Project-based learning

The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, Second Edition

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 275-297

  Krajcik, Joseph S ^a   Shin, Namsoo ^b  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Seoul National University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84940445465     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139519526.018     Document Type: Chapter

References (78)

1. Atkin, J. M., & Coffey, J. E. (2003). Everyday assessment in the science classroom (science educators’ essay collection). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Associations.
2. Azmitia, M. (1996). Peer interactive minds: Developmental, theoretical, and methodological issues. In P. B. Baltes & U. M. Staudinger (Eds.), Interactive minds: Life-span perspectives on the social foundation of cognition (pp. 133-162). New York: Cambridge University Press.
3. Blumenfeld, P. C, Fishman, B. J., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (2000). Creating usable technology - embedded project-based science in urban schools. Educational Psychologist, 35, 149-164.
4. Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (1996). Learning with peers: From small group cooperation to collaborative communities. Educational Researcher, 24(8), 37-40.
5. Blumenfeld, P. C, Soloway, E., Marx, R. W, Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26, 369-398.
6. Bransford, J., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). Howpeople learn: Brain, mind experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
7. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (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.
8. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32-42.
9. Cahill, C., Kuhn, A., Schmoll, S., Pompe, A., & Quintana, C. (2010). Zydeco: Using mobile and web technologies to support seamless inquiry between museum and school contexts. In Proceedings of the 9th international Conference on interaction Design and Children (Barcelona, Spain, June 09-12, 2010). IDC '10. ACM, New York, 174-177.
10. Carver, S. M. (2006). Assessing for deep understanding. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 205-221). New York: Cambridge University Press.
11. Choi, J. I., & Shin, N. (2009). Digital textbook design principles Adapting the universal design for learning. Journal of Educational Technology, 25(1), 29-59.
12. Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15-42.
13. Dewey, J. (1959). Dewey on education. New York: Teachers College Press.
14. Duschl, R., Schweingruber, H., & Shouse, A. (Eds.) (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
15. Edelson, D. C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for integrating content and process learning in the design of inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 355-385.
16. Edelson, D. C., & Reiser, B. J. (2006). Making authentic practices accessible to learners: Design challenges and strategies. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 335-354). New York: Cambridge University Press.
17. Fishman, B. J., & Davis, E. A. (2006). Teacher learning research and the learning sciences. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 535-550). New York: Cambridge University Press.
18. Fortus, D., Abdel-Kareem, H., Jin, H., Nordine, J. C., & Weizman, A. (2012). Why do some things stop while others continue going? In J. S. Krajcik B. J. Reiser, L. M. Sutherland, & D. Fortus (Eds.), Investigating and questioning our world through science and technology (IQWST). New York: Sangari Science.
19. Fortus, D., & Krajcik, J. S. (2011). Curriculum coherence and learning progressions. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), The international handbook of research in science education. Second Edition (pp. 783-798). Dordrecht: Springer.
20. Geier, R., Blumenfeld, P., Marx, R., Krajcik, J., Fishman, B., & Soloway, E. (2008). Standardized test outcomes of urban students participating in standards and project based science curricula. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(8), 922-939.
21. Haberman, M. (1991). The pedagogy of poverty versus good teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(4), 290-294.
22. Hoffman, J., Wu, H-K, Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2003). The nature of middle school learners’ science content understandings with the use of on-line resources. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(3), 323-346.
23. Hogan, K., & Maglienti, M. (2001). Comparing the epistemological underpinnings of students’ and scientists’ reasoning about conclusions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38 (6), 663-687.
24. Hug, B., & Krajcik, J. (2002). Students, scientific practices using a scaffolded inquiry sequence. In P. Bell, R. Stevens, & T. Satwicz (Eds.), Keeping learning complex: The proceedings of the Fifth International Conference for the Learning Sciences (ICLS). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
25. Hurd, P. D. (1970). New directions in teaching secondary school science. Chicago: Rand McNally.
26. Kesidou, S., & Roseman, J. E. (2002). How well do middle school science programs measure up? Findings from Project 2061‘s curriculum review. Journal Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 522-549.
27. Kolodner, J. L. (2006). Case-based reasoning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 225-242). New York: Cambridge University Press.
28. Kolodner, J., Krajcik, J., Reiser, B., Edelson, D., & Starr, M. (2009-2013). Project-Based Inquiry Science. It’s About Time, Publisher. (Middle School Science Curriculum Materials). Mt. Kisco, NY.
29. Krajcik, J. S., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. Journal of Learning Sciences, 7, 313-350.
30. Krajcik, J. S., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (1994). A collaborative model for helping middle grade teachers learn project-based instruction. The Elementary Schools Journal, 94(5), 483-497.
31. Krajcik, J. S., & Czerniak, C. M. (2013). Teaching science in elementary and middle school classrooms: A project-based approach. Fourth Edition. Taylor and Francis: London.
32. Krajcik, J. S., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2006). Using driving questions to motivate and sustain student interest in learning science. In K. Tobin (Ed.), Teaching and learning science: An encyclopedia. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.
33. Krajcik, J. S., McNeill, K. L., & Reiser, B., (2008). Learning-goals-driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Science Education, 92(1), 1-32.
34. Krajcik, J. S. & Merritt, J. (2012). Engaging students in scientific practices: What does constructing and revising models look like in the science classroom? Science and Children, 49(7), 10-13.
35. Krajcik, J. S., Reiser, B. J., Sutherland, L. M., & Fortus, D. (2011). IQWST: Investigating and questioning our world through science and technology, (Middle School Science Curriculum Materials). Sangari Global Education/Active Science, USA.
36. Krajcik, J. S., Slotta, J., McNeill, K. L., & Reiser, B. (2008). Designing learning environments to support students constructing coherent understandings. In Y. Kali, M. C. Linn, & J. E. Roseman (Eds.), Designing coherent science education. New York: Teachers College Press.
37. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
38. Lee, O., & Buxton, C. A. (2010). Diversity and equity in science education: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
39. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Cultivating model-based reasoning in science education. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 371-387). New York: Cambridge University Press.
40. Linn, M. C. (1997). Learning and instruction in science education: Taking advantage of technology. In D. Tobin & B. J. Fraser (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 265-294). The Netherlands: Kluwer Publishers.
41. Marx, R. W, Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., Geier, R., & Revital, T. T. (2004). Inquiry-based science in the middle grades: Assessment of learning in urban systemic reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1063-1080.
42. McNeill, K. L. (2009). Teachers ' use of curriculum to support students in writing scientific arguments to explain phenomena. Science Education, 93(2), 233-268.
43. McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. S. (2008). Middle school students’ use of appropriate and inappropriate evidence in writing scientific explanations. In M. Lovet & P. Shah (Eds.), Thinking with data (pp. 233-265). New York: Taylor and Francis.
44. McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. S. (2012). Supporting grade 5-8 students in constructing explanations in science: The claim, evidence and reasoning framework for talk and writing. New York: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.
45. Merritt, J., Sutherland, L., Shwartz, Y., van de Kerkhof, M. H., & Krajcik, J. (2011). How can I smell things from a distance? In J. Krajcik, B. Reiser, L. Sutherland, & D. Fortus (Eds.), IQWST: Investigating and questioning our world through science and technology, (Middle School Science Curriculum Materials). Sangari Global Education/Active Science, USA.
46. Metcalf-Jackson, S., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2000). Model-It: A design retrospective. In M. Jacobson & R. B. Kozma (Eds.), Innovations in science and mathematics education: Advanced designs for technologies and learning (pp. 77-116). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
47. Moje, E. B., Collazo, T., Carrillo, R., & Marx, R. W. (2001). "Maestro, what is ‘quality’?": Language, literacy, and discourse in project-based science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(4), 469-498.
48. Moje, E. B., Peek-Brown, D., Sutherland, L. M., Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P., & Krajcik, J. S. (2004). Explaining explanations: Developing scientific literacy in middle-school project-based science reforms. In D. Strickland & D. E. Alverman (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Improving literacy learning for preadolescent and adolescent learners in grades 4-12 (pp. 227-251). New York: Teachers College Press.
49. National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards, Washington, DC: National Research Council.
50. National Research Council (NRC). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8, Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
51. National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas, Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
52. Norris, C., & Soloway, E. (2009). A disruption is coming: A primer for educators on the mobile technology revolution. In A. Druin (Ed.), Mobile technology for children: Designing for interaction and learning (pp. 125-139). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier, Inc.
53. Novak, A., & Gleason, C. (2001). Incorporating portable technology to enhance an inquiry, project-based middle school science classroom. In R. Tinker & J. S. Krajcik (Eds.), Portable technologies: Science learning in context (pp. 29-62). The Netherlands: Kluwer Publishers.
54. Novak, A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2004). Using learning technologies to support inquiry in middle school science. In L. Flick & N. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science: Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education (pp. 75-102). The Netherlands: Kluwer Publishers.
55. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2007). PISA 2006 Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World, Paris: OECD.
56. Pellegrino, J. W, Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
57. Perkins, D., Crismond, D., Simmons, R., & Unger, C. (1995). Inside understanding. In D. Perkins, J. Schwartz, M. West, & M. Wiske (Eds.), Software goes to school: Teaching for understanding with new technologies (pp. 70-88). New York: Oxford University Press.
58. Polman, J. (1999). Designing project-based science: Connecting learners through guided inquiry. New York: Teachers College Press.
59. Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing students work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273-304.
60. Rivet, A., & Krajcik, J. (2002). Contextualizing instruction: Leveraging students’ prior knowledge and experiences to foster understanding of middle school science. In P. Bell, R. Stevens, & T. Satwicz (Eds.), Keeping learning complex: The proceedings of the fifth international conference for the learning sciences (ICLS). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
61. Rivet, A., & Krajcik, J. (2004). Achieving standards in urban systemic reform: An example of a sixth grade project-based science curriculum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(7), 669-692.
62. Rose, D. H., Meyer, A., & Hitchcock, C. (2005). The universally designed classroom: Accessible curriculum and digital technologies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
63. Rutherford, J. F. (1964). The role of inquiry in science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2(2), 80-84.
64. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536.
65. Salomon, G., Perkins, D. N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20, 2-9.
66. Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88 (3), 345-372.
67. Schneider, R. M., Krajcik, J., Marx, R., & Soloway, E. (2001). Performance of student in project-based science classrooms on a national measure of science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 821-842.
68. Sherwood, R., Kinzer, C. K., Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. J. (1987). Some benefits of creating macro-contexts for science instruction: Initial findings. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(5), 417-435.
69. Shin, N., & Stevens, S. Y. (June 2012). Development and validation of a scale to place students along a learning progression. Paper presented at the International Conferences of the Learning Sciences, Sydney, Australia.
70. Shin, N., Sutherland, L. M., & McCall, K. (April 2011). Design research of features in inquiry-based science materials. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
71. Singer, J., Marx, R. W, Krajcik, J., & Chambers, J. C. (2000). Constructing extended inquiry projects: Curriculum materials for science education reform. Educational Psychologist, 35, 165-178.
72. Smith, C. L., Wiser, M., Anderson, C. W, & Krajcik, J. (2006). Implications of research on children’s learning for standards and assessment: A proposed learning progression for matter and the atomic molecular theory. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives 14(1 and 2), 1-98.
73. Spitulnik, M. W., Stratford, S., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (1997). Using technology to support student’s artifact construction in science. In B. J. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 363-382). The Netherlands: Kluwer Publishers.
74. Stevens, S. Y, & Shin, N. (April 2012). Developing and validating a "ruler" to locate and follow students along a learning progression. Poster presented at American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, Canada.
75. Tinker, R. (1997). Thinking about science. http://www.concord.org/library/papers. html. Cambridge, MA: Concord Consortium.
76. Tinker, R., & Krajcik, J. S. (Eds.) (2001). Portable technologies: Science learning in context. Innovations in science education and technology. New York, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
77. Weizman A., Shwartz, Y, & Fortus, D. (2008). The driving question board: A visual organizer in project-based learning. Science Teacher Journal, 75, 8.
78. Williams, M., & Linn, M. (2003). WISE inquiry in fifth grade biology. Research in Science Education, 32(4), 145-436.