Crafting Engaging Science Environments is a high school chemistry and physics project-based learning intervention that meets Next Generation Science Standards performance expectations. It was administered to a diverse group of over 4,000 students in a randomized control trial in California and Michigan. Results show that treatment students, on average, performed 0.20 standard deviations higher than control students on an independently developed summative science assessment. Mediation analyses show an indirect path between teacher- and student-reported participation in modeling practices and science achievement. Exploratory analyses indicate positive treatment effects for enhancing college ambitions. Overall, results show that improving secondary school science learning is achievable with a coherent system comprising teacher and student learning experiences, professional learning, and formative unit assessments that support students in “doing” science.
BloomH. (2005). Randomizing groups to evaluate place-based programs. MDRC.
2.
BlumenfeldP. C.SolowayE.MarxR. W.KrajcikJ. S.GuzdialM.PalincsarA. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3–4), 369–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1991.9653139
3.
ChenC.-H.YangY.-C. (2019). Revisiting the effects of project-based learning on students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis investigating moderators. Educational Research Review, 26(February), 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.11.001
CheungA.SlavinR. E.KimE.LakeC. (2016). Effective secondary science programs: A best-evidence synthesis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(1), 58–81. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21338
6.
CondliffeB.QuintJ.VisherM. G.BangserM. R.DrohojowskaS.SacoL.NelsonE. (2017). Project-based learning: A literature review (Working Paper). MDRC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED578933
7.
CooperM. M. (2020). The crosscutting concepts: Critical component or “third wheel” of three-dimensional learning?Journal of Chemical Education, 97(4), 903–909. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b01134
8.
Darling-HammondL.HylerM. E.GardnerM. (2017, May). Effective teacher professional development [Research Brief]. Learning Policy Institute.
EngelsM.MillerB.SquiresA.JenneweinJ. S.EitelK. (2019). The confluence approach: Developing scientific literacy through project-based learning and place-based education in the context of NGSS. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 23(3), 33–58. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1228452.pdf
11.
FrankK. A.MaroulisS. J.DuongM. Q.KelceyB. M. (2013). What would it take to change an inference? Using Rubin’s causal model to interpret the robustness of causal inferences. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35(4), 437–460. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373713493129
12.
GaretM. S.PorterA. C.DesimoneL.BirmanB. F.YoonK. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312038004915
13.
HarrisC. J.KrajcikJ. S.PellegrinoJ. W.DeBargerA. H. (2019). Designing knowledge-in-use assessments to promote deeper learning. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 38(2), 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12253
14.
HarrisC. J.PenuelW.D’AngeloC.DeBargerA.GallagherL.KennedyC.ChengB.KrajcikJ. (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
15.
HinojosaT.RapaportA.JaciwA.LiCalsiC.ZacamyJ. (2016). Exploring the foundations of the future STEM workforce: K–12 indicators of postsecondary STEM success. U.S. Department of Education.
KrajcikJ. (2014). The importance of viable models in the construction of professional development. In WojnowskiB. S.PeaC. P. (Eds.), Models and approaches to STEM professional development (pp. 33–44). NSTA Press. https://static.nsta.org/pdfs/samples/PB322Xf.pdf
18.
KrajcikJ.CzerniakC. (2018). Teaching science in elementary and middle school: A project-based approach (5th ed.). Taylor & Francis.
19.
KrajcikJ.ShinN. (2014). Project-based learning. In SawyerR. K. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 275–297). Cambridge University Press.
20.
LeeC.NasirN.PeaR.de RoystonM. (2020). Reconceptualizing learning: A critical task for knowledge-building and teaching. In NasirN. S.LeeC. D.PeaR.de RoystonM. M. (Eds.), Handbook of the cultural foundations of learning (pp. xvii–xxxv). Routledge.
21.
LorahJ. (2018). Effect size measures for multilevel models: Definition, interpretation, and TIMSS example. Large-scale Assessments in Education, 6(1), Article 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-018-0061-2
22.
MaestralesS.DezendorfR.TangX.Salmela-AroK.BartzK.JuutiK.LavenonJ.KrajcikJ.SchneiderB. (2021). U.S. and Finnish high school science engagement during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12784
23.
MaestralesS.ZhaiX.TouitouI.BakerQ.SchneiderB.KrajcikJ. (2021). Using machine learning to evaluate multidimensional assessments of chemistry and physics. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 30(2), 239–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09895-9
24.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2019). Science and engineering for Grades 6–12: Investigation and design at the center. The National Academies Press.
25.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2021). Results from the 2019 Science Assessment. U.S. Department of Education and the Institute of Education Sciences.
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
35.
PituchK. A.MurphyD. L.TateR. L. (2009). Three-level models for indirect effects in school- and class-randomized experiments in education. Journal of Experimental Education, 78(1), 60–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220970903224685
36.
PolikoffM. S.CampbellS. E.KoedelC.LeQ. T.HarawayT.GasparianH. (2018). The formalized processes districts use to evaluate textbooks [University of Southern California Working Paper].
37.
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.2.2.173
38.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. (2002). Hierarchical linear models (2nd ed.). Sage.
39.
Riegle-CrumbC.KingB. (2010). Questioning a White male advantage in STEM: Examining disparities in college major by gender and race/ethnicity. Educational Researcher, 39(9), 656–664. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X10391657
40.
Riegle-CrumbC.KingB.IrizarryY. (2019). Does STEM stand out? Examining racial/ethnic gaps in persistence across postsecondary fields. Educational Researcher, 48(3), 133–144. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X19831006
41.
Riegle-CrumbC.MooreC.Ramos-WadaA. (2011). Who wants to have a career in science or math? Exploring adolescents’ future aspirations by gender and race/ethnicity. Science Education, 95(3), 458–476. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20431
42.
RoseberyA. S.WarrenB.Tucker-RaymondE. (2016). Developing interpretive power in science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(10), 1571–1600. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21267
43.
SassonI.YehudaI.MalkinsonN. (2018). Fostering the skills of critical thinking and question-posing in a project-based learning environment. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 29(September), 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TSC.2018.08.001
44.
SchneiderB.KlagerC.ChenI.-C.BurnsJ. (2016). Transitioning into adulthood: Striking a balance between support and independence. Policy Insights From the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(1), 106–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732215624932
45.
SchneiderB.KrajcikJ.LavonenJ.Salmela-AroK. (2020). Learning science: The value of crafting engagement in science environments. Yale University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvwcjfk1
46.
SinatraG. M.HeddyB. C.LombardiD. (2015). The challenges of defining and measuring student engagement in science. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.1002924
SpybrookJ.WestineC. D.TaylorJ. A. (2016). Design parameters for impact research in science education: A multistate analysis. AERA Open, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858415625975
49.
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
50.
van den BerghL.RosA.BeijaardD. (2015). Teacher learning in the context of a continuing professional development programme: A case study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 47(April), 142–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.01.002
WooldridgeJ. M. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. MIT Press.
53.
ZellE.KrizanZ.TeeterS. R. (2015). Evaluating gender similarities and differences using metasynthesis. American Psychologist, 70(1), 10–20. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038208
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.
