Project-Based Learning

loseph S. Krajcik and Phyllis C. Blumenfeld

Any teacher or parent can tell you that scoring students, those at•the top colleges,
many students are bored in school. But often had not acquired a deeper concep-
! many of them tend to assume that bore- tual understanding of material — whether in
dom is not a problem with the best stu- science, literature, or math (Gardner, i‹)‹) I].
d dents, and that if students tried harder or Educators still face these critical problems
learned better they wouldn't be bored. In today.
the n8 os and iQQos, education researchers
I. earning sciences research provides a
increasingly realized that when students are
potential solution to these problems. Draw-
bored and unengaged, they are less likely ing on the cognitive sciences and other
to learn (Blumenfeld et a1., i ‹)‹) i). Stud- disciplines, learning scientists are uncover-
ies of student experience found that almost ing the cognitive structure of deeper con-
all students are bored in school, even the ceptual understanding, discovering prim i-
ones who score well on standardized tests plcs that govern learning, and showing in
(Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde, R Whalen, detail that schools teach superficial knowl-
iQq 3). By about iq‹)o, it became obvious edge rather than deeper knowledge. Draw-
to education researchers that the prob- ing on this research, many learning scientists
lem wasn’t the fault of the students; there are developing new types of curricula, with
was something wrong with the structure of the goal of increasing student engagement
schooling. If we could find a way to engage and helping them develop deeper under-
students in their learning, to restructure the standing of important ideas. Our own contri-
classroom so that students would be moti- bution is articulating the features of pruj .ct-
vated to learn, that would be a dramatic based learning (Blumenfeld ct al., zooo;
change. Krajcik et a1., iq‹) ). Project-based learn-
Also by about i qQo, new assessments ing allows students to learn by doing and
of college students had shown that the applying ideas. Students engage in real-
knowledge they acquired in hiyh school world activities that arc similar to the
remained at a superficial level. F.ven the best- activities that adult professionals engage in.

3'7
 J'AIE CAM B RI DG E HAN DBOO K Ot ’l’II Ii I. EA HNING SC I UN C ES

Project-based learning is a form of situ- learning sciences theory behind

ated learning (Greeno, this volume) and it project-
is based on the constructivist finding that
students gain a deeper understanding of
material when they actively construct their
understand by working with and using ideas.
In project-based learning, students engage in
real, meaningful problems that are impor-
tant to them and that are similar to what
scientists, mathematicians, writers, and his-
torians do. A project-based classroom allows
students to investigate questions, propose
hypotheses and explanations, discuss their
ideas, challenge the ideas of others, and try
out new ideas. Research has demonstrated
that students in project-based learning class-
rooms get higher scores than students in tra-
ditional classrooms (Marx et al., z O 4: Rivet
& Krajcik, 20 4 i William & Linn, 2oO3).
Project-based learning is an overall
approach to the design of learning envi-
ronments. Learning environments that
are project-based have five key features
(Blumenfeld et al., '99'; Krajcik, et al.,
' 994a Krajcik, Czerniak, & Berger, zOO2 )
i. They stsrt with a driving question, a prob-
lem to be solved.
2. Students explore the driving question
by participating in authentic, situated
inquiry — processes of problem solving
that are central to expert performance
in the discipline. As students explore the
driving question, they learn and apply
important ideas in the discipline.
3. . Students, teachers, and community
mem- bers engage in collaborative
activities to find solutions to the
driving question. This mirrors the
complex social situation of expert
problem solving.
4 While engaged in the inquiry process, stu-
dents are scaffolded with learning tech-
nologies that help them participate in
activities normally beyond their ability.
$ . Students create a set of tangible products
that address the driving question. These
are shared artifacts, publicly accessible
external representations of the class’s
learning.
In the next section, we summarize the
based learning. Our own efforts have
emphasized applying project-based meth- ods
to science classrooms, so in the section after that,
we show how our work builds on project-based
learning principles. Based on over ten years
working in science classrooms, we have learned
several important lessons about how to apply
project-based learning in schools, and in the
bulk of the chapter, we group our lessons
around the five key features of project-based
learning. We close by discussing issues that we
encountered in scaling up our curriculum.

Theoretical Background of
Project-Based Learning

The roots of project-based learning extend back

over a hundred years, to the work of
educator and philosopher John Dewey (iQ y
Q), whose Laboratory School at the Uni- versity of
Chicago was based on the process of inquiry.
Dewey argued that students will develop
personal investment in the material if they
engage in real, meaningful tasks and problems
that emulate what experts do in real-world
situations. In the last two decades, learning
sciences researchers have refined and
elaborated Dewey's original insight that active
inquiry results in deeper understand- ing. New
discoveries in the learning sciences have led to
new ways of understanding how children learn
(Bransford, Brown, & Cock- ing, iQ 99) We
build on four major learning
sciences ideas: (i) active construction, (2) Sit-
uated learning, (3) social interactions, and
(4) cognitive tools.

Active Construction
Learning sciences research has found that deep
understanding occurs when a learner actively
constructs meaning based on his or her
experiences and interaction in the world, and that
only superficial learning occurs when learners
passively take in information transmitted from
a teacher, a computer, or a book (Sawyer
introduction, this volume). The development of
understanding is a con- tinuous process that
requires students to construct and reconstruct
what they know
 PRO JECT-BASED 1.EARN I NG
31 9

from new experiences and ideas, and prior from the textbook, they don’t learn how
knowledge and experiences. Teachers and and where to apply these same procedures
materials do not reveal knowledge to learn- outside of the classroom. However, when
ers; rather, learners actively build knowl- students acquire information in a meaning-
edge as they explore the surrounding world, ful context (Blumenfeld et al., iQq i) and
observe and interact with phenomena, take relate it to their prior knowledge and expe-
in new ideas, make connections between riences, they can form connections between
new and old ideas, and discuss and inter- the new information and the prior knowl-
act with others. In project-based learning, edge to develop better, larger, and more
students actively construct their knowledge linked conceptual understanding.
by participating in real-world activities sim-
ilar to those that experts engage in, to solve
problems and develop artifacts.
One of the most solid findings to emerge
Situated Learning from learning sciences research is the impor-
tant role of social interaction in learning
Learning sciences research has shown that (Collins, this volume; Greeno, this volume;
the most effective learning occurs when Sawyer, this volume). The best learning
the learning is situated in an authentic, real- results from a particular kind of social
world context. In some scientific dis- ciplines, interaction: when teachers, students, and
scientists conduct experiments in community members work together in a sit-
laboratories; in others, they systematically uated activity to construct shared under-
observe the natural world and draw con- standing. Learners develop understandings
clusions from their observations. Situated of principles and ideas through sharing,
learning in science would involve students in using, and debating ideas with others
experiencing phenomena as they take part in (Blumenfeld et al., iqQ6). This bmk-and-
various scientific practices such as designing forth sharing, using, and debating of ideas
investigations, making explanations, model- helps to create a community of learners.
ing, and presenting their ideas to others. One
of the benefits of situated learning is that
students can more easily see the value and Cognitive Tools
meaning of the tasks and activities they per- 1.earning sciences research has demonstrated
form. When students do a science experi- the important role of tools in learning
ment by following detailed steps in the text- (Salomon, Perkins, & Globerson, iQqi). Cog-
book, that’s hardly any better than passively nitive tools can amplify and expand what
listening to a lecture. Either way, it’s hard students can learn. A graph is an exam-
for them to see the meaning in what they're ple of a cognitive tool that helps learners
doing. But when they create their own inves- see patterns in data. Various forms of com-
tigation design to answer a question that puter software can be considered cognitive
is important to them and their community, tools because they allow learners to carry
they can see how science can be applied to out tasks not possible without the software's
solve important problems. assistance and support. For instance, new
A second benefit of situated learning is forms of computer software allow learners
that it seems to generalize better to a wider to visualize complex data sets (Edelson &
range of situations (Kolodner, this volume). Reiser, this volume). In such situations, we
When learners acquire information through refer to the computer software as a learning
memorization of discrete facts that are not technology.
connected to important and meaningful sit- Learning technologies can support stu-
uations, the superficial understanding that dents (i) in accessing and collecting a range
results is difficult for students to general- of scientific data and information; (z) by
ize to new situations. When students par- providing visualization and data analysis
ticipate in step-by-step science experiments tools similar to those used by scientists;
 (3) by allowing for collaboration and sharing are similar to what scientists do. A project-
of information across sites; (q) by plan- based science classroom allows students to
ning, building, and testing models; and ($) explore phenomena, investigate questions,
by developing multimedia documents that discuss their ideas, challenge the ideas of oth-
illustrate student understanding (Novak & ers and try out new ideas. Research shows
Krajcik, zooh). These features expand the that PBS has the potential to help all stu-
range of c{uestions that students can inves-
dents — regardless of culture, race, or gender —
tigate and the multitude and type of phe- engage in and learn science (Atwater, it)qq;
nomena students can experience. Although Haberman, uq i).
learners can use a variety of cognitive tools
PBS responds to science education rec-
in project-based learning, we place a special ommendations made by national organiza-
focus on the use of learning technologies.
tions. The National Science Education Stan-
dards (National Research CounciJ, n)Qfi)
highlight the importance of students doing
Project-Based Science
inquiJ to promote personal decision mak-
ing, participation in societal and cultural
In the early ufos, educators increasingly affairs, and economic productivity. "Fhe
realized that most students were not moti- AAAS report Science for all Americans
vated to learn science, and that even the (AAAS, iq8q) calls for students to develop
best students acquired only a superficial habits of mind such as being aware that there
understanding of science. Researchers began may be more than one good way to interpret
to discover that these superficial under- a given set of findings, keeping honest and
standings were caused by a combinatidt›
thorough records, and deciding what degree
of ineffective textbook design. and instruc-
of precision is adequate.
tional style. Science textbooks covered
During the ufos, our group at the Uni-
many, topics at a superficial level, focused
versity of Michigan, the Center for Highly
on technical vocabulary, failed to consider
Interactive Computers in Education (hi-ce)
students’ prior knowledge, lacked coherent developed strategies for fostering learning in
explanations of real-world phenomena,
a PBS environment, and designed and devel-
and didn’t give students an opportunity
oped curriculum materials using the princi-
to develop their own explanations of phe- ples of i'BS (Blumcnfeld ct al., iqqi; Krajcik
nomena (Kesidou & Roseman, z ooz). And
ct al., ibq8; Marx et a1., 2oo 4). We worked
although most science teachers have their with high school teachers to develop PBS
classes do experiments, most teachers spec-
environments so that different science dis-
ify the exact sequence of steps that students ciplines (biology, chemistry, and earth sci-
are supposed to perform — what scientists ence) were integrated into a three-year pro-
often refer to as “cookbook” procedures. gram (Heubel-Drake et al., uq ). hi-ce also
Following a cookbook recipe doesn’t require has worked with middle school teachers to
a deeper understanding of the material, transform their teaching (Fishman & Davis,
and at best it results in only superficial this volume; Novak & Gleason, door; Scott,
learning.
In response to these findings, several '994). More recently, we developed curricu-
lum materials as one approach to bring about
researchers began to work collaboratively systemic change in the Detroit Urban Sys-
with middle school and high school science temic Initiative funded by NSW (Blumenfeld
teachers to develop project-based instruc-
et al., z ooo; Marx et al., 2ooh).
tion in science (Blumenfeld et a1., 2ooo;
Krajcik et al., iqQd; Krajcik et al., iqq8;
O'Neill & Polman, 2 ooh; Polman, iQQQ; Lessons for Project-Based
Ruopp et a1., iQq2; 3’inker, is' ›7: William & Learning Environments
Linn, z oo3). In project-based science (PBS),
students engage in real, meaningful prob-
Over the last seven years, through our
lems that are important to them and that
involvement in the Center for Learning
Technologies in Urban Schools (LeTUS) develop meaningful understandings of key
(Blumenfrld et al., 2Ooo; Marx et al., scientific concepts, principles and practices.
2OO4) and the Investigating and Question- A good driving question elicits a desire
ing our World through Science and Tech- to learn in students (Edelson, 2ooi), and
nology (IQ WST) project (Reiser et al., it makes students realize that there is an
2oo3), we worked closely with teachers to important problem that genuinely needs
design, develop, and test PBS curriculum to be solved (Reiser, 2ooh). Throughout
materials. 1.eTUS was a collaborative effort the project, the teacher calls attention to
among Detroit Public Schools, Chicago Pub- the driving question to link together the
lic Schools, Northwestern University, and various ideas students explore during the
the University of Michigan to improve mid- project.
dle school science teaching and learning. The Good driving questions have several fea-
collaborative work in I.eTUS took as its core tures. Driving questions should be (i) feasi-
challenge the use of inquiry and the infusion bh in that students can design and perform
of learning technologies to support learn- investigations to answer the question; (2)
ing in urban classrooms. IQWST is a joint
worthwhile in that they contain rich science
venture between the University of Michi- content that aligns with national or district
gan and Northwestern University to develop standards and relates to what scientists really
the next generation of middle school do; (3) contextualized in that they are real
curriculum materials. To date, 1.eTUS
world, nontrivial, and important; (4) mean-
materials developed at the University of
ingful in that they are interesting and excit-
Michigan have resulted in five different PBS- ing to learners; ( ) etfitcnl in that they do no
based curriculum units that teachers can
harm to individuals, organisms or the envi-
use at the sixth, seventh, or eighth grade
ronment (Krajcik et al., 2 ooh).
levels.’
In PBS, the teacher or curriculum
While engaged in this work, we have
designer select the driving question, or
learned many lessons that are relevant to
sometimes the students work together with
all project-based learning (Blumenfeld et al.,
the teacher to select the question (Krajcik
199‹ ; Krajcik ct al., i‹)‹)8; Marx et al., iQ‹)y;
et al.,• z ooh; Scardamalia & Bereiter, this
Tinker & Krajcik, 2OOI). We've grouped volume). Some project-based methods start
these lessons around the five key features
the process by having students develop their
of project-based learning: driving ques-
own driving question. This has the advan-
tions, situated inquiry, collaboration, learn-
tage that it results in a question that is mean-
ing technologies, and artifacts. ingful to students. However, it is extremely
difficult for students to develop driving
questions that have all the properties of a
Feature i: Driving Questions • good driving question. Our approach has
been to design curriculum around a driv-
The hallmark of project-based learning is a ing question that we select in collabora-
driving question that guides instruction and tion with teachers but that allow students
that learners find meaningful and important either to explore solutions to their own
(Blumenfeld et a1., i‹ ‹ i; Krajcik et al., 2OOH). related questions or to engage in a design
A driving c{uestion encompasses worthwhile project to ask related questions in the unit.
content that is meaningful and anchored One of our units is based on the driving
in a real-world situation. The driving ques- question How Do Machines Help Me Build
tion serves to organize and drive activi- Big Tfitrigs? {Big Things) (Rivet & Krajcik,
ties of the project, provides a context in 2ooh). In Btg Things students learn about
which students can use and explore learn- balanced and unbalanced forces and their
ing goals and scientific practices, and pro- effect on motion, simple machines and how
vides continuity and coherence to the full they work together in complex machines,
range of r roject activities. As students pur- and the concept of mechanical advantage,
sue solutions to the driving question, they and use this understanding to design and
 j22

explain a complex machine of their own

choosing. rience to discuss and relate back to through-
out the project (Hug & Krajcik, zoo*).

Lesson la: Helping Students See the Ka/we Lesson b. Stnnda•ds Versus In-Depth
o/Driviitg Questions
Often students do not see the value of a A second lesson that we have learned is that
driving question. One of the major chal- many driving questions do not meet impor-
lenges facing teachers and designers of cur- tant learning goals aligned to national or
riculum materials is to find ways to help stu- district standards. In LeT“US, we began by
dents realize the value of the driving ques- designing curriculum materials using con-
tions. One way in which we met this chal- texts that would engage students and be of
lenge was through the use of anchoring expe- interest and value to the community. We
riences (Cognition and T’echno1ogy Group selected issues like “What is the quality of
at Vanderbilt, iqQ*). Anchoring experiences air in•my community?” and “What is the
provide students with common experiences water like in my river?” Although students
which help them relate to the new ideas find these projects motivating and they met
explored in the project (Rivet & Krajcik, some important learning goals that aligned
2002 ; Sherwood et al., i‹ 8y). Anchoring to national and local standards, starting with
experiences also present meaningful con- these questions did not allow us to system-
texts for the science ideas explored in the atically meet standards.
project. We use anchoring experiences at In a new materials development effort,
the beginning of and throughout a project Investigating and Questioning our World
to show the value of the project’s driving through Science and Technology (IQWST)
question (Cognition and ’technology Group (Reiser et al., 2oo 3), the IQWS’F team plans
at Vanderbilt, iQq* ; Marx et al., i v!)7: Rivet to design, develop, and test the next gen-
& Krajcik, 2OO4J. eration of curriculum materials that teach-
In Can Good friends Make Me Sick? (Hug ers and students can use throughout the
& Krajcik, 2002), an eight-week unit that nation. If these materials are to scale up
addresses national standards related to cells, so that numerous teachers and students use
systems, microbiology, and disease, teachers them (Dede, this volume), then one t:rite-
introduce students to the driving question rion that the materials need to meet is they
by reading and discussing a story about a must help students achieve major learning
young South African boy who contracted goals that align with national and district
aids and became an AIDS activist. This story standards. To ensure PBS curriculum aligns
is an anchoring experience that provides a with these standards, we plan a three-step
context for discussing how disease relates process. We start by selecting the national
to them and other middle school children. standards students should achieve (Wiggins
In a second anchoring experience, students fi McTighe, nq 8). For instance, a stan-
participate in an activity that simulates how dard from the National Science Education
an infectious disease might spread through a Standards (NRC, iQQd›) states that students
community. First, they each mix a solution in should know the following:
a test tube. Then, students walk around the
class, and when they meet another student, A substance has characteristic properties,
they mix the contents of their test tubes. such as density, a boiling point, and solu-
Some test tubes contain an indicator that bility, all oJ which are independent of the
reacts with a substance in other test tubes. As amount of the sample. {Corneal Standard
students share the content of their test tubes, B -8: iA)
more and more test tubes change color — sim- But what is it that we expect students to
ulating the transfer of a communicable dis- do with this knowledge? To specify what
ease. This activity provides a common expe- reasoning we expect students to be able
 to do with this knowledge, we rewrite the plant growth, and objects falling to the
standard in terms of kar›itng performance ground. To answer their questions, scien-
(Perkins et al., iQQ y). Learning performances tists take part in scientific inquiry. In scien-
restate standards in terms of the cognitive tific inquiry, scientists frame hypotheses that
tasks students should perform (Reiser et a1., build from theories and previous research;
200 ; McNeill & Krajcik, in press). Learning design investigations that allow them to
performances reflect the cognitive tasks that use tools and technologies to gather, ana-
we want students to be able to do using sci- lyze, and interpret data; and create expla-
entific knowledge: describe phenomena, use nations of the phenomena. These are scien-
models to explain patterns in data, construct it/c practices: the multiple ways of knowing
scientific explanations, and test hypotheses and doing that scientists use to study the
(Reiser et al., zoo3 J. natural world (National Research Council,
After determining learning performances, i9qf›). Although scientists do not follow a
we use them as guides for designing the
fixed set of steps that leads them to new sci-
driving question, tasks, and assessments. We
entific understandings, all scientists rely on
believe that this new process will ensure that
the use of evidence and theories to explain
PBS methods align better with standards.
and predict phenomena that occur in the
However, we are concerned that when we
world.
start with the standards rather than the driv-
In PbS classrooms, students explore the
ing question, it may be hard to find ques-
driving question using new ideas that they’re
tions that students find meaningful and inter-
learning, and they investigate the driv-
esting. In the development of one of the
ing question over a sustained period of
first IQWST units, we started with standard- time. This is different from traditional sci-
ized learning goals related to understand- ence classrooms, which engage in short-term
ing the nature of chemical reactions and the activities and provide cookbook prq,cedures
conservations of mass (McNeill & Krajcik, that are not situated in an inquiry pro-
in press). We had several meetings with cess. In the project “hat is the quality of
teachers to discuss possible driving ques- water in our river?” (Singer et a1., 2ooo) stu-
tions. Some seemed too trivial and did not “dents conduct different water quality tests,
lead to opportunities for students to explore such as pH, turbidity, temperature, and dis-
phenomena. We finally settled on “How do solved oxygen to infer water quality. In the
I make new stuff from old stuff,” and we project, “Can Good Friends Make Me Sick?”
created an anchoring experience of making students design and conduct investigations
soap as an example of making new stuff from to explore various questions regarding the
old stuff. growth of bacteria. By exploring these ques-
tions, learners take part in various scientific
practices.
Feature z: Situated Inquiry
Lessons z a: Helping Students Design
Throughout the history of science edu-
cation, national organizations and promi-
nent scientists have argued that science Middle school students find it difficult to
instruction should mirror the scientific pro- engage in the inquiry process, particularly if
cess (Hurd, i‹j7o; National Research Coun- they’ve had no previous experiences in sci-
ci1, i‹ qfi; Rutherford, iq64: Scardamalia & ence (Edelson & Reiser, this volume; Krajcik
Bereiter, this volume). Of course, science et a1., i‹)q8). To support teachers, our cur-
classrooms are not scientific laboratories. riculum materials present very thorough
But science classrooms need to be consis- details about how to perform a basic inves-
tent with science. The goal of science is to tigation related to the driving question. The
explain and predict various phenomena — teacher first models the investigation while
events such as erosion, diseases, rusting, asking students to provide suggestions. Next,
 24

the students use these techniques to perform

their own investigations while the teacher fold students as they develop their own
guides and provides feedback on the process. explanations of the findings. Unfortunately,
many studies have found that students have
Hug and Krajcik (* ooh) explored this strat-
egy in the Communicable Diseases project, a hard time developing scientific explana-
in which students explore the growth of bac- tions (McNeill & Krajcik, in press; Palincsar,
teria. The teacher begins by asking: Do I Anderson, & David, 1Q93). Prior research
suggests that it is hard for students to use
have bacteria on my hands?” and discusses
their explanations to articulate and defend
why this makes a good question. The teacher
then models how to explore this question their claims (Sadler, zooh), to understand
by cultivating bacteria, using appropriate what counts as evidence, to use appropri-
experimental techniques such as noncon- ate evidence (Sandoval & Reiser, zoo 4), Ind
to not rely on their personal views (Hogan
taminated plate as a control. The next day,
& Maglienti, z ooi). Drawing and justifying
after bacteria have grown, the teacher shows
conclusions using primary evidence requires
students how to count the bacteria colonies
sophisticated thinking and much experience,
and how to use the data to write an evidence-
and this type of reasoning has not been
based explanation.
required of most students. In fact, even
After the teacher models the process, stu- many teachers have trouble engaging in this
dents ask related questions and conduct their type of reasoning. Although middle school
own investigations by modifying the proce- teachers have experience working with data
dure modeled by the teacher. Working in from highly structured cookbook experi-
teams, students ask questions such as “Does ments, they are less likely to have experi-
washing my hands make a difference?,” “Do ence using and inferring from real data. As a
different types of soap make a difference?,” result, teachers need support in helping stu-
and “Is there bacteria on the lunch tables dents to create explanations and conclusions
after thay are cleaned?” “the class discusses (Krajcik et al., iQQb).
why these make reasonable and useful ques- To overcome this challenge, we have
tions, encouraging reflection. Next, students become very explicit in the process and
design investigations to find solutions to reasons behind how to scaffold students as
their questions by modifying the procedure they write explanations (McNeill & Krajcik,
the teacher modeled. For instance, if stu- in press; Moje et al., zooh). Our scaf-
dents in a team ask the question, “Does folding strategies include making the ratio-
washing my hands make a difference in the nale behind explanations explicit, model-
amount of bacteria I have on them?,” the ing how to construct explanations, provid-
students need to modify the procedure by ing students with opportunities to engage in
designing conditions in which they contam- explanation construction, and writing scaf-
inate the agar plates using nonwashed and folding comments on students' investigation
washed hands. During the process, teach- sheets. We have students use an explanation
ers give feedback or allow peer feedback to framework that includes three components:
determine if a team’s question and a mod- a claim, evidence, and reasoning. The cairn
ified procedure is feasible and appropriate. makes an assertion that addresses the phe-
Our curriculum materials support teachers nomena students are exploring. The evidence
with detailed commentary that provides a supports the claim using scientific data that
rationale for what is occurring as well as how can come from several sources — observa-
to do it (Davis & Krajcik, zoo ). tions, reading material, archived data, or an
investigation that students complete. The
Lesson z f›: JVriiing Cowfusioits reasoning provides a justification that links
and Explanations the claim and evidence together, showing
why the data count as evidence to support
After completing investigation procedures the claim by using the appropriate scientific
and gathering data, the next step is to scaf- ideas (McNeill & Krajcik, in press).
Feature 3: Collaborations They are conditioned to sit and wait for the
teacher to give them the answer, so they
Project-based learning provides opportuni- don't expend much energy trying to find
ties for students, teachers, and members of the answer on their own. Often, teachers
society to collaborate with one another to too easily fall into this trap and just tell the
investigate questions and ideas. The class- students the answer, because after all, they
room becomes a community of learners will be evaluated on whether or not the stu-
(Brown & Campione, iq‹ q). Students col- dents learn the material. To break students
laborate with others in their classroom and out of the hahits that they’ve learned from
with their teacher to ask questions, write a lifetime of transmission-and-acquisition
explanations, form conclusions, make sense instruction, teachers need to work through-
of information, discuss data, and present out the entire year to get students used to a
findings. Por example, we ask students to cold aborative way of learning.
critique and provide feedback to each oth- Another challenge that we have observed
ers’ explanations. Collaboration helps stu- is that teachers will often cut short the time
dents build shared understandings of scien- for students to collaborate. Perhaps one rea-
tific ideas and of the nature of the discipline son behind this challenge is that teachers
as they engage in discourse with their class- lack appropriate strategies to support stu-
mates and adults outside the classroom. dents in collaboration. However, another
reason might be that teachers don't see col-
Lrssorts 3 a: Crearing laboration as essential to the meaning mak-
a Discourse Community ing process. This challenge, unfortunately,
is much harder to overcome, because it
Students do not naturally collaborate with lies at teachers' belief about what fosters
other students in the classroom (Azmitia, understanding. •
LL) L) I›). Teachers need to help students
develop skills in collaborating, including
turn-taking, listening, and respect for oth- Feature 4: Using Technology Tools
ers' opinions (Krajcik et al., zoo2). Because to Support Learning
students lack skills in collaborating and
have had little experience in collaborating,
'technology tools can help transform the
teach- ers need to huild collaborations over
classroom into an environment in which
the entire school year. 4’eachers can use a
learners actively construct knowledge (1.inn,
tech- nique in which they first asking
iq‹ y; Tinker, iqq7; White & Eredrickson,
students to write down their ideas and then
2Ooo). F.delson (z ooi) gives three reasons to
work with a partner to compare their ideas.
Writ- ten prompts like “My ideas are similar
use technology tools in schools: (i) they align
with the practice of science, (z) they can
to my partners' ideas in these ways” and
present information in dynamic and interac-
“My ideas are different from my partners’
ideas in these ways” help students learn to tive formats, and (3) they provide unprece-
dented opportunities to move teaching away
listen to others and compare their ideas to
others (Krajcik et al., 2002; Compare from a transmission-and-acquisition model
of instruction.
Andriessen, this volume; Scardamalia R
Bereiter, this volume). Students can use learning technologies
to access real data on the Wt›rld Wide
Another challenge that teachers face is
Web, to collaborate with others via net-
changing the culture of the classroom from
works (Stahl ct at., this volume; Novak 8r
the transmission-and-acquisition style that
Krajcik, zooh; Scardamalia & Bereiter, this
students expect. Because most students are
volume; Schofield, this volume), to gather
used to classrooms in which the teacher tells
the students the correct answer, they don't data, to graph and analyze data (Edelson
take collaborative inquiry seriously at first. 8r Reiser, this volume; Schwartz R Heiser,
this volume), to t reate models (I.‹•hrer fi
 ’I‘1II-. CAM8RIDGE HANDBOOK OI-‘ T’III-: I.I'.ARNING SCI i':NCI''S

Schauble, this volume), and to produce computer room only to find it occupied
multimedia artifacts. Learning technologies by another class for the desired day or not
allow students to extend what they can available for other reasons. Occasionally, the
do in the classroom, and serve as power- computer teacher would tell the science
ful cognitive tools that help teachers fos- teacher that some science technology tools,
ter inquiry and student learning (Krajcik such as sensors, were not appropriate for the
et al., zooz; Novak & Krajcik, zooh; Linn, school’s computer lab. At other times, the
iqQ 7; M etcalf-Jackson, Krajcik, & Soloway, room would not be configured in a way that
2ooo).
was conducive to the use of various software
In the Water Quality project, students
and hardware applications. Still other times,
use various sensors to gather data about the
the teacher would prepare the computers for
pH, temperature and turbidity of the river.
his or her class in advance, only to find that
The students take handheld computers with
the computers had been changed.
them to the river, and the data are dis-
The lesson is that before computers can
played immediately in a graph. Other sensor
be (ully integrated into classroom instruc-
devices allow students to collect the data and
tion, networked computers must be avail-
then view them on computer graphs back in
able in every classroom, not only in a dedi-
the classrooms. Students use the new ideas
cated computer lab (Blumenfeld et al., 2ooo;
they have learned to develop a computer-
Tishman et at., 2004; Schofield, nQ $ , this
based model that shows how various factors
volume).
influence water quality. 'These technologies
help students build connections among the
science ideas, forming a deeper and richer
Less8n q b.- Time Dent td of Using
understanding.
Technology Toofs
Because the Artemis search task took five
L essozz go: .ack*of Computer Access days, teachers were hesitant to use it. They
’I“he “Can food Friends Mafies Me Sick7 “ recognized its value, but they could not jus-
project utilizes a five-day online activity with tify the time commitment when faced with
Artemis"- - a digital resource designed for other curriculum goals. This lesson corre-
student use (Hoffman et al., 2 OO)). Stu- sponds to one of the fundamental tensions
dents used Artemis to explore the sources, facing all constructivist methods — it takes
causes, symptoms and treatments of vari- more time to complete a task where stu-
ous communicable diseases. Teachers and dents are constructing their own knowledge
researchers agreed that this was a valuable in meaningful, situated activities.
activity because it allowed students to search
and synthesize information.
However, teachers seldom used Artemis 1esson qc: /zzzegrAyizzg 1eornif/g
hecause of challenges in gaining access to Technolo ies into Curriculum Materials
the computer lab or because the com-
It is important to introduce new learning
puters were not configured to access the
technologies within the context of an exist-
World Wide Web. Limited access is a major
ing curriculum unit. Initially, we did not
obstacle to the use of learning technologies
use PBS ideas to develop curriculum mate-
(Tishman et al., 2 OOH; SChofield, this vol-
ume). Because most middle school teach-
rials for teachers and students, but rather
ers do not have computers in their rooms,
worked with teachers to help them develop
they need to use the school technology lab- understanding for the features of project-
oratory. Unfortunately, computer laborato- based science and modify their curriculum
to a project-based format (Krajcik et al.,
ries are not assigned exclusively to the sci-
ence class. "I’eachers would plan to use the iqqd). Teachers and administrators clearly
told us that if we wanted teachers with
 PROJ ECT- HASi. D LEARN I
NG 3° 7

different experiences, skills, and comfort lev- in developing understanding associated with
els in teaching science to use learning tech- the learning goals of the project.
nology and do inquiry, we needed to pro- PBS focuses on artifact development for
vide materials that guided teachers in the several reasons. First, through the develop-
process. To support teachers with this diver- ment of artifacts, students construct and
sity, we began to develop curriculum materi- reconstruct their understanding. As stu-
als based on the premises of PBS that incor- dents build and reflect on their artifacts,
porated learning technologies (Marx et al., they actively manipulate science ideas. For
2004, McNeill & Krajcik, in press; Rivet & instance, when developing explanations, stu-
Krajcik, 2OO4). dents tie together science principles and con-
For example, our Model-It software comes cepts to support claims they make ahout
packaged with curriculum materials. Stu- phenomena. Such thinking helps form con-
dents use Model-It to build, test, and evalu- nections between ideas. This manipulation
ate qualitative, dynamic models of complex of ideas generates deeper levels of under-
systems such as the human body (Metcalf- standing.
Jackson, Krajcik, & Soloway, 2oOo). The pro- Second, because learning does not occur
cess of model building helps students to in linear, discrete steps, assessments should
understand more deeply the interrelation-
not be constructed around small, discrete
ships among the variables involved within
bits of information (Pellegrino, Chudowsky,
any complex system (Lehrer & Schauble,
& Glaser, 2oO i). 1.earning difficult ideas takes
t his volume; Spitulnik et al., iQQ 7 ; Stratford,
time and often these ideas come together as
Krajcik, & Soloway, iqq8).
students work on a task that forces them to
Software tools like Model-lt need to be
synthesize ideas. When students build arti-
used throughout a project and across sev-
facts throughout a project, they display their
eral projects, so that students develop deeper
learning in a fashion •consistent with real-
understandings of the processes involved in
life learning — it unfolds as a continuous
using the tool and of the tool’s potential.
process (Krajcik et al., 2002 ; Scardamalia &
When students use Model-It several times in
Bereiter, this volume). Teachers can use
one project, students come to better under-
artifacts to see how student understand-
stand how to build and test models as well
ings develop throughout and across vari-
as the importance of model building (Fretz
ous projects. Artifact development allows
et al., 2OO2 ) .
teachers to assess for higher level cognitive
outcomes such as asking questions, design-
ing investigations, gathering and interpret-
Feature $ : Creation of Artifacts ing data, and creating scientific explanations
(Carver, this volume; Atkin & Coffey, 2oO ;
Marx et a1., iqq y). Third, when students
Learning sciences research shows that stu-
publish what they create, it enhances their
dents learn more effectively when they
understanding. The artifacts that students
develop artifacts — external representa-
tions of their constructed knowledge. In develop make their understandings visible
PBS, these artifacts result from students’ to others. Because artifacts are concrete and
investigations into the driving question explicit, they allow students to share and
(Blumenfeld et al., nq i). Students develop have their artifacts reviewed by others —
physical models and computer models, teachers, students, parents, and members of
reports, videotapes, drawings, games, plays, the community (Scardamalia & Bereiter, this
Web sites, and computer programs, To be volume). Critiquing supports the develop-
effective, artifacts need to address the driv- ment of student understanding by providing
ing question, show the emerging under- feedback about what the student knows and
standing of students, and support students doesn’t know, permitting learners to reflect
on and revise their work.
 32# ’I“tl £. CA II B HI DG E IIA ND BOOK O£' ’I’H i' 1•i'.ARN 1h G SC II'.NC Y.S

Lesson a: Giving Feedback

three teachers in twenty-six schools used and
1. earning sciences research shows that pro- completed the enactment of at least one of
viding feedback on the artifacts that stu- the units.
dents develop is critical to the learning pro- Student performance on curriculum-
cess (Koedinger & Corbett, this volume; based posttests, compared to their pretest
Kolodner, this volume). But unfortunately, performance, showed statistically signifi-
teachers rarely give extensive feedback to cantly gains across all projects in Detroit
students. Teachers with large classes and (Marx et al., zooh). Por example, in both the
numerous sections do not have enough time iQQ8/iQqQ and the zooO/2001 SChool year,
in a day or week to give high quality and students using the Air Quality unit showed
individual feedback to students. In addition, statistically significant learning gains. Three
many middle school science teachers lack reasons help explain these gains: (i) each
knowledge of how to give quality feedback year we revised the materials based on anal-
to students. ysis of the test scores and observations of
To help teachers give valuable feedback classroom enactments, (2) our professional
to students, we provide them with written development efforts became more focused
descriptions of different levels of quality for (Fishman et al., 2003), arld (3 ) teachers
student performance, to be used for scoring gained experience in using the materials.
and giving feedback. By providing a com- In addition to showing learning gains
mon and consistent set of rubrics for PBS on curriculum-based pre- and posttests, we
tasks such as developing driving questions also have examined student performance
and providing explanations, teachers learn on Michigan’s state standardized examina-
how to give feedback and students learn tibn — the Michigan Educational Assessment
how to further their understanding. Teach- Program. The findings show that students
ers have also developed some worthwhile in Detroit who used at least one LeTUS
techniques. h'iany teachers who have large unit did statistically and substantially bet-
numbers of students per classroom, or who ter on the required state science test than
teach the same course to multiple sections, a matched group of students who did not
give group feedback. Although not as effec- use the 1.eTUS materials (Geier et al., in
tive as individual feedback, group feedback press). Moreover, students who used more
does support learning. than one LeTUS unit did significantly bet-
ter on the state examination than students
who used only one 1.eTUS unit. Our stud-
ies of student motivation show that stu-
Scaling Up dents’ attitudes in science remain positive
(Blumenfeld et al., this volume; Blumen-
One of the core goals of the Center for feld et a1., zoo $). This is an important find-
Learning Technologies in Urban Schools ing, considering that the literature reports
(Le7“US) (Blumenfeld et al., z ooo; Marx that students’ attitudes toward science typi-
et al., 2OO4) was tO WOrk with teachers and cally decrease substantially during the mid-
administrators to scale the use of project- dle school years (Yager & Penick, iq8fi).
based science throughout the middle schools Findings from other studies that exam-
in the Detroit Public School System (see ined student learning in project-based envi-
Dede, this volume). Throughout the exis- ronments also corroborate the findings from
tence of 1.eTUS, Detroit public schools our work in LeTUS (Tinker & Krajcik, zooi;
increasingly adopted the units. In the iQq8— Williams & 1.inn, zoo3; Schneider et al.,
iqqq school year, our first year of using the zooi). Taken as a whole, these findings
projects beyond initial pilot sites, thirteen demonstrate that carefully designed, devel-
teachers across ten schools used at least one oped and enacted projects result in substan-
of the curriculum units. In 2 oo3 —z ooh, sixty- tial learning gains.
 PR€)J P.CT-B /¥SF.D LEARN I NG

In order to scale up, we found that we rials. The materials focus instruction on a
needed to develop what Ball and Cohen driving question that students find meaning-
(iQQ6) call highly specified and developed ful and important, and around which stu-
materials. Specification refers to the explic- dents can develop an understanding of cen-
itness of curriculum materials. Our mate- tral learning goals. Using these materials,
rials clearly specify the design principles, teachers can engage students in scientific
intended teaching practices, and desired investigations, make use of cognitive tools,
learning goals, and describe why these are promote collaboration, and teach them the
important in enacting PBS. Development deeper conceptual understanding that tradi-
refers to the provision of resources required tional methods of instruction cannot.
to enact the various units, including mate- Although our research has focused on
rials for students and teachers, professional project-based science, the lessons that we
development, and examples of teaching learned apply to any subject area. Projects
practice.
are widely used in social studies, arts, and
The drawback to becoming more devel-
English classes. In these subjects, project
oped is that the materials are somewhat
ideas tend to be passed down by word of
closed compared to our original vision of
mouth, or are developed from scratch by
PBS. We originally hoped it would be pos-
teachers themselves. For the most part these
sible for teachers to create projects tailored
projects are not based in learning sciences
to their students and community. Although
research, and researchers have not exam-
a few teachers can do this, most teachers do
ined the most effective ways to design these
not have the time to develop projects; how-
projects. The lessons that we’ve learned
ever, highly developed and specified does
from our research can improve the educa-
not mean a return to cookbook experiments
tional effectiveness of projects in all sub-
or to teacher proof curriculum. Instead,
jects, because our research is based on core
we provide teachers with models of how
learning sciences principles, and our designs
to enact project-based science and strate-
have become progressively better through
gies to help learners engage in scientific
a process of iterative design experiments
practices.
(Barab, this volume; Confrey, this volume).
As such, they can provide a model for apply-
ing project-based methods to classrooms
Conclusion across the curriculum.

Since beginning our efforts in the early

iQQos, we have learned how to better design Acknowledgments
project-based environments. We learned the
importance of selecting driving questions
This research is partially funded by the
that can help students meet important learn-
Center for Curriculum Materials in Science
ing goals and the importance of helping stu-
through a grant from the Center for
dents see the value of the driving question.
I.earning
We learned the challenges of using tech-
and Teaching, grant number #o2 z7 7 , from
nology and explored various techniques to
the National Science Foundation. However,
integrate technology throughout the cur-
any opinions, findings, and conclusions or
riculum. We also learned the importance of
recommendations expressed in this publica-
supporting teachers in complex instruction
tion are those of the authors.
by providing them with explicit strategies.
We are grateful for the thorough and
We have learned about how to help teach-
ers do project based science by developing thoughtful feedback provided by Professor
highly developed and highly specified mate- Keith Sawyer and students in his z oo $ Cen-
tral Topics in 1.earning Sciences Research
course.
 Professor Krajcik completed work on this of the American Association for Research in
manuscript while at the Weizmann Institute Education, Montreal, Canada.
of Science in Israel as the Weston Visiting
Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J, Marx, R. W., &
Professor of Science Education. Soloway, E. (iQ q4) Lessons learned: A collabo-
rative model for helping teachers learn
project- based instruction. £femerirnry School
Footnotes Journal,
'„(s), iiv—i
i . You can learn more ahout and view the mate- Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S.,
rials online at http://www.hice.org/know. & Soloway, E. (iqqf›). Learning with peers:
° You can learn more about the technology tools From small group cooperation to collaborative
at www.goknow.com/Products/Artemis. communities. Educational Researcher, z $ (S),
3. Readers can learn more about our assessmcnt 37 4
procedures in thc following manuscripts: Marx Hlumenfeld, P., Soloway, E., Marx, R . W., Kraj-
et a1. (2OOH), Rivet and Krajcik (zoo4), it nd cik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (uq i).
McNeill and Krajcik (in press). Motivating project-leased learning: Sustaining
the doing, supporting the learning. Educational

Rcferences bransford, J., Brown, A. 1.., & Cocking, R. R.

(iqqq). Hoip people k•ar»: brain, mind, expe-
American Association for the Advancement of rience, and school. Washington, DC: National
Science. (iq8q). Science for all Americans. New Academy Press.
York: Oxford Press. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (iqqq). Guided
Atkin, J. M., & Coffey, J. E. (2OO J). Everyday discovery in a community of learners. In K.
assesszx ent in the science classroom (scie/tce McGillJ (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Inteffrating
edu- cators essay collection). Arlington, VA: coffnitive theory and classroom pract‘ ice (pp. zzq
National Science Teachers Associations. — z7o). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Atwater, M. (iqQq). Research on cultural diver- Cognition and Technology Group at Vander-
sity in the classroom. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), tilt. (iQqz). The Jasper series as an exam-
Handfioo6 oJ research on science teaching and ple of anchored instruction: Theory, program
• •r fp i i *— 7*) . New York: Macmillan. description, and assessment data. Educational
Azmitia, M. (iqQé›). Peer interactive minds: Psychologist, z 7, z9i—3 iy .
D‹•ve1opmcntal, theoretical, and methodolog- Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen,
ical issues. In P. B. I3a1te.s & U. M. Staudinger S. (iqq3 ). Talented teenagers: The roots of success
(Ents.), Interactive mi/tds: e-s an perspectives and failure. New York: Cambridge University
on the social foundation of cognition (pp. i3 — Press.
it›z). New York: Cambridge. Davis, E. A., If Krajcik, J. S. (zoo5). Design-
hall, D. I-., R Cohen, D. K. (itjqf›). Reform by ing educative curriculum materials to promote
the book: What is — or might be - the role of teacher learning. Educational Researcher, (3),
curriculum materials in teacher learning and 3 '4
instructi‹ina1 reform? Edxcationnl Researcher, Dewey, J. (i‹ 3 q). Dewey on education. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Blumcnfeld, P., Fishman, B. J., Krajcik, J., Marx, Edelson, D. C. (zooi). Learning-for-u.sc: A frame-
R. W., & Soloway, E. (zooo). Creating usable work for integrating content and process learn-
innovations in systemic reform: Scaling-up ing in the design of inquiry activities. Journal oJ
technology-embedded project-based science in Research in Science Teaching, 8 , 3 $ $ -5 8 5 .
urban schools. EdttCational Psycholofffst, 3 $ , Fishman, B., Marx, R., HeSt, S., & Tal, R.
(zoo3). Linking teacher and student learning to
I3lumcnfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., Kam, R., Kem- improve professional development in systemic
p1t•r, T. M., & Geier, R. (zoo $ , April). Oppor- reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, i ‹)(6),
tunity to learn tri PBL for middle school science.’
Tredictitig urban student achieuement and moti- Fishman, II., Marx, R., Blumenfeld, P., Kraj-
vation. Papcr presented at the Annual Meeting cik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (zoo4). Creating a
framework for research on systemic technology
 PRtJJl'.CiT—BASED I.EARNINC.

innovations. Journal of the Learning Sciences,

helping middle grade teachers learn project-
•i f•). 43*7 based instruction. The Elementary School Jour-
Fretz, E. B., Wu, H.-K., Zhang, R., Krajcik, J. S.,
I)avis, E. A., & Soloway, E. (2002). An Inves-
Krajcik, J. S., Czerniak, C. M., & Berger, C. F.
tigation of software scaffolds as they support
(2002). Teaching science in elementary and mid-
modeling practices, Research in Science Educa- dle school classrooms: A project-based approach
(znd ed.). New York: M cGraw Hill.
Gardner, H. (iQQ i). The unschooled mitid: How
Linn, M. C. (i‹)Q y). Learning and instruction in
children think and how schools should teach.
science education: Taking advantage of tech-
New York: Basic Books.
nology. In D. Tobin & R. J. Fraser (Eds.), Inter-
Geier, R., Hlumenfeld, P., Marx, R., Krajcik, tinrionzi/ IinndSool ofscience education (p]3. 2fI $ —
J., Fishman, B., & Soloway, E. (in press). 74) "the Netherlands: Kluwer.
Standardized test outcomes of urban students Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S.,
participating in standards and project based sci- Fishman, B., Soloway, E., Geier, R., & Revi-
ence curricula. Journal of Research in Science tal, T. T. (z° °4 J Inquiry-based science in the
Teaching.
middle grades: Assessment of learning in urban
Haberman, M. (iQ‹)i). The pedagogy of poverty systemic reform. Journal of Research in Science
versus good teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, ; (4), Teaching, qi (io), ion3 —i o8o.
2 t O-2 9 4-
Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P., Krajcik, 3., &
Heubcl-Drake, M., Finkel, I.., Stern, E., & Moura- S›oloway, E. (li)97) Enacting project-based
dian, M. (n)‹) ). Planning a course for success. science. Elementary School Journal, ‹j- (J),
I’he Science Teacher, I›• , ih—z i. 3 4**3 S -
Hoffman, J., Wu, H-K, Krajcik, J. S., R Soloway, McNeill, K. 1.., R Krajcik, J. S. (in prc'ss). Mid-
E. (zon3). The nature of middle schr›ol harn- dle scho‹ 1 students’ use of evidence and rea-
ess science content understandings with the soning in writing scientific explanations. In M.
use of on-line resources. .Journal o/ Research in Lovet & P. Shah (Eds.), TJti@ing ipitJt data' The
Science Teaching. ‹ (3). i 2 i —s ‹* proceedings of the ) rd Carnegie symposium vn
Hogan, K., & Maglienti, M. (zooi). Compar-
ing the epistemological underpinnings of Stu- Metcalf-Jackson, S., J. S. Krajcik, & E. Soloway.
dents' and scientists’ reasoning about conclu- (zooo). Model-It: A design retrospective. In
sions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, M. Jacobson & R. B. Koz.ma, (Eds.), Inno-
i (•) 3* 7 rations in science and mathematics education:
Hug, B., R Krajcik, J. (2OO2), Students, scientihc Advanced designs for technologies and learning.
practices using a scaffolded inquiry sequence. Mahwah, NJ: I,awrence Erlbaum Associates,
In P. Bell, R. Stevens, & T. Satwicz (Eds.), PP —**
Keeping learning complex: The proceedings of the Moje, E. B., Peek-Brown, D., Sutherland, L. M.,
Fish Internanonal Conference for the I.earning Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P., & Krajcik,
Sciences (JCLS). Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum. J. (zooh). Explaining explanations: f)evel-
Hurd, P. D. I I) j O). No directions in teach oping scientihc literacy in middle-school
ing secondary school science. Chicago: Rand project-based science reforms. In D. Strick-
McNally. land & D. E. Alvermann, (Eds.), I3ridging the
Kesidou, fi., & fioseman, .I. E. (z oO2 J. How w‹11 gap: Improving literal y teaming for preadoles-
cent and adolescent learners in fra‹fes q-t _
do middle school science programs measure
(pp. zz —z i). New York: Teachers Co1lcyt•
up? findings from Project z of› i ’s curriculum
Press.
review. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
1 '7 ( ') 3 2 *3 4 tj .
National Research Council. (i‹ ‹ I›). National sci
ence educatio ›t standards. Washington, DC:
Krajcik, J., Hlumcnfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass,
National Research Council.
K. M., Fredricks, J., & So1t›way, E. (iq‹ 8).
Inquiry in project-based scienc e classrooms: Novak, A., & Cleasun, C. (z no lj. Inc cirporat-
Initial attempts by middle scht›ol students. ing portab1e• technology to enhance an inquiry,
Journal of the Learning Sciences, , i -z $ c›. project-based middle sc hool s‹tend e c‘la.ssr‹i‹Jm.
In R. Tinkt•r R.I.S. Krajcik (t-3s. , Portable
Krajcik, J. S., Blumcnfeld, P. C., Marx, R . W., R technvlo fies: sc-ience learning in crnirexr (pp. : ‹ —
Soloway, F.. pi ‹)‹)q). A col1aborativt• model tier I›. ). ‘rhc' Ncth‹•rJands K1uw‹'r.
332

Novak, A., fi Krajcik, J. S. (2OO4). Using learn-

Ruopp, R. R., Gal, S., Drayton, iI., & Phster, M.
ing technologies to support inquiry in mid-
(Eds). (i‹jQ2). LabNet: Toward a community
dle school science. In I.. Flick & N. Lederman
o/ proJce. Hillsdale, NJ: I.awrence Erlbaum
(Eds.), Scienti)c inquiry and nature of science:
Associates.
Implications for teaching, harnt›iq, nttd teacher
education (pp. y $ —io z ). The Netherlands: Rutherford, J. F. (iQ6q). The role of inquiry in
science teaching.” Journal of Research iit Science
Kluwer Publishers.
1’eaching, • (z j, 8o-8q .
O'Neill, K., & Polman, J. L. (zooh). Why edu-
Sadler, T. D. (2OOH]. Informal reast›ning regard-
cate “little scientists"? Examining the potential
ing socioscientific issues: A critical review of
of practice-based scientific literacy. Jotiritnf of
research. Journal of Research in Science Teach-
Research in Science Teaching, i(]), 2 j q—2 fi(3.
•S. ‹• (S) s •3 i i •
Palinc sar, A., Anderson, C. S., & David, Y. M.
Salomon, G., D. N. Perkins, & Clloberson,
(iq‹ 3). Pursuing scientific literacy in the mid-
T. (i‹ ‹ i). Partners in cognition: Extend-
dle grades through collaborative proirlcm solv-
ing human intelligence with intelligent
ing. I“he Elementary School Journal, ‹ , 6q 5
technologies. Educational Researcher, z o,

Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R.

Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, S. J. (2OOH .
(2OOl). K1tottfi?tg whot StudentS kTtGw.‘ The Sil-
Explanation-driven intJuiry: Integrating con-
ence and desiffn of educational assessment. Wash-
ceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scien-
ington, DC: National Academy Press.
tific inquiry. Science Education, 8 8(, j, 3q -
Perkins, D., D. Crismond, Simmons, R., & Unger,
- 37°
C. (uQ ). Inside understanding. In D. Perkins, Schneider, R. M., Krajcik, J., Marx, R., &
J. Schwartz, M. West, & M. Wiske (rids.), Soft S‹i1oway, E. (zooi). Performance of student in
Care goes to school: Teaching for understanding « project-based science classrooms on a national
mint ttm technologies (pp. 7o —88). New York: measure of science achievement. Joiiriutf o{
Oxford University Press.
Research in Science Teaching, i (7J 82l—
Polman, J. (iq‹ ‹ ). Designing project-based science: 8qz.
Connecting barriers through guided inquiry. New Schohcld, J. W. (i‹)‹) $). Computers and class-
York: Teat:hers College Press. room culture. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: sity Press.
The mechanisms of structuring and problema- Scott, C. (iqqq). Project-based science: Reflec-
tizing student wt›rk. Journal of the Learning Sci- tions of a middle school teacher. The £Men-
ences, i (sJ. *7 J—s O1- vary School Journal, p5 (i), 7 —qq .
Reiser, B. J., Krajcik, J., Moje, E. B., h Marx, R. Sherwood, R., Kinzcr, C. K., Bransford, J. D., &
(zooh , March). Design strategies for developing Franks, J. ('9*71. Some benehts of creating
science iitrtructionnf materials. Paper presented macro-contexts for science instruction: Initial
at the Annual Meeting of the Natitinal Associa- findings. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
tion t›f Research in Science Teaching, Philadel- ° 4(S /• 43 S
4'7-
phia, PA. Singer, J., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J., & Chambers,
Rivet, A., & Krajcik, J. (2OOH). Contextualizing J. C. (zooo). Constructing extended inctuiry
instruction: Leveraging students’ prior kntiwl- projects: Curriculum material.s for science edu-
edg‹• and experiences to foster understanding cation reform. Educational Psychologist, $,
of middle school science. In P. Bell, R. Stevens, ' 'S- '7
& T. Satwicz (Eds.), Keeping learning complex: Spitulnik, M. W., Stratford, S., Krajcik, J., &
The proceedings of the fish international confer- $oltiway, E. (i‹j97) Using technology tt› sup-
ence for the learning sciences (ICLS). Mahwah, port student’s artifact construction in science.
NJ: Earlbaum. In ii. J. Frazer & K. Tobin (Eds.), In tional
Rivet, A., R Krajcik, J. (zooh). Achieving stan-
dards in urban systemic refor n: An example of Netherlands: Kluwer Publishers.
a sixth grade project-based science curriculum. Stratford, S. J., Krajcik, J., & S‹iloway, E.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching q i t-), (iqq8). Secondary students’ dynamic mod-
eling prt›ccsses: Analyzing, reas‹ining about,
 PR(NJ EC'I’- HASE 19 I,lâ ARN I!"it›

synthesizing, and testing models of stream Higgins, G., & McTighe, J. [ig‹) b). Understand-
ecosystems. Journal oJ Science "•.ducation and tag 6y deiigrt. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Technology, (3), 2 i $—2 jq. Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tinker, R. ( Thinking about science. Williams, M., & Linn, M. (* oo3). WISE Inquiry
997-)
http://www.concord.org/library/papers.html. in fifth grade biology. Research tn Science Edu-
Cambridge, MA: Concord Consortium. COfiO7t, 3 • (4) 4 S- 43
Tinker, R., & Krajcik, J. S. (Eds.) (zooi). Portable Yager, R. E., & J. E. Penick (ices fi). Perceptions of
technologies: Science har›ttng in context. Innova- four age groups toward science classes, teach-
tions in science education and technology. New ers, and the value of science. Science Education,
York, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. 7*(4). 3 S S 3 3 -