KrajcikJ. S.ShinN. (2014). Project-based learning. In SawyerR. K. (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (2nd ed., pp. 275–297). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139519526.018
31.
LeeC.NasirN.PeaR.de RoystonM. (2019). Reconceptualizing learning: A critical ask for knowledge building and technology. In NasirN. S.LeeC. D.PeasR.de RoystonM. M. (Eds.), Handbook of the cultural foundations of learning (pp. xvii–xxxv). Routledge.
32.
LiT. (2021). Developing deep learning through systems thinking. In KrajcikJ.SchneiderB. (Eds.), Science education through multiple literacies: Project-based learning in elementary sciences (pp. 79–94). Harvard Education Press Group.
33.
LynchS. J.PykeC.GraftonB. H. (2012). A retrospective view of a study of middle school science curriculum materials: Implementation, scale-up, and sustainability in a changing policy environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(3), 305–332. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21000
34.
MillerC. (2021). Student social and emotional learning in science. In KrajcikJ.SchneiderB. (Eds.), Science education through multiple literacies: Project-based learning in elementary sciences (pp. 35–48). Harvard Education Press Group.
35.
MillerE. C.KrajcikJ. S. (2019). Promoting deep learning through project-based learning: A design problem. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 1(1), 1–10.
36.
MislevyR. J.RiconscenteM. M. (2006). Evidence-centered assessment design: Layers, structures, and terminology. In DowningS.HaladynaT. (Eds.), Handbook of test development (pp. 61–90). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
37.
National Academies of Sciences. (2021). Science and engineering in preschool through elementary grades: The brilliance of children and strengths of educators. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26215
38.
National Research Council. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/9853
39.
National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K–8. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/11625
40.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165
41.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18290
NordineJ.LeeO. (2021). Crosscutting concepts: Strengthening science and engineering learning. National Science Teachers Association Press.
44.
PinkardN.EreteS.MartinC.McKinney de RoystonM. (2017). Digital youth divas: Exploring narrative-driven curriculum to spark middle school girls’ interest in computational activities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 26(3), 477–516. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2017.1307199
45.
RaudenbushS. W. (1997). Statistical analysis and optimal design for cluster randomized trials. Psychological Methods, 2(2), 173–185. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.2.2173
46.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
47.
RoschelleJ.KnudsenJ.HegedusS. J. (2010). From new technological infrastructures to curricular activity systems: Advanced designs for teaching and learning. In JacobsonM. J.ReimannP. (Eds.), Designs for learning environments of the future: International perspectives from the learning sciences (pp. 233–262). Springer.
48.
SchmidtW.WangH.McKnightC. (2005). Curriculum coherence: An examination of U.S. mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(5), 525–559. https://doi.org/10.108-/0022027042000294682
49.
SchneiderB.KrajcikJ.LavonenJ.Salmela-AroK.BrodaM.SpicerJ.BrunerJ.MoellerJ.LinnansaariJ.JuutiK.ViljarantaJ. (2016). Investigating optimal learning moments in U.S. and Finnish science classes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(3), 400–421.
50.
SchneiderB.KrajcikJ.LavonenJ.Salmela-AroK.KlagerC.BradfordL.ChenI.-C.BakerQ.TouitouI.Peek-BrownD.DezendorfR. M.MaestralesS.BartzK. (2022). Improving science achievement—Is it possible? Evaluating the efficacy of a high School chemistry and physics project-based learning intervention. Educational Researcher, 51(2), 109–121. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X211067742
51.
SchwarzC. V.PassmoreC.ReiserB. J. (2016). Helping students make sense of the world using next generation science and engineering practices—PB351X. National Science Teachers Association Press.
52.
SpybrookJ.BloomH.CongdonR.HillC.MartinezA.RaudenbushS. (2011). Optimal design plus empirical evidence: Documentation for the “optimal design” (Version 3.0) [Computer software]. https://sites.google.com/site/optimaldesignsoftware/home
53.
ThomasJ. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. Autodesk Foundation.
54.
TiptonE. (2014). How generalizable is your experiment? An index for comparing experimental samples and populations. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 39(6), 478–501. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998614558486
TiptonE.OlsenR. (2018). A review of statistical methods for generalizing from evaluations of educational intervention. Educational Researcher, 47(8), 516–524. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X18781522
57.
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, & National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. (2020). What Works Clearinghouse: Standards handbook version 4.1. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/handbooks
58.
Vincent-LancrinS.Gonzales-SanchoC.BouckaretM.LucaF.Fernandez-BarrerraM.JacotinG.UrgelJ.VidalQ. (2019). Fostering students’ creativity and critical thinking: What it means in school. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/62212c37-en
59.
WilsonC. D.TaylorJ. A.KowalskiS. M.CarlsonJ. (2010). The relative effects and equity of inquiry-based and commonplace science teaching on students’ knowledge, reasoning, and argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(3), 276–301. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20329
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
