Doing the project and learning the content: Designing project-based science curricula for meaningful understanding†

Project-based science curricula can improve students' usable or meaningful understanding of the science content underlying a project. However, such curricula designed around “performances” wherein students design or make something do not always do this. We researched ways to design performance project-based science curricula (pPBSc) to better support the meaningful understanding of science content. Using existing curriculum design frameworks, we identified the learner's need to “create the demand” for the science content, anticipating how to use it in the performance, and to “apply” the science content, both being necessary to ensure meaningful understanding. Designing the pPBSc I, Bio we discovered how these guiding principles manifested as curriculum design challenges. We generalized from the design of I, Bio and related literature design approaches for addressing each challenge. Finally, we measured the extent to which a pPBSc incorporating these design approaches developed meaningful understanding. 652 middle grades students using I, Bio completed pre- and posttests on the science content behind the I, Bio performance. Our findings provide preliminary evidence that a pPBSc that incorporates these design approaches is consistent with gains in meaningful understanding. We discuss how the results of this work can be used to improve systematic experiments on instructional supports. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed94:525–551, 2010

[1]  Edgar W. Jenkins,et al.  Benchmarks for Science Literacy: a review symposium∗ , 1995 .

[2]  David E. Kanter,et al.  Learning content using complex data in project‐based science: An example from high school biology in urban classrooms , 2006 .

[3]  Katherine L. McNeill,et al.  Learning‐goals‐driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project‐based pedagogy , 2008 .

[4]  Anthony J. Petrosino,et al.  At-risk children's use of reflection and revision in hands-on experimental activities , 1998 .

[5]  M. Lipsey,et al.  Performance Trajectories and Performance Gaps as Achievement Effect-Size Benchmarks for Educational Interventions , 2008 .

[6]  Sm Iipinge,et al.  Assessment and Evaluation of Learning , 2011 .

[7]  R. Marx,et al.  Design‐based science and student learning , 2004 .

[8]  J. Sweller,et al.  Why Minimally Guided Teaching Techniques Do Not Work: A Reply to Commentaries , 2007 .

[9]  Brian J. Reiser BGuILE: Strategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms: Twenty-five years of progress , 2001 .

[10]  Joseph Krajcik,et al.  A Scaffolding Design Framework for Software to Support Science Inquiry , 2004, The Journal of the Learning Sciences.

[11]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Sciences of the Artificial , 1970 .

[12]  Roger C. Schank,et al.  Dynamic Memory Revisited: Enhancing Intelligence , 1999 .

[13]  Charles M. Reigeluth,et al.  The elaboration theory of instruction , 1983 .

[14]  Joseph Krajcik,et al.  Enacting Reform-Based Science Materials: The Range of Teacher Enactments in Reform Classrooms , 2005 .

[15]  E. Banet,et al.  Students’ conceptual patterns of human nutrition , 1997 .

[16]  Judith Barak,et al.  Understanding of energy in biology and vitalistic conceptions , 1997 .

[17]  Shimshon Novick,et al.  No energy storage in chemical bonds , 1976 .

[18]  Jo Ellen Roseman,et al.  Can Middle-School Science textbooks help students learn important ideas? Findings from project 2061's curriculum evaluation study: Life Science , 2004 .

[19]  Philip M. Sadler,et al.  Depth versus Breadth: How Content Coverage in High School Science Courses Relates to Later Success in College Science Coursework. , 2009 .

[20]  Brian J. Reiser,et al.  Strategies for supporting student inquiry in design tasks , 1998 .

[21]  Joel J. Mintzes,et al.  Students' alternative conceptions of the human circulatory system: A cross-age study , 1985 .

[22]  Leslie J. Briggs,et al.  Principles of Instructional Design , 1974 .

[23]  J. Novak,et al.  Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View , 1969 .

[24]  A. Whitehead The aims of education , 1929 .

[25]  Ann L. Brown,et al.  How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. , 1999 .

[26]  H. Schweingruber,et al.  TAKING SCIENCE TO SCHOOL: LEARNING AND TEACHING SCIENCE IN GRADES K-8 , 2007 .

[27]  Daniel C. Edelson Learning-for-use : A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities , 2001 .

[28]  Daniel L. Schwartz,et al.  Doing with Understanding: Lessons from Research on Problem- and Project-Based Learning , 1998 .

[29]  Joseph Krajcik,et al.  Inquiry-based science in the middle grades: Assessment of learning in urban systemic reform , 2004 .

[30]  Charles M. Reigeluth,et al.  A Case Study on Course Sequencing with Multiple Strands Using the Elaboration Theory. , 2008 .

[31]  A. Collins National Science Education Standards: A Political Document. , 1998 .

[32]  Jo Ellen Roseman,et al.  Project 2061 analyses of middle-school science textbooks: A response to holliday , 2003 .

[33]  Joseph Krajcik,et al.  Using Innovative Learning Technologies to Promote Learning and Engagement in an Urban Science Classroom , 2005 .

[34]  J. Shea National Science Education Standards , 1995 .

[35]  Milena K. Nigam,et al.  The Equivalence of Learning Paths in Early Science Instruction: Effects of Direct Instruction and Discovery Learning , 2022 .

[36]  D. E. Stokes Pasteur's Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation , 1997 .

[37]  Joseph Krajcik,et al.  Teaching Science in Elementary and Middle School Classrooms: A Project-Based Approach , 2002 .

[38]  Amos Dreyfus,et al.  The Pupil and the Living Cell: A Taxonomy of Dysfunctional Ideas about an Abstract Idea. , 1989 .

[39]  Janet L. Kolodner,et al.  Learning by Design from Theory to Practice , 1998 .

[40]  Piet Lijnse,et al.  Energy between the life‐world of pupils and the world of physics , 1990 .

[41]  S. Ralph Powers,et al.  National association for research in science teaching , 1931 .

[42]  Charles M. Reigeluth,et al.  The elaboration theory: Guidance for scope and sequence decisions. , 1999 .

[43]  Charles M. Reigeluth,et al.  Instructional-Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory , 1999 .

[44]  Allan Collins,et al.  Design Research: Theoretical and Methodological Issues , 2004 .

[45]  Janet L. Kolodner,et al.  Problem-Based Learning Meets Case-Based Reasoning in the Middle-School Science Classroom: Putting Learning by Design(tm) Into Practice , 2003 .

[46]  Joseph Krajcik,et al.  Achieving standards in urban systemic reform: An example of a sixth grade project‐based science curriculum , 2004 .

[47]  Joseph Krajcik,et al.  Performance of Students in Project-Based Science Classrooms on a National Measure of Science Achievement. , 2002 .

[48]  Christian D. Schunn,et al.  Bringing Engineering Design into High School Science Classrooms: The Heating/Cooling Unit , 2008 .

[49]  Daniel C. Edelson,et al.  On The Content Of Task-Structured Science Curricula , 2006 .

[50]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation , 1991 .

[51]  Marcia C. Linn,et al.  Internet Environments for Science Education , 2004 .

[52]  R. G. Duncan,et al.  Beyond the fringe: Building and evaluating scientific knowledge systems , 2009 .

[53]  Benjamin S. Bloom,et al.  A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives , 2000 .

[54]  J. Mintzes,et al.  Understanding cellular respiration: An analysis of conceptual change in college biology , 1994 .

[55]  Jack R. Lohmann Refining our Focus , 2008 .

[56]  Milbrey W. McLaughlin,et al.  Understanding Teaching in Context. , 1992 .

[57]  R. Driver,et al.  Making sense of secondary science , 1994 .

[58]  J. Kolodner,et al.  Toward implementing distributed scaffolding: Helping students learn science from design , 2005 .

[59]  C. Gayford,et al.  Some aspects of the problems of teaching about energy in school biology , 1986 .

[60]  Matthew M. Mehalik,et al.  Middle‐School Science Through Design‐Based Learning versus Scripted Inquiry: Better Overall Science Concept Learning and Equity Gap Reduction , 2008 .

[61]  C. Hmelo‐Silver,et al.  Scaffolding and Achievement in Problem-Based and Inquiry Learning: A Response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) , 2007 .

[62]  W. Sandoval,et al.  Explanation-Driven Inquiry: Integrating Conceptual and Epistemic Scaffolds for Scientific Inquiry , 2004 .

[63]  Joel J. Mintzes,et al.  Naive Theories in Biology: Children's Concepts of the Human Body. , 1984 .

[64]  J. Dewey,et al.  Interest and Effort in Education , 1975 .

[65]  Joseph Krajcik,et al.  Constructing Extended Inquiry Projects: Curriculum Materials for Science Education Reform , 2000 .

[66]  John Sweller,et al.  Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning , 1988, Cogn. Sci..

[67]  F. Manganello Constructivist Instruction: Success or Failure? , 2010 .

[68]  J. Nussbaum,et al.  Alternative frameworks, conceptual conflict and accommodation: Toward a principled teaching strategy , 1982 .

[69]  Richard E. Clark,et al.  Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching , 2006 .