User:Trisaratopsrawr

Summary

Project-Based Instruction, known as PBI, is the use of projects, inside and outside of the classroom, to facilitate student learning and understanding. During a unit of instruction, students are expected to complete one or more projects; these projects are not merely fun activities—they are thoughtfully planned by the instructor to meet educational standards and provide meaningful learning experiences to students.

PBI is similar to other alternative forms of instruction, notably problem-based learning and challenge-based learning. The pedagogical foundations of PBI lie within the constructivist model but draw inspiration and elements from other schools of psychological thought.

PBI has many proponents but also a fair share of criticism. However, PBI has begun to be implemented inside classrooms around the United States, notably in “New Tech High Schools,” as well as teaching preparation programs at public universities. Studies carried out in the past 20 years have provided significant evidence for the success of PBI.

Pedagogical background of PBI

Behaviorist perspective

Perspectives on knowing and learning can illuminate understanding and lend support to project based instruction. The behaviorist perspective is deeply involved with B.F. Skinner and his theories of knowing and learning. Skinner held that intelligence was an environmental and socially based construct.[30]

One basic tenet of the behaviorist perspective is that all individuals have equal potential and knowledge is equally accessible to all people. Education in the behaviorist perspective is strictly hierarchical; the curriculum progresses from easy to difficult. The behaviorist philosophy is found in PBI in that the project needs to be situated in a socially meaningful way for the student and that successful completion of the project is possible for each student. Generally, as students move through a project-based lesson, the material encountered by the student and the expectations of the student increase in difficulty and scope. One major difference between the behaviorist perspective and that of true PBI is the final student product. PBI allows for a multitude of possible solutions to the project, each with its own merit and scope, whereas the behaviorist perspective of education leads to rules-based instruction culminating in one correct answer.

Direct instruction

A second perspective on knowing and learning involves a method of information transfer known as direct instruction. This is a very common and pervasive method of teaching that is based on Gagne’s nine steps of instruction.[11] The role of direct instruction in project-based learning (PBL) is critical in that careful scaffolding of information and formative assessment during the project is required. It is often misunderstood that the project-based classroom leaves little room for direct instruction (see Kirschner et al., 2006). In fact, Gagne’s nine steps are represented well in a quality project; it is the sequence and pace of moving through the steps that is unique to PBI. As in the behaviorist perspective, one main difference between PBI and direct instruction is that the project may have diverse solutions, whereas in traditional direct instruction, there is usually only one correct answer.

Constructivist model

PBL is best illustrated in the constructivist model of knowing of learning. Constructivism relies on the interaction between student experience and student learning. The role of situational and contextualized information transfer and knowledge relevance is paramount. The emphasis of process over product is found in the constructivist learning theories of Piaget.[27] Thinking and working with a defined scheme and understanding are valued over rules and correct answers. The instruction tends to be nonlinear and often incorporates big ideas or major concepts into the curriculum before presenting details or heuristics. The use of discordant events to illuminate misconceptions to the students followed by cognitive disequilibrium promotes true learning on behalf of the student. As the student attempts to strike a balance between assimilation and accommodation, the role of the teacher is as guide or facilitator.

PBI incorporates some aspects of the Piagetian perspective, in that the driving question may invoke some cognitive disequilibrium that inspires the students to look for solutions that make sense. Differences in the two modes of education do exist, in that PBI involves extensive and directed scaffolding of information and unpacking of standards that may be absent in a pure Piagetian perspective.

The contribution of Vygotsky to constructivist theories of learning also connects PBI with knowing and learning. The zone of proximal development, an idea promoted by Vygotsky to explain the range of tasks that a learner can complete, is expanded by the careful and directed use of scaffolding during the project.[33] As students demonstrate a capacity for more detailed information to proceed through the project, the teacher may provide relevant information on a need-to-know basis, so as not to overwhelm the student but to provide information when the student perceives it as necessary. Students’ perception, involvement, and construction of their own knowledge in the PBI method ties into the constructivist theories of education.

PBI theory

Three main resources focus on PBI theory: Barron et al.’s article, “Doing With Understanding: Lessons From Research on Problem-and Project-Based Learning”; Krajcik and Blumenfeld’s article, “Project-Based Learning”; and the Buck Institute for Education PBL Handbook.

Barron et al. [1]

The formation of PBI has involved many changes and adaptations to academic curricula, but Barron et al. [1] identified four curricular design principles that are especially important: defining learning-appropriate goals, instructional scaffolding, frequent opportunities for self-assessment and revision, and developing social structures.

Learning-appropriate goals

PBL curricula usually involve the introduction of a problem that will be solved by students in the form of a project. Dr. Brigid Barron et al. established the importance of a well-crafted driving question in which appropriate goals are defined. It is very important that students do not get caught up in the action of a PBI activity without having any educational goals. Activities should not fall into just a “doing” category. In order to avoid this situation, instructors need to define the learning goals students are supposed to comprehend and create a driving question that connects concepts to be learned with an appropriate PBI experience. Well-crafted driving questions have the effect of increasing students’ abilities to generate their own questions while participating in a PBI experience [1], which is an excellent skill for students to develop and become better problem-solvers.

Scaffolding

Scaffolding is defined as a “process that helps a child or a novice to solve a problem, carry out a task, or achieve a goal which would be beyond his unassisted efforts.”[35] Scaffolds employed by Barron et al. fall into three categories: those that function to communicate process, those that provide coaching, and those that elicit articulation.

Types of scaffolding employed:

Starting with problems: Some PBI projects are introduced as a need to solve a problem. As problems are introduced, embedded teaching is included and content is delivered within the context of a conversation. These conversations are introduced in an anchor video format. Students are engaged and their problem-solving skills develop in an effort to solve a challenge.
Contrasting cases: Contrasting cases scaffolding requires students to analyze the differences between different examples, which enables them to notice certain characteristics or information they could have missed if they were to analyze a single example.

Benefits

For students

By beginning with a problem, students develop problem-solving skills that allow them to create a general strategy on how to approach different challenges. Students’ solutions also become higher-level as they extend their analyzing and judgment skills in an effort to determine which solutions are coherent to solve a problem, which also leads them to provide educated justifications.

When contrasting cases, students expand their critical skills as they look for differences between two cases and the effects that each difference can make. While creating a project, contrasting cases also help students analyze the result of their solutions to certain problems and compare them to what they expected to actually happen. In general, students develop their ability to dissect problems and consider the different possibilities while looking for a solution.

For teachers

As instructors provide scaffolds, the resulting products created by students often make them realize what projects can achieve and how effective they can be. After analyzing student reactions to specific forms of scaffolding, teachers are able to criticize the effectiveness of such scaffolding techniques and modify them in future projects if needed.

Frequent opportunities for formative self-assessment and revision

Formative assessment is an important component of PBI’s design principles because it is necessary for students to test their solutions and revise their learning processes.[1] Frequent opportunities for formative self-assessment and revision are given by creating activities that involve having students test their own solutions, compare their methods to other classmates’ strategies, and receive feedback. Feedback is not only from teachers but also from experts in a specific field or even their parents and community. Scaffolding often supports formative assessment. Introducing a problem to students generates many opportunities for students to discuss and criticize each other’s approaches, resulting in advanced, improved-quality ideas. The PBI curriculum is designed in such a way that formative assessment encourages students to revise their learning process and solutions; therefore, projects are created in such a way that revision is a “natural component of learning and growing.”[1]

Social organizations that promote participation and a sense of agency

The creation of social organizations that promote participation and a sense of agency includes giving students the opportunity to become active learners by interacting in small groups, participating in peer reviews, having access to data about others regarding the same problem, and having opportunities to contribute. Individual accountability is an important factor to consider while creating a sense of agency in the classroom. Students need to feel responsible individually, and this need is fufilled by designing activities that make each group member’s success dependent on the success of colleagues. Connections with outside communities are essential because communities are an important part of what makes work meaningful.[1] Having a sense of being part of a bigger community encourages and inspires students to complete their projects and consider how important their work is to others.

Krajcik and Blumenfeld [18]

True understanding delves deeper than the surface of ideas. By providing students with an opportunity to work with real-world problems or scenarios, students are able to apply ideas and learn by doing. Such real-world problems are similar to those solved by experts and professionals. By being placed in a situation, the students gain a deeper understanding of the material by actively constructing, revising, and reconstructing ideas when applying them to solve the problem. In their explorations, observations, and interactions, students make connections from their old ideas and experiences to their new ideas and experiences. PBI creates a learning environment that removes students from traditional memorization and repetition (superficial learning) and places them on the road to a deeper understanding. PBL, according to Krajcik and Blumenfeld, is built upon five features: driving questions, situated inquiry, collaboration, learning technologies, and artifacts. Every project-based lesson begins with the first feature, a driving question.

Driving question

The driving question is essentially the problem that needs to be solved. The goal of a driving question is to interest students and help guide the instruction. The driving question could be thought of as creating a real-world journey, and embedded in this journey are the key concepts that students must master to solve the problem and reach the end of their journey, only to find that another journey awaits. Driving questions should create a desire to learn. Students who are not engaged are less likely to learn, and this applies to all students, even the “best,” contrary to popular belief. A good driving question is:

Feasible in the sense that the question allows students to design a solution or activity that actually can be carried out by the students themselves, so they can actively participate in learning and arrive at their own answer.
Worthwhile in the sense that in answering the question, students master certain concepts along the way and get a feel for how this knowledge is applied to real-world situations. The concepts mastered along the way should satisfy and agree with national or district standards. Teachers can select the standard, rewrite it in terms of what cognitive tasks the students should do, and use this as a guide when developing a driving question.
Contextualized, meaning that the question has no one obvious “right” answer and the students may explore. Also, the question should be something that experts or professionals would answer in the real world.
Meaningful in the sense that the question excites the learners and creates a desire to be engaged and learn.
Ethical in the sense that no harm will be done to individuals (physically or emotionally), organisms, or the environment.

Since projects may span several weeks, linking new ideas and concepts back to the driving question becomes difficult and secondary. In order to remedy this conflict students must share certain experiences throughout the project that allow them to relate the explored ideas to the big picture. These are called anchoring experiences. These activities provide students with shared experiences that they can discuss and refer back to throughout the project, thus promoting communication and aiding the transfer of ideas. By introducing a driving question a situated inquiry arises.

Situated inquiry

Anyone who has ever had any experience with teaching has heard the timeless question, “When will I ever use this?” The nature of PBI eliminates this question. Situated inquiry takes a lesson that could be taught directly and places it in a real-world context. By doing so, students readily see the value and application of what they are learning. The focus then becomes on solving this pressing problem, and in reaching a solution, the students venture through all material they need to know. In doing so, students no longer memorize disconnected facts but instead must comprehend the idea or concept in order to apply it to the specific situation. Consequently, the students find the concept easier to apply to different situations.

Collaboration

In creating an active learning environment, the goal is not only to engage and involve as many, if not all, of the students as possible but also to involve members of the community. In collaborating with each other and adults in the field, students have an exchange of ideas between novices and experts. In this exchange, questions are asked, answers are given, new and old ideas are revised and connected, and a new understanding is made. Once a new understanding is made, the cycle repeats until this community of learners reaches a consensus. Since it is given that students are not natural collaborators, it is the job of the teacher to create this open environment where discussion, debate, and different perspectives are welcome.

Technology

In their journey to answer the driving question, students come across certain tasks that would be too time consuming and meticulous or impossible to do without the aid of technology. Take, for example, the case where students receive complex data and have to draw conclusions. Exploratory data analysis would be tough without calculators or computer software such as Excel. But when utilized, such cognitive tools help students carry out activities and allow students to focus on the bigger picture and the underlying concepts, rather than the complex data.

Technology can help students not only collect and visualize complex data but also communicate and discuss results. Through the use of the World Wide Web, students can e-mail or video chat with other students and/or experts. The exchange of different perspectives and questions is made even easier because technology allows for collaboration across classrooms.

Technology also makes it easier for students to illustrate their understanding by allowing them to present their findings through videos, PowerPoints, pictures, websites, games, or other models. Because technology fosters this exchanging of questions, ideas, and feedback, it further removes students from the traditional transmission and acquisition of content and into a more interactive acquisition of content.

Creation of artifacts

An artifact is a concrete physical representation of the learning that has gone on during the student’s journey in answering the driving question. An effective artifact requires that students address the driving question. The artifact should display the continuous process of construction and reconstruction of understanding. In order to create the artifact, students must back up any claim they make about phenomena with principles and concepts. Essentially, the students are answering the driving question and stating that what they claim is true and accurate because of what they have learned in the journey to arrive at their conclusion. Because this artifact is created in steps throughout the project, an effective artifact acts as a checkpoint for the learning goals to be mastered. Artifacts are concrete and explicit and therefore allow for students as well as teachers to provide feedback and constructive criticism, so the creators of the artifact can bridge the gap between what they know and do not know by revising their work.

Buck Institute for Education PBL Handbook

Although there is not one strict definition of PBL, the Buck Institute for Education defined standards-based PBL as a teaching method that takes a complex and well-thought-out questions that is structured around tasks and learning performance goals and uses it in an extended inquiry to engage students to learn knowledge and skills. The Buck Institute for Education stated that learning is a social activity where children must learn skills to succeed, because the workforce needs employees who not only can communicate and collaborate but also are global citizens and recognize their civic duties.[21]

In order to address time and standardized testing issues, teachers should consider PBL as a way of replacing conventional teaching methods rather than as merely an extension to teaching. Therefore, projects are created with the objective of addressing and covering the standards and concepts established for each grade level.

Differences between effective projects and extended class activities are that effective projects:

Recognize that students are capable of doing more than just memorizing and regurgitation. Effective projects present real-world, important problems to students and expect a serious answer that will be critiqued by fellow class members and experts.
Present students with a question that requires deep understanding of content to answer. The core of what the students need to know is found in this project, instead of the project being an extension to what students have learned.
Elicit communication and exchange of perspectives, critiques, questions, and answers among the students. Topics of discussion should be centered around engaging yet important issues or questions.
Create a need for learning tools, such as technology, to help students achieve what is beyond their capabilities without such tools. Such learning tools promote skills such as collaboration, project and self-management, research, and oral presentations.
“Specify products that solve problems, explain dilemmas, or present information generated through investigation, research, or reasoning.”[21] An outstanding project must generate tangible products that are relevant to the challenge. While these tangible products are being created, students are given the opportunity to learn and develop their reasoning skills.
“Include multiple products that permit frequent feedback and consistent opportunities for students to learn from experience.”[21] Aside from the main end-product, a PBI experience should enable students to present their ideas in the form of artifacts that are constantly criticized and revised.
“Use performance-based assessments that communicate high expectations, present rigorous challenges, and require a range of skills and knowledge.”[21] PBI assessments concentrate on assessing learning rather than knowledge.
“Encourage collaboration in some form, either through small groups, student-led presentations, or whole-class evaluations of project results.”[21]

“Big P” vs. “Little P” projects

“Big P” and “Little P” are terms coined by Professor Anthony Petrosino at the University of Texas at Austin to describe characteristics of PBI methods. The terms have not been formally published in the education literature, but they are referenced in conjunction with the UTeach Program’s Project-Based Instruction course.[26]

Little P is a term used to describe a project that has limited or partial elements of an educational project, based on guidelines by PBI theorists such as Brigid Barron and Joseph Krajcik (see PBI theory in this entry.) According to Petrosino, Little P projects lack attributes such as appropriate goals and objectives, necessary scaffolding, and social structures that promote participatory practices among communities.

In one investigation, preservice teachers’ conceptions of PBI were contrasted against those of education researchers. The investigation reported findings that preservice teachers’ notions of PBI frequently reflected superficial elements, or what Petrosino has labeled Little P project aspects. These superficial elements include using unqualified labels or themes for projects without specifying the nature of the inquiry, lacking a proper project-implementation plan, and including PBI characteristics in a unit such as group work and extended time frames but failing to specify how these aspects could improve the unit. The study found that education researchers were more inclined to describe PBI as possessing driving questions, tangible product outcomes, student-driven complex tasks, scaffolding, formative assessment, and cognitive tools, which are more in line with Big P ideals.[22]

One activity performed in some PBI education courses is for future teachers to model a Big P project in a classroom. In this context Big P projects would contain the necessary elements of PBI as outlined in the current education literature. From Barron et al. and the Technology Group at Vanderbilt, the projects would contain a driving question that is tangible, contextualized and meaningful to the students.[1] As students work towards a solution to their driving question, the teacher provides scaffolds that will help them through this process. Scaffolding is defined in many forms. One scaffold cited frequently in the literature is having students work with technology. Some examples of technology scaffolds include collecting information from experts and professionals via Skype [13] and watching a Jasper Woodbury video, a problem-based learning activity.[24] Another scaffold cited in educational literature is the use of embedded teaching. In a Big P classroom, subject-matter content is delivered to students in a just-in-time or as-needed manner. The theory behind embedded teaching is that information should be provided to students to address a specific problem being faced in hopes of increasing knowledge retention levels.[18]

According to some PBI theory, Big P projects would contain multiple opportunities for formative self-assessment and revision. Teachers would continually check progress throughout the project lifecycle versus proving only summative assessments at the end of a unit. Students would work collaboratively and communicate with each other and with the community at large. Some scholars have suggested having the students present their final projects to peers and a panel of experts on the subject matter. From Barron, this act may provide students with a sense of agency and social responsibility in their work.[1]

The PBI classroom should have multiple opportunities not only for formative self-assessment but also for revision of student projects. Multiple assessments are used because student progress must be checked throughout the unit instead of at the end of a unit, when time has run out and teachers have no opportunity to go back and clear up any misconceptions. Students not only should go through the motions of doing the project but also must be given the opportunity to go back and revise. In the real world, many people find themselves working in groups of some sort, be it a church committee or a board of executives. It is important for students to develop social skills at a young age, so that they are able to effectively communicate with each other and with the community. This is why students are required to present their final projects both to their peers and, if resources allow, to a panel of experts. This gives them a sense of agency, meaning they take responsibility and pride in their work and therefore try to do the best they can to impress their audience.[1] These are just some of the basic features that a project must have to be considered a Big P project. Doing these types of projects not only leaves an impression with the student but also helps them develop an understanding of what they are doing and why.

PBI vs. other instructional methods

PBI is often confused with other teaching methods, particularly instructional methods that are problem based, case based, challenge based, and inquiry based, as well as with cyclical instruction methods, such as the Learning Cycle and the Legacy Cycle. These varied methods of educational instruction are all often confused with PBI for a myriad of reasons, but it is possible to filter out the differences between each respective method and PBI.

Problem-based learning

Problem based learning and PBL are very similar. Both of these methods involve the teacher as a facilitator. Both are learner centered and involve students working in groups. Both methods have initial problems presented to the students. These problems are based on real-world problems. The methods also provide scaffolding and cognitive load. Formative and summative assessments are also present. The methods involve higher thinking skills abd students also deal with concepts and facts. Both of these methods are engaging and motivating to students.

However, project-based and problem-based learning are two different teaching methods. Problem-based learning uses little to no direct instruction, whereas direct instruction is used in PBL. In problem-based learning, there are many approaches to get to a certain solution. In problem-based learning, students are solving a problem, whereas in PBL, students are developing or creating. PBL has ill-defined complexity but has tangible outcomes where it fits the students’ interest and abilities. Problem-based learning also gives students more of a chance to research, collect, and analyze information. Problem-based versus project-based learning can be compared to constructing versus designing.

Problem-based learning and PBL can be confused with each other. Both methods begin with a challenge that involves scaffolding and a tremendous amount of time. However, problem-based learning can be applied before doing a project. The problem-based learning can serve as scaffolding for the PBL. Following with a project leads students to develop more flexible skills and understanding.

Case-based learning

Case based learning (CBL) has similar aspects with PBL. Both of these methods involve situated learning with a real-world context. The methods also provide scaffolding. Students are able to collect a wide range of information and data. Both of these methods involve the teacher being a facilitator and students working in groups or collaboration. These methods are definitely a way to engage and motivate students.

There is a notable difference between CBL and PBL. In CBL, students are presented with a story or a narrative with issues that needs to be solved. CBL students are not only thinking but also reading or acting out cases. Students are then able to play different roles. CBL usually involves a class discussion giving students an opportunity to explore, analyze, and debate. Students learn from the experiences, which they can adapt to new problems. CBL is developing the experiences from cases, whereas PBL is using experiences for their challenge, leading to a creation.

Challenge-based Instruction

Challenge-based instruction (CBI) was developed by Apple, Inc. and various educators across the country. It is part of a collaborative project that started in 2008 called Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow-Today to “identify the essential design principles of the 21st century learning environment.”[5] CBI is supposed to encourage students to use technology they already use every day to solve real-world problems.

There are several similarities between CBI and PBI. CBI starts with a big idea or concept that is important to high school students and society, such as Violence, Creativity, or Peace. From those big ideas essential questions are generated that “identify what is important to know about the big idea and refine and contextualize that idea.”[5] This is very similar to problems presented to students in PBI in the form of videos that present a real-life situation that students relate to, so as to contextualize the problem. From the essential questions in CBI, a challenge is presented to the students, who are supposed to come up with a result that can have concrete, meaningful action.[5] In PBI, the students are also presented with a challenge in the form of a driving question to which they have to find a solution. In CBI, the students are expected to collaborate with each other, teachers, and experts both in their communities and across the world when they are working on a solution.[5] This is similar to PBI, in which students must also collaborate with each other, teachers, and others in the community to find a solution. However, collaboration with experts from various places around the world isn’t explicitly expected for PBI.

In CBI, the students are provided with guided questions, guided activities, and guided resources. Guided questions are similar to the formative assessment used in PBI. However, they are only generated by the students in order to help them figure out the challenge. Guided activities are similar to scaffolding activities that are used in PBI. They both help the students get to the solution by providing more structure to the material that they are learning. Guiding resources support the guiding activities in the form of experts, videos, websites, and databases.[5] These guiding resources are similar to how students in PBI collaborate with experts, teachers, and other people in the community to form a solution.

A variety of solutions are also expected with CBI, as with PBI. There isn’t just one correct solution. However, with CBI, the solution must be presented in a multimedia format, such as videos and podcasts. CBI also has an assessment that comes after the solution is presented, which is similar to PBI’s summative assessment aspect. An aspect of CBI that isn’t explicitly included in PBI is that students must publish their challenge process online. This requirement is so that they can contribute to the larger learning community.[5]

CBI might get confused with PBI in that they are similar in structure. However, CBI is much more specific in the process of the challenge and how the students are supposed to present their solution.

Inquiry-based learning

Inquiry-based learning is a type of instruction that involves students learning a concept through an investigation, usually in the form of a hands-on experiment. There are three different types of inquiry: structured, guided, and open. In structured inquiry, the teacher gives the students a hands-on problem with a set of procedures and materials, and the students discover and interpret the outcome. In guided inquiry, the teacher provides the materials and the problem. It is up to the students to devise their own procedure. In open inquiry, which is most like doing real science, the students come up with their own problem to investigate.[6]

Inquiry is very similar to PBI in that it involves student learning through asking questions. In inquiry, the teacher asks the students questions throughout the lesson. The student also asks questions and attempts to answer them throughout the inquiry. This is similar to PBI in that asking and answering questions is a form of formative self-assessment.

Another similarity is that students are usually exploring the material themselves. Students perform experiments and collect and analyze data in inquiry lessons. In project-based lessons, they also carry out investigations and gather and interpret data. They also work collaboratively in both types of instruction.

In a typical inquiry lesson, an engagement portion captures the students’ attention, usually in the form of a demonstration or the telling of a story. This is very similar to a driving question used in PBI at the start of the lesson.

Inquiry-based instruction is very similar to PBI. However, PBI is more of an extension of inquiry-based instruction.[31] Inquiry-based instruction can use more teacher guidance, especially in structured inquiry. With PBI, the teacher plays a role of overlooking student progress, as opposed to being directly involved. Earlier it was mentioned that in both PBI and inquiry-based instruction, students are asked questions and ask themselves questions and attempt to answer them. In PBI, this is in the form of formative and summative assessments at the end of the unit. In inquiry-based instruction, this is done throughout the lesson.

Some confusion between the two may stem from the difference stated earlier about formative assessment in PBI and asking questions in inquiry-based instruction. Formative assessment is in only one part of the PBI unit, whereas it is used throughout the lesson in inquiry-based instruction.

Another aspect of inquiry that might cause it to be confused with PBI is that both involve a problem to be solved. In inquiry, the problem usually can be solved by one method, at least in structured inquiry. With PBI, there can be more than one way to solve the problem, and the problem is usually based on a real-life situation. PBI is more of a developed and structured form of inquiry-based instruction, but inquiry-based instruction is not an extension of PBI.[31]

Legacy Cycle

The Legacy Cycle (http://www.edb.utexas.edu/visionawards/petrosino/) is an example of only one way that PBI can be applied. There are many other possibilities for PBI application, and the Legacy Cycle is not a complete or perfect embodiment of PBI. Thus, some characteristics of the Legacy Cycle are comparable to characteristics of a generalized view of PBI, and likewise some characteristics of the Legacy Cycle do not strictly adhere to the basic tenets of PBI.

The Legacy Cycle shares a few defining attributes with PBI. Both methods, for instance, begin with a challenge and driving question that students follow and build on throughout the unit. Both methods provide copious amounts of scaffolding as students move through material, and both methods have opportunities for formative assessment at the end of their respective projects. The similarities between the two methods are all on the level of an overview, then, whereas the differences between the two as enumerated below are more concerned with details.

The differences between the Legacy Cycle and the general forms of PBI mostly lie in the Legacy Cycle’s inherent structure. The Legacy Cycle has a very specific structure that other forms of PBI do not necessarily need to follow. The Legacy Cycle usually involves much less direct instruction than PBI; the Legacy Cycle relies on students’ researching and discovering information for themselves, whereas other forms of PBI allow for lectures and other forms of direct instruction from the classroom teachers. To this end, PBI’s scaffolding usually comes in the form of worksheets or videos that add information to the students’ knowledge, whereas the Legacy Cycle’s scaffolding tends to involve pointing out the students’ knowledge gaps so that the students can research and fill the gaps themselves, rather than being told the next portion of information they need to know to complete the project.

Because the Legacy Cycle is a type of PBI, it is easy to confuse the two. The differences between the two project methods are not always clearly delineated, which only adds to the confusion. It is thus important to remember that the Legacy Cycle is a specified application of PBI. The Legacy Cycle embodies PBI, but PBI is not limited to only being applied through the Legacy Cycle.

Learning Cycle

The Learning Cycle (http://changingminds.org/explanations/learning/learning_cycle.htm) is a project method modeled after Kolb’s learning styles (http://changingminds.org/explanations/learning/kolb_learning.htm) and crafted to reflect principles of scientific inquiry. The Learning Cycle utilizes experiences that are out of sync with the students’ intuition to have the students reflect on a phenomenon and attempt to use past experiences and understandings to explain it. When the students realize that their reflections cannot fully explain the topic being studied, they form theories to reconcile their jarring experience with their knowledge of natural order to form new models that take the experience into account. The students then put their theories to the test through experimentation and further reflection on the results of the experiments, until they can explain the surprising phenomenon satisfactorily. The Learning Cycle can be essentially summed up as Exploration, Concept Development, and Concept Application.

Like many of the other educational structures often confused with PBI, the Learning Cycle shares several fundamental attributes with PBI. Both methods begin with a challenge or problem that arouses student curiosity. Both methods encourage students to explore that problem through various activities and/or experiments. Both methods leave room for assessment before students may move on to a new topic. Comparisons between PBI and the Learning Cycle will convince the analyst that the differences, as with comparisons of many other methods with PBI, are in the details.

The Learning Cycle shares a few main principles with PBI, but the Learning Cycle’s general structure and execution showcase some fundamental differences. The Learning Cycle, for instance, does not necessarily employ any overt scaffolding. The Learning Cycle generally encourages students to discover on their own, rather than be systematically provided with information or with stepwise instructions. The Learning Cycle also can be easily instituted as an individual activity or into a cooperative learning environment. In contrast, PBI as a general rule is not universally conducive to implementation in both; most PBI projects lend themselves more easily to cooperative learning than to individual projects. Finally, the Learning Cycle and PBI differ primarily in that the Learning Cycle, like the Legacy Cycle, has little use or time for direct instruction, whereas PBI makes use of direct instruction whenever appropriate. The Learning Cycle relies on students’ innate curiosity to ensure that the students learn the material, whereas teachers utilizing PBI will take the time to present information to their students.

The Learning Cycle can be confused with PBI because of the shared pedagogy between the two methods. Both methods employ some type of driving question to encourage student participation, and both methods encourage some type of experimentation to enable students to discover the answer, or multiple answers, to the driving question. The confusion that crops up between the two methods results from similar pedagogy but entirely different executions for carrying out that pedagogy.

Examples of PBI in literature

The concept of PBI is starting to pop up in the classroom. PBI helps students become more active because they are asked to develop their own questions and to solve problems that arise. Research has provided convincing evidence that inquiry-based approaches assist students in acquiring a sophisticated understanding of science.[23] In one instance, a teacher arranged his classroom so that little projects were spread throughout the astronomy class. The class was using software to analyze the brightness of stars versus the time of observation. The course was designed to focus on the use of scientific tools. Whenever the students had a problem, the teacher gave information to the students that they needed and not before. The students then communicated with professors at the University of California at Berkeley. In order to assess the students, the teacher used various assessments, including whether the students could work through problems and analyze the data.[23]

In another case Dr. Anthony Petrosino was trying to come up with a good driving question about model rockets. The students were not learning with the hands-on activity of building a rocket. “They did not, for example, understand what made a better or worse rocket, and they didn’t understand how to evaluate the effectiveness of their rockets in any systematic way.”[1] After he put learning goals into the project, the students were able to “measure the height of a rocket launch, record result from each launch, noticed and recorded sources of variance in their measurements.”[1]

Implementations of PBI

UTeach

Project Based Instruction is a capstone course in the UTeach teacher certification program at the University of Texas at Austin. Within the course, students are exposed to research and articles that describe the structure of PBI. Students read multiple works that describe PBI. For instance, Krajcik and Blumenfeld (2006) identified five key features of PBI:

A driving question introduces the problem to which the students will find a solution.
Students identify and apply ideas to begin to think about how to find a solution to the driving question.
Students collaborate to find a solution.
Teachers use learning technologies to scaffold the student work. This helps students of all levels of mathematical or scientific background participate in the classroom activities.
Teachers elicit artifacts from students that demonstrate their ability to come up with a solution to the driving question.

Therefore, a project should have a challenge or a problem to be solved that is evident in the driving question. The driving question can be presented as one question or as an anchor video.[24] An anchor video is a story in which a problem or challenge is presented. The students are given all pertinent facts and pieces of information that they would need to solve the problem within the video. Students should be given opportunities to identify what they know from the anchor video or recall prior knowledge to begin developing a framework to solve the problem. Students should work with one another to find a solution.

The learning should be guided by the teacher with smaller lessons within the project. For example, if students will need to use a formula that is new to them, this formula should be taught to the students during the course of the project. Once the students have reached a solution to the problem, they should have the opportunity to construct a poster, presentation, letter, website, etc. to show that they have found a solution and can describe the answer.

One way to implement a project using the five key features important to projects is to use a Legacy Cycle. The Legacy Cycle is an example of providing inquiry through the use of anchors. Along the way the student can solve a challenge, assess progress, and make necessary changes. The Legacy Cycle is characterized by successive challenges that typically increase in difficulty. One unique characteristic is that a Legacy Cycle keeps the students on track by letting them know where they are and where they are headed.

The Legacy Cycle is opened with a challenge. This challenge acts as the driving question and should therefore be feasible, worthwhile, contextualized, meaningful, and open ended. The challenge is best structured as a video that provides all evidence that the student needs to proceed with the challenge. It should be open ended enough to not restrict the students’ path to an answer.

Then, a pretest typically assesses the student’s prior knowledge. This is a springboard to start from and a baseline that the student can reflect on at the end of the unit. The students can use existing knowledge to generate their own ideas about the challenge. This is in itself another form of pre-assessment because the student is working on his or her own prior conception of the challenge.

Students are then provided an opportunity to compare their ideas with experts in the field. This is known as the “Multiple Perspectives” section of the Legacy Cycle. This section typically clears up misconceptions students might have had from the “Generate Ideas” section as well as expands their knowledge. This section is typically presented in video format to grab the students’ attention more effectively.

The students can then move on to the “Research and Revise” section in which they are provided many resources to research and expand their learning. In this section students test their ideas about the challenge using various activities.

The students are then able to monitor their progress in the “Test Your Mettle” section. This is a way for the teacher to provide formative assessment before the students “Go Public.” In the “Go Public” section the students present what they have learned and discovered about the challenge. This is the final assessment for a challenge. From this point, the student moves on to the next challenge, which is typically more difficult and further builds the expertise of the student.

New Technology Network

PBI is starting to be implemented in high schools, commonly known as New Tech High Schools, all over the United States. These high schools adopt a new learning environment where teachers design projects with different components instead of daily handouts. Tools such as websites, essays, presentations, or other media are used in these projects, which ultimately lead to an oral presentation when the project has been completed. The following is a list of high schools in America that implement PBI:[17]

California

Da Vinci Carter Academy http://www.davincihigh.net/ - Davis, CA
Los Angeles School of Global Studies http://lasgslausd.com/ - Los Angeles, CA
New Technology High School Napa http://www.newtechhigh.org/ - Napa, CA
Sacramento New Technology High School http://schools.scusd.edu/sacnewtech/ - Sacramento, CA
Student Empowerment Academy http://www.newtechnetwork.org/node/100 - Los Angeles, CA

Georgia

Fine Arts and Humanities New Tech Academy at Peach County High School http://www.pchs.peachschools.org/content/arts-humanities - Fort Valley, GA
Human Services Academy at Peach County High School http://pchs.peachschools.org/content/human-services - Fort Valley, GA
STEM New Tech Academy at Peach County High School http://pchs.peachschools.org/content/stem-academy - Fort Valley, GA

Louisiana

Algiers Technology Academy http://www.algierstechnologyacademy.org/ - New Orleans, LA
Bogalusa New Tech High School http://sites.google.com/site/bogalusanewtechhigh1/ - Bogalusa, LA
Booker T Washington New Technology High School http://www.btwhs.com/ - Shreveport, LA
Bunkie New Tech http://bunkienewtech.vpweb.com/ - Bunkie, LA
Greater Gentilly High School http://sites.google.com/site/greatergentillyhighschool/ - New Orleans, LA
Louisiana New Tech at Plain Dealing http://www.pdmhs-bps-la.schoolloop.com/ - Plain Dealing, LA
New Tech at Ruston http://rustonhigh.lincolnschools.org/ - Ruston, LA
Patrick F. Taylor Science and Technology Academy http://ptsta.jppss.k12.la.us/ptsta/ - Jefferson, LA
St. Charles Satellite Center http://stcharlessatellitecenter.org/ - Luling, LA

Michigan

Holland New Tech High School http://www.hollandpublicschools.org/vnews/display.v/SEC/Holland%20New%20Tech - Holland, MI
New Tech High School at Ardis http://www.ypsd.org/schools/newtech/index.html - Ypsilanti, MI
Pinckney New Tech High School http://pnt.pinckneyschools.org/ - Pinckney, MI
River Rouge New Tech High International Academy http://riverrougeschools.org/home/newtech - River Rouge, MI
Westwood High School http://www.nice.k12.mi.us/WestwoodHighschool/home.aspx - Ishpeming, MI
Westwood New Tech High School http://www.newtechnetwork.org/node/337 - Dearborn Heights, MI

New Mexico

nex+Gen Academy http://www.nexgenacademy.com/ - Albuquerque, NM

New York

Tech Valley High http://techvalleyhigh.org/ - Rensselaer, NY

North Carolina

Anson New Tech High School http://www.anson.k12.nc.us/anths.html - Anson, NC
Hillside New Tech High School http://newtech.dpsnc.net/ - Durham, NC
Scotland School of Math, Science and Technology http://www.scsnc.org/schools/shs/web/mst.html - Laurinburg, NC
Southeast Raleigh Magnet High School http://www.srhs.net/ - Raleigh, NC
Warren New Tech High School http://www.wcsk12.org/schools.php?id=12 - Warrenton, NC

Ohio

Garrett Morgan New Tech High School http://www.newtechnetwork.org/node/312 - Cleveland, OH
New Tech at East Tech High School http://www.newtechnetwork.org/schools/new-tech-east-tech-high-school - Cleveland, OH

South Dakota

Sioux Falls New Technology High School http://www.sf.k12.sd.us/SFSchoolDistrict/community.aspx?sfsd=WebPointID%3d1210%26NewsStoryID%3d0%26__TimeStamp__%3d12%2f31%2f9999+11%3a59%3a59+PM - Sioux Falls, SD

Texas

Academy of Technology, Engineering, Math and Science http://abilene.region14.net/webs/atems/ - Abilene, TX
Akins New Tech http://www.austinschools.org/campus/akinsnewtech/ - Austin, TX
Eastside Memorial Global Tech http://www.austinschools.org/campus/eastsidememorial/main/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=69&Itemid=28 - Austin, TX
Eastside Memorial Green Tech http://www.austinschools.org/campus/eastsidememorial/main/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=70&Itemid=29 - Austin, TX
Manor New Technology High School http://www.manorisd.net/newtech/ - Manor, TX
Math, Engineering, Technology and Science Academy http://www.thsp.org/cms/One.aspx - Carrollton, TX
New Tech High at Coppell http://www.coppellisd.com/newtech/site/default.asp - Coppell, TX

Washington

School of Engineering and Design http://www.seattleschools.org/area/stem/engineering-design.xml - Seattle, WA
School of Life Sciences http://www.seattleschools.org/area/stem/lifesciencesacademy.xml - Seattle, WA

Implementing PBI in universities

One of the most noted implementations of PBI is in medical school. PBI used in medical education usually involves five features:[7]

The Biomedical Problem - students study cases to learn the basic concepts of the problem, such as cancer.
Small-Group Tutorial Session - this tutorial session is usually student driven while the facilitator is there just to keep students participating and avoiding digression.
Student-Directed Learning - Issues are generated by the student while other students share their answers on the issue, which serves as everyone being a learner and a teacher.
Dependence on Tutorial Learning.
Reciprocal Student-Faculty Evaluation - This serves as an assessment for the students as well as the tutor.

Government use of PBI, Legacy Cycles

Governments are starting to use Legacy Cycles to help educate students on a subject or an issue. An example of this would be the Texas Water Development Board,[32] which uses Legacy Cycles to help build an understanding of water science and water-related issues.

Criticisms and controversy

Kirschner et al.

Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark compared two types of learning. One type involves a learner and an instructor who tells the learner what to know, and in this process of “learning,” the instructor passes on information, teaches the process, and explains concepts fully, so that a learner can move information from short-term to long-term memory. Kirschner et al. referred to this as “direct instruction.”[14] They defined the other type of learning as placing a learner into a minimally guided environment and expecting the learner to learn important information independently. In “minimally guided learning,” Kirschner et al. included PBI, inquiry learning, experimental learning, and constructivist learning. They stated that this “minimally guided learning” is not as effective as direct instruction because of the way human cognition is set up, the data is supporting DI, and some other conceptual errors.

Kirschner et al. differentiated between long-term memory and working memory. The long term determines everything about us, from processing to actions, like crossing the street safely. Kirschner et al. proposed that a change in the long-term memory is the goal of a teacher, and if it does not occur, learning has not occurred. The working (short-term) memory, on the other hand, helps process information, but only in a limited manner, and stores information, but only minimally. During minimally guided instruction, the working memory is used extensively. While the working memory is being used, only limited information can be saved to the long-term memory, so instructors are not being efficient. In direct instruction, a teacher just gives a student needed information, like the concepts and procedures, so a student can store more information without having to worry about the working memory, therefore learning more.

In defense of their view, Kirschner et al. mentioned different experiments that have shown how direct instruction is more effective than minimally guided. They mentioned at least 10 different experiments and how raw data supported his view. They also mentioned that in the experiment of Brown and Champione (1994), students in minimally guided instruction tended to get frustrated, confused, and had more misconceptions. Also, in one particular experiment, Klahr and Nigam (2004)[15] compared the quality of learning between guided instruction and minimally guided instruction and found nothing conclusive.

Finally, in minimally guided instruction, teachers want students to be like the experts. Experts do not hear lectures throughout the day but rather learn by doing. Kirschner et al. made the distinction between an expert and a novice. Experts have years of background to their field before experimenting, and so experimenting is of value. Novices start with little or no knowledge. This distinction must be taken into consideration when considering minimally guided instruction. Direct instruction can give a foundation for the concepts and help in future experiments.

Kirschner et al. concluded that there is no basis for minimally guided instruction, stating that the evidence supports direct instruction. They concluded by quoting Mayer (2004) to suggest moving “educational reform efforts from the fuzzy and unproductive world of ideology—which sometimes hides under the various banners of constructivism—to the sharp and productive world of theory-based research on how people learn.”[18]

Response to Kirschner et al.

As a reply, Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, and Chinn (2007) pointed out two major flaws with Kirschner et al.’s argument. The first flaw was the categorization of minimally guided instruction. Kirschner et al. categorized the following pedagogical approaches as minimally guided approaches: constructivist, discovery, problem based, experiential, and inquiry based.[13] Yet, Hmelo-Silver et al. argued that some of those approaches do not fall under the category of minimally guided instruction, namely, problem-based and inquiry learning. Instead of giving students minimally guided instruction, these approaches provide students with extensive scaffolding and guidance to facilitate student learning. Forms of scaffolding provided include direct instruction; expert information and guidance; and questions that promote student learning by modeling, coaching, and eventually fading some of their support. Teachers play a significant role in scaffolding not only to provide content knowledge on a just-in-time basis but also to provide mindful and productive engagement with the task and tools.

The second major flaw of Kirschner et al.’s argument is in the evidentiary base. Although Kirschner et al. were able to provide several studies and meta-analyses of PBL that claimed the approach was ineffective, they overlooked other reviews that showed a moderate effect size favoring PBL students (e.g., Dochy, Segers, Van den Bossche, & Gijbels, 200; Vernon & Blake, 1993).[13] Also, in some of the studies cited by Kirschner et al., the results were not determinate. For instance, in the results of Patel, Groen, and Norman’s (1993) research, although the PBL students were more likely to make errors, they also created more elaborate explanations than did students in the traditional curriculum. Patel et al. concluded (and Kirschner et al. concurred) that PBL impedes the development of expert, data-driven reasoning strategies.[14] However, other research suggests that when faced with unfamiliar problems, experts go back to basic principles and effectively use hypothesis-driven reasoning rather than the data-driven reasoning used in familiar problems (Norman, Trott, Brooks, & Smith, 1994). The mixed effects of PBL made Kirschner et al.’s evidence of the ineffectiveness of PBL inconclusive. On the other hand, studies that showed significant and marked effect sizes and gains in favor of inquiry-based learning and PBL provide evidence for the effectiveness of these approaches (Geier et al, in press; Hickey, Kindfeld, Horwitz, & Christie, 1999; Hickey, Wolfe, & Kindfeld, 2000; Lynch, Kuipers, Pyke, & Szesze, 2005).[13]

Other criticisms

One criticism of PBI is its place in teaching: Is its effectiveness the same throughout all subject areas? According to Beckett’s article, “Teacher and Student Evaluations of Project-Based Instruction,” for the most part, it seems that teachers and students have a positive view of PBI, stating that it allows for a richer experience in acquiring and retaining knowledge.[2]

Although it fares well with most subject areas, problems seem to arise when applying PBI in second language education. To date, only two doctoral-level research studies have examined PBI in second-language education, and one provided mixed results. A study conducted by Eyring followed a teacher who was implementing PBI for the first time. The teacher found that PBI was complex and demanding, and she had a difficult time deciding which projects were worthwhile. She also found that students did not look forward to participating in the projects. She noticed a drop in attendance, and students in that class were late more often compared to her traditional classes. Students complained that they were not learning enough academic skills while doing the projects.[2]

As a result of implementing PBI, the teacher Eyring studied had a drastic decrease in self-esteem, stating that she felt she lost the respect of her students. She did not feel that the students appreciated the hard work that she had put in the projects. Although this is only one view of PBI not working as planned, it shows that teachers must have adequate training to handle challenges when implementing PBI and should not give up when the first implementation does not go as planned. Other studies reported student dissatisfaction with PBI because it is time consuming, difficult, and may require public communication.[2] More research should be done to study and to recommend ways to improve PBI in second-language classrooms.

Time is a major issue for PBI. The amount of time that teachers spend making a lesson plan and students spend completing the project may be overwhelming.[7] District standards can affect PBI dramatically; if not enough time is allowed for certain subjects and topics to be covered, PBI cannot thrive.

References

Barron, B., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A. J., Zech, L., et al. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem- and project-based learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3/4).
Beckett, G. H. (2002). Teacher and student evaluations of project-based instruction. TESL Canada Journal, 19(2). Retrieved from http://journals.sfu.ca/tesl/index.php/tesl/article/view/929/748
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school: Expanded edition. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Brown, A., & Campione, J. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 229-270). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Challenge based learning: Take action and make a difference. (2009). Retrieved from Apple, Inc.: http://ali.apple.com/cbl/global/files/CBL_Paper.pdf
Colburn, A. (2000). An inquiry primer. Retrieved from http://www.experientiallearning.ucdavis.edu/module2/el2-60-primer.pdf
Colley, K. E. (2005). Project-based science instruction: Teaching science for understanding. Radical Pedagogy, 7(2). Retrieved from http://radicalpedagogy.icaap.org/content/issue7_2/colley.html
Donner, R. S., & Bickley, H. (1993). Problem-based learning in American medical education: An overview. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 81(3), 294-298.
Fay, M. E., & Bretz, S. L. (2008). Structuring the level of inquiry in your classroom. The Science Teacher, 75(5), 38-42.
Finucane, P. M., Johnson, S. M., & Prideaux, D. J. (1998). Problem-based learning: its rationale and efficacy. The Medical Journal of Austrialia, 168. Retrieved from https://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/may4/finucane/finucane.html
Gagne, R., & Driscoll, M. (1988). Essentials of learning for instruction (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Great Schools, Inc. (2010). Manor New Technology High School. Retrieved December 4, 2010, from http://www.greatschools.org/modperl/achievement/tx/11952
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99-107.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: Effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 15, 661-667.
Klein, S. S., & Harris, A. H. (2007). A user's guide for the Legacy Cycle. Journal of Education and Human Development, 1(1). Retrieved from http://www.scientificjournals.org/articles/1088.pdf
KnowledgeWorks. (n.d.). New Tech Network. Retrieved December 5, 2010, from http://www.newtechnetwork.org/node/51
Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (2006). Project-based learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 317-333). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Krajcik, J., McNeill, K. L., & Reiser, B. J. (2007). Learning-goals-driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Science Education, 92(1).
Lawson, A. (year). A love of discovery: Science education. Chapter 4: The Learning Cycle. City, ST: Springer.
Markham, T., Larmer, J., & Ravitz, J. (2003). Project based learning handbook: A guide to standards-focused Project Based Learning for Middle and High School Teachers (2nd ed.). Novato, CA: Buck Institute for Education.
Marshall, J., Petrosino, A., & Martin, T. (2010). Preservice teachers’ conceptions and enactments of project-based instruction. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19, 370-386
Mayer, R. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59, 14-19.
Pellegrino, J. W., & Brophy, S. (2008). From cognitive theory to instructional practice: Technology and the evolution of anchored instruction. In D. Ifenthaler, P. Pirnay-Dummer, & J. Spector (Eds.), Understanding models for learning and instruction (Vol. 3, pp. 277-303). City, ST: Publisher.
Petrosino, A. (2004). Integrating curriculum, instruction, and assessment in project-based instruction: A case study of an experienced teacher. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13.
Petrosino, A. (2009). Project based instruction in STEM education. Retrieved from http://uteachpbi.blogspot.com/2010/09/fall-2010-uteach-pbi-class-7-sept-16.html
Piaget, J. (1970). Structuralism. New York, NY: Basic Books
Polya, G. (1957). How to solve it. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rivet, A. E., & Krajcik J. S. (2004). Achieving standards in urban systemic reform: An example of sixth grade project-based curriculum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 672-###.
Skinner, B. F. (1968). The technology of teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Smith, J. Classroom interactions: The basic structure of a problem-based math lesson.
Texas Water Development Board. (2010). What is a legacy cycle? Retrieved December 5, 2010, from http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/waterexploration/legacy.asp
Vygotsky, L. S., & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Walbert, D. (n.d.). The Learning Cycle. Retrieved from http://www.learnnc.org/lp/pages/663
Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.