Radical Pedagogy (2005)

ISSN: 1524-6345

Project-Based Science Instruction:
Teaching Science for Understanding

Kabba E. Colley, Ed.D.
George Mason University
Graduate School of Education
kcolley@gmu.edu

Abstract

The most challenging and often not well-understood science instructional approach is project-based science instruction (PBSI). In this paper, the concept “project-based science instruction” is examined by contrasting it with inquiry-based and problem-based instruction. The paper also addresses how to teach science for understanding using PBSI and ends by highlighting some of the policy implications associated with implementing this instructional approach in the classroom.

Introduction

In the past two decades, several initiatives have been taken to reform the teaching and learning of science in U.S. schools. Some of these reforms include the implementation of inquiry-based science curricula funded by the National Science Foundation (Ruopp et al., 1993; Cohen, 1997; Raizen and Britton, 1997; TERC, Inc., 2001; Penuel and Means, 2004), the implementation of state and national science education standards (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1990; National Research Council, 1996; New York State Education Department 1996) and the increased use of computers and the Internet in science classrooms (Web-Base Education Commission, 2000; Education Week, 2001).

Despite all these reforms, the teaching and learning of science in most U.S. classrooms is characterized by the chalk-talk-laboratory method. In a study of science and mathematics education, Weiss, Banilower, McMahon and Smith (2001) found that the most common instructional activities in science classrooms were lecture and discussion. The researchers also noted that “despite the reported emphasis on science process and inquiry skills, classes at all levels are much less likely to stress having students learn to explain ideas in science (21–39 percent) or learn to evaluate arguments based on scientific evidence (8–29 percent), two skills integral to scientific inquiry” (p. 61).

The fact that learning to “explain ideas in science” as well as to “evaluate arguments based on scientific evidence” were given less emphasis at all levels suggests that students may be learning science without actually understanding it. It could also mean that science teachers are relying on teaching methods or strategies that are ineffective for promoting understanding of science. Lack of understanding of science is not only a problem for students, but also a problem for most people in the larger U.S. society (National Science Board, 2002).

The key questions that this paper intends to address are: (1) what is the most appropriate instructional approach that grade 7-12 science teachers can use to teach science for understanding? (2) how can it be implemented in the science classroom? and (3) what are the possible implications?

What is the most appropriate instructional approach that grade 7-12 science teachers can use to teach science for understanding?

The most appropriate instructional approach that grade 7-12 science teachers can use to teach science for understanding is project-based science instruction (PBSI). PBSI is the only instructional method that makes science classrooms function like mini experimental stations, research laboratories and scientific agencies. It is an instructional approach that is driven by well-defined student research questions, facilitated by caring and competent teachers. In a project-based science classroom, students pose research questions and conduct extended studies to find answers to their questions within the context of a unit, curriculum or program of study. Teachers in a project-based science classroom, perform more than the role of “lesson planners,” “knowledge providers” and “classroom managers.” Instead, they act as facilitators, mentors, resource persons, advisers, scientists, listeners, learners and leaders in the science classroom. They work with students to identify projects that they are interested in and create learning environments that allow them to gather resources, plan, implement, evaluate and report on their projects. PBSI is the only instructional approach that places full responsibility for learning on the student. This means that students decide what to learn, how to learn, the time required to learn, and how to document and report their own learning. When you give students responsibility for their learning and hold them accountable, they are more likely to take it seriously and rise up to the challenge than if they are spoon-fed, feel marginalized or powerless in their own learning.

Some science educators and researchers have difficulty distinguishing between PBSI, inquiry-based and problem-based instruction. The reasons for this could be a misconception resulting from limited or no formal coursework or professional development on these instructional approaches, poor treatment in science education textbooks and research articles and/or the close similarities between these approaches, which makes it hard for some science educators to tease them apart.

According to NRC (1996), scientific inquiry is a “multifaceted activity that involves making observations; posing questions; examining books and other sources of information to see what is already known; planning investigations; reviewing what is already known in light of experimental evidence; using tools to gather, analyze and interpret data; propose answers, explanations, and predictions; and communicating the results. Inquiry requires identification of assumptions, use of critical and logical thinking, and consideration of alternative explanation” (p. 23). Inquiry-based science instruction is teaching science by having students engage in one or more inquiry-based science activities in the classroom. Having students engage in inquiry-based science activities in or outside the classroom could be a messy business particularly in resource poor school districts or in a learning context where the emphasis is on testing and accountability. As a result, some science teachers have invented or adapted various strategies for implementing inquiry-based science instruction in their classrooms. Chiappetta and Adams (2004) have identified four types of inquiry-based science instruction each with a different focus. For instance, inquiry-based science instruction “focusing on presenting and explaining ideas (content), focusing on constructing knowledge through active learning (content with process), focusing on developing the ability and disposition to investigate (process with content and focusing on attaining specific science process skills (process)” (p. 47). Advocates of learning science by inquiry (Schwab, 1962; Rutherford, 1964; Shymansky, Hedges and Woodworth, 1990) claim that by allowing students to learn science the way scientists practice science, they will be able to gain an understanding of science content and develop science process skills. Critics of inquiry-based (activity-driven) instruction such as Sewall (2000), caution that such approaches to teaching and learning are over-emphasized at the expense of “carefully prepared lesson, rich with analogies, illustration and anecdote; focused and guided; demanding and lively; peppered with good humor; with frequent interchange between student and teacher, student and student; interspersed with small group work when appropriate; and with a clear sense of direction at the beginning and summary at the end, leaving all participants with a feeling of completion and satisfaction’’ (p. 6).

Inquiry-based science instruction differs from PBSI because it may or may not be student-centered. For instance, students in an inquiry-based science classroom could be asked by their teacher to come up with their own questions of interest on a specific topic and conduct investigations as a way to learn about the topic or the teacher could provide the questions and then guide the students through the investigation by using very specific procedures and prompts. In the former example, the learning is student-centered, while in the latter it is teacher-centered. However, both are inquiry-based. Inquiry-based science instruction can either focus on a single topic, multiple topics, single or multiple steps in the scientific process.

Unlike PBSI and inquiry-based science instruction, problem-based instruction is “an instructional approach that uses real or [imaginary]-world problems as the context for an in-depth investigation of core content. The problems that students tackle are ill-structured; they include just enough information to suggest how students should proceed with an investigation, but never enough information to enable students to solve the problem without further inquiry” (Checkley, 1997, p. 3). All problem-based instructional approaches share three qualities such as a stated ill-defined problem, stated goal and specific steps or procedures to bridge goal to problem (Greenwald, 2000). The main difference between problem-based instruction and PBSI is that it is teacher-directed, while PBSI is not. In addition, it is based on the assumption that teachers are able to provide learning environments that are full of challenging problems for students to solve.

PBSI, inquiry-based science instruction and problem-based science instruction are very similar in terms of their emphasis on student-directed learning rather than teacher-directed learning, active learning rather than passive learning, collaboration in learning rather than individualized learning, and the integration of content and process rather than separation of content and process. However, the single characteristic that distinguishes PBSI from inquiry-based science instruction and problem-based science instruction is that it is a “wholehearted purposeful act” (Kilpatrick, 1918, p. 320). This means that the main goal of PBSI is the pursuit of worthwhile learning activities that are relevant to students’ lives and not learning for learning sake. Purposeful learning is emphasized in PBSI because it is believed that it helps students develop not only content knowledge and process skills, but also provides opportunities to acquire the dispositions required to participate in a democratic society (Kilpartick, 1951). Purposeful learning may or may not be the focus of inquiry-based science instruction and problem-based science instruction.

How can PBSI be implemented in grade 7-12 science classroom?

One of the most common concerns I hear from high school science teachers about PBSI is that although they would like to implement it in their classrooms, they are not sure of the outcome. In a climate of testing and accountability, where teachers are under pressure to prepare students to meet specific state mandated curricula and standards, they can’t afford to take risks on teaching strategies they are not familiar with. Therefore, they tend to follow with what they know best, which is the chalk-talk-laboratory method.

Although this is a valid concern, PBSI can be integrated into the high school science curriculum and there are well-documented cases of successful implementation of PBSI in science classrooms at the high school levels (Barenfeld, 1993; Ruopp et al., 1993; Schneider et al., 2002; Polman, 2000). It is true that PBSI tends to fit well with the curriculum at the elementary and middle grades because of the flexibility these grades offer and the fact that there is less pressure on teachers to prepare students for high stake test and graduation. In addition, most of the research on implementation of PBSI tends to focus on elementary and middle school classrooms, and consequently provides a body of knowledge from which practioners can draw.

Despite the challenges, there are different strategies that grade 7-12 teachers can use to implement PBSI in their classrooms. The best way to implement PBSI is to tie it to a standard, unit, curriculum, program of study or after-school science program. For instance, suppose a science teacher wanted to teach a specific science subject, theme or topic using PBSI, how should s/he go about doing it? Below are some concrete steps that could be followed:

1. Administer a pre-assessment to determine students’ knowledge, process skills and dispositions in the specific subject, theme or topic. Introduce the students to the PBSI approach. Explain the expectations of PBSI such as students taking responsibility for their own learning and the teacher serving as facilitator, mentor and resource person. Discuss that the central driving instructional force in PBSI is purposeful learning driven by students’ own questions.
2. Emphasize that collaboration is a must in PBSI. This is because most scientific investigations require collaboration in tasks such as fieldwork, instrument development and testing, and collection of data. In addition, it is generally believed that having more “heads” working on a question is better than having one “head.” Also when scientists collaborate, they complement each other and are able to generate valid and reliable scientific knowledge.
3. Discuss the advantages as well as the disadvantages of working in groups. However, emphasize that the advantages of working in groups outweigh its disadvantages.
4. Note that as they work in groups, they will have to complement each other’s weaknesses with each other’s strengths, make constructive criticism as opposed to destructive criticisms, and take collective responsibility as opposed to individual responsibility.
5. Divide the class into small manageable groups. Groups of three or four tend to work better than larger groups. Where possible, make sure that each group is balanced in terms of gender, ethnicity, race, academic ability and socio-economic background. Tell students that they will be working in their groups throughout and as young scientists they will be required to work collaboratively and to divide the responsibility among themselves. Tell them that you will hold each group accountable for its own learning.
6. Explain that each group is required to identify a question that they will investigate within a specific subject, time frame, resources and context. They will have to learn as much as possible because at the end of the their projects, each one will teach one. Ask each group to submit a research question. Review each question with the individual groups to make sure that they are well defined and focused.
7. Ask each group to present their research question. During the presentation, encourage the groups to evaluate each other’s research question by using the following criteria: (a) Can we investigate this question in the time allowed? (b) Can we investigate this question with the resources available? (c) Will the answers to our question serve a useful purpose? (d) Is our question new or old? If old, how can we recast it to learn something new?
8. Ask each group to brainstorm and come up with a research plan. Research plans should include research question, procedure, tools and materials required, time required to complete project, roles and responsibilities. Plans should also include how students will assess and provide evidence of their own learning from their projects. Review each group’s plan before approval. Keep a copy of each group’s research plan as a binding contract.
9. Discuss with the students a collective timetable in which to begin and complete their projects. Identify specific periods and times that products will be due. Identify periods and times for whole class work and individual group work. Discuss the importance of meeting deadlines and completing their work on time.
10. Ask each group to implement its research plan. This will include identifying and selecting instruments and tools, collecting and recording data. Monitor, mentor, advise, assist and facilitate group activities and keep a mental record of each group’s progress. As students implement their projects, remind them of safety issues, sampling procedures, the importance of entering and keeping accurate data. Provide extra help for struggling groups and encourage between groups interaction, dialogue and sharing of ideas.
11. Discuss the basic methods of analyzing quantitative and qualitative data. Provide students with a simple chart showing types of data and possible ways of analyzing them. Where possible, use computer software to show students how data analysis could be enhanced with technology. Provide students with a template/format for report writing and discuss rules of scientific writing. Ask students to analyze their data and prepare reports or posters.
12. Discuss the protocol of presentation and criteria that will be used for evaluating project reports. Ask students to present their reports for peer review. After the presentations are completed, ask each group to reflect on their research process and product. Ask students to reflect in writing what they knew prior to and after conducting their project in terms of knowledge, skills and dispositions on the specific subject, theme or topic.
13. Administer post assessment. Obviously, planning and implementing PBSI is much more complex than these suggested 13 steps. The key is to have students generate purposeful, doable, relevant and interesting research questions, implement them within the available timeline and reflect on their own learning.

What are the possible implications?

Implementing PBSI in grades 7-12 science classrooms has some implications. For teachers who want to implement project-based science instruction, some knowledge and experience in the theory and practice of this instructional approach is required. In addition, the teacher must know how to organize and manage students from diverse backgrounds and learning styles, know how to mentor students as they work on their projects and how to assess students’ projects. S/he must be resourceful, innovative and willing to experiment with new ideas (Wolk, 1994).

Teachers must understand the context from which their students come and plan activities that will motivate and orient them to the requirements and expectations of project-based science learning. Students often come to the science classroom with alternative scientific theories about the universe (Driver, Guesne and Tiberghien, 1992). Prior to implementing PBSI, teachers should survey their students to determine their prior alternative theories, dispositions towards science, science process skills and interests.

Implementing PBSI has implications for scheduling and management of teachers’ and students’ time (Polman, 2000, Mistler-Jackson and Butler Songer, 2000). Implementing PBSI requires time in terms of instructional planning, scheduling activities, developing collaborative relationships, implementing activities, supervising students team work, assessing students’ projects and learning to use technology appropriately. When time for all these activities are taken into account, they add-up and could be overwhelming for teachers and students. It is therefore important that teachers who want to implement PBSI know how much or have an estimate of time and space requirements. Once time and space requirements have been established, then administrative support, resources and scheduling could be requested or negotiated to accommodate PBSI activities.

The type of curriculum in a school system can hinder or promote PBSI. For instance, in a school system where the curriculum requires teachers to cover certain amount of material and prepare students so that they can pass state mandated assessments, PBSI will not work well or thrive. However, in a school where the curriculum is flexible enough to allow teachers to implement or try new ideas, PBSI is more likely to succeed.

Experience has shown that in schools where PBSI was implemented, usually there were competent and supportive principals working to make this happen (Raizen and Britton, 1997). However, it is also important to add that PBSI will not work in schools where the political climate is not favorable.

PBSI demands that resources be made available for students to carry out the projects of their choice. This means that tools, materials, equipment, hardware and software must be available to all students. Professional development may also be required to provide teachers with the skills they need to implement PBSI. All of these require funds. Where funds are not available or limited, it will be very difficult to implement PBSI.

Finally, PBSI requires students to conduct extended projects, which means sometimes doing work outside of school. The implications for this are that students may need parental or guardian support to pursue projects to the end. In a school where there is an active parental involvement program, PBSI will thrive because students are more likely to get the outside support they need to work on and complete their projects.

References

American Association for the Advancement of Science (1990). Science for All Americans: Project 2061. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Berenfeld, B. (1994). Technology and the New Model of Science Education: The Global Lab Experience. Machine Mediated Learning, Vol. 4 No. 2 & 3, pp. 203-227.

Checkley, K. (1997). Problem-Based Learning: The Search for Solutions to Life’s Messy Problems. Curriculum Update, Summer, 1997.

Chiappetta, E. L. and Adams, A. D. (2004). Inquiry-Based Instruction: Understanding How Content and Process go Hand-in-Hand with School Science. The Science Teacher, Vol. 71, No. 2, pp. 46-50.

Cohen, K. C. (1997). Internet Links for Science Education: Student-Scientist Partnerships. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Driver, R., Guesne, E., and Tiberghien, A. (1992). Children’s Ideas in Science. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.

Education Week (2001). Technology Counts 200: The New Divides. Education Week, Vol. XX, No. 35, pp. 10-11.

Greenwald, N. (2000). Learning from Problems: Bringing Authentic Science Challenges into the Classroom. The Science Teacher, Vol. 67, No. 4, pp. 28-32.

Kilpatrick, W. H. (1918). The Project Method. Teachers College Records, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 319-35.

Kilpatrick, W. H. (1951). Philosophy of Education. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Mistler-Jackson, M. and Butler, Songer, N. (2000). Student Motivation and Internet Technology: Are Students Empowered to Learn Science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 37, No. 5, pp. 459-479.

National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Science Board (2002). Science and Engineering Indicators, Volume I. Arlington, Virginia: National Science Foundation.

New York State Education Department (1996). Learning Standards for Mathematics, Science and Technology. Albany, NY: Department Office for Diversity, Ethics and Access, Room 152, Education Building .

Polman, J. L. (2000). Designing Project-Based Science Instruction: Connecting Learners Through Guided Inquiry. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Penuel, W. R. and Means, B. (2004). Implementation Variation and Fidelity in Inquiry Science Program: Analysis of GLOBE Data Reporting Patterns. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 41, No. 3, pp. 294-315.

Raizen, S. A. and Britton, E. D. (1997). Bold Ventures (Volume 2): Case Studies of US Innovations in Science Education. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Ruopp, R., Gal, S., Drayton, B., and Pfister, M. (1993). LabNet: Towards a Community of Practice. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publisher.

Rutherford, F. J. (1964). The Role of Inquiry in Science Teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 2, pp. 80-84.

Sewall, G. T. (2000). Lost in Action. American Educator, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 4-9,42.

Schneider, R. M., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W. and Soloway, E. (2002). Performance of Students in Project-Based Science Classrooms on a national Measure of Science Achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 39, No. 5, pp. 410-422.

Schwab, J. (1962). The Teaching of Science as Enquiry. In Schwab, J. and Brandwein, P. (Eds.), The Teaching of Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Shymansky, J. A., Hedges, L. V. and Woodworth, G. (1990). A Reassessment of the Effects of Inquiry-Based Science Curricula of the 60’s on Student Performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 127-144.

TERC, Inc. (2001). Global Lab-Unit I-V: An Integrated Science Curriculum. Dubuque, IO: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.

Tinker, R. F. (1992). Thinking About Science. Princeton, NJ: College Entrance Examination Board.

Web-Based Education Commission (2000). The Power of the Internet for Learning: Moving from Promise to Practice. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.

Weiss, I., Banilower, E. R., McMahon, K. C., and Smith, P. S. (2001). Report of the 2000 Survey of Science and Mathematics Education. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research Inc.

Wolk, S. (1994). Project-Based Learning: Pursuits with a Purpose. Educational Leadership, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 42-45.

© Radical Pedagogy