CHAPTER SEVEN

From Kilpatrick’s Project

Method TO Project-Based
Learning
JOHN L . PECORE
University of West Florida

ABSTRAC T

Project method, popularized by William Heard Kilpatrick, has seen resurgence in

21st-century education under the auspices of project-based learning. This chapter first
presents a short biography of Kilpatrick to highlight experiences influencing his writ-
ing of the popular essay, “Project Method.” After providing a synthesis of Kilpatrick’s
project method, which includes the thoughts of critics at the time, more current and
prominent types of project-based learning are discussed. Research and critiques of
project-based learning are also offered, concluding with a summary of the transforma-
tion of project method to its contemporary, project-based learning.

A current trend in education involves the growing movement of project-based

learning classrooms, whose roots in the U.S. date back to early progressive edu-
cators. In the early 18th century, European architectural and engineering stu-
dents’ final exams consisted of solving real and practical problems. This concept
of learning through projects by solving practical problems was then introduced at
the end of the 19th century in manual training and industrial arts high schools
and elementary schools (Knoll, 2010, 2012). Learning by projects was promoted
by conservative educators and gained the support of Congress, with the Smith-
Lever Act of 1914 making considerable funds available for newly established voca-
tional schools to implement learning-by-projects curricula. According to the U.S.
156 | J OHN L . P E CO RE

Bureau of Education, by 1915, 80 percent of schools taught manual training and

60 percent taught agricultural education using projects (Knoll, 2010; Monahan
& Lane, 1915; Park & Harlan, 1916). Enthusiasm spread further in 1918 with
the publication in Teachers College Record of William Heard Kilpatrick’s 18-page
essay “The Project Method,” fully titled “The Project Method: The Use of the
Purposeful Act in the Educative Process,” which went on to sell 65,000 copies
(Knoll, 2012).

W I L L I A M H E A R D K I L PAT R I C K : A N E A R LY P I O N E E R
OF PROJECT-BASED LEARNING

Born and raised in White Plains, Georgia, in the midst of Reconstruction in 1871,
Kilpatrick’s early schooling was conventional for the time (both traditional and, at
times, boring). In 1888, at the age of 17, he entered Mercer University in Macon,
Georgia, where he received a mix of acceptable and inferior teaching and learned
how not to teach from poor examples of instruction (Beineke, 1998; Tenenbaum,
1951). After graduating from Mercer, Kilpatrick attended the Johns Hopkins
University in Baltimore, Maryland, where free-inquiry learning became a trans-
formational intellectual experience.
Kilpatrick returned to the south to begin a high school co-principalship in
Blakely, Georgia, for teaching and curriculum oversight and to attend summer
classes at Rock College Normal School in Athens, GA. During this time, a col-
league recounted a story of leaving his students briefly unattended one day when
a visitor entered the classroom to find students so engaged in their lesson as to be
working without supervision. Kilpatrick credited this suggestion as the impetus
of project method (Beineke, 1998). Also impactful during this time was a trip to
Albany, Georgia, to hear Colonel Francis Parker speak about providing a sense of
experience in education.
The years from 1896 to 1906 were influential to Kilpatrick’s philosophy of
education. While holding several positions, including seventh-grade teacher,
elementary school principal, professor of mathematics, and eventually vice pres-
ident at Mercer, he began to explore the new field of educational studies, reading
Herbert Spencer (e.g., Education: Intellectual, moral, and physical) and William
James (e.g., Talks to Teachers) (Beineke, 1998). During the summer of 1898, he
attended a summer school session at the University of Chicago and took a course
from John Dewey. Two summers later while taking a course by Charles DeGarmo
at Cornell University, Kilpatrick was persuaded of the value of student interest and
the importance of individual interest as the starting point in education. Six years
after that, he taught summer session at the University of Tennessee and audited
classes from Percival R. Cole and Edward L. Thorndike, both Teachers College
 FR OM K IL PAT RICK ’ S PR O JEC T ME T HO D TO PR OJ EC T - BA SED L EA RNI NG | 157

faculty (Beineke, 1998). On the advice of Thorndike, Kilpatrick entered Teachers

College, Columbia University, where he earned his PhD in 1912 and spent the
remainder of his professional career, eventually being promoted through the ranks
to emeritus professor.
Early career experiences inspired Kilpatrick’s perspective on the potential of
projects in the classroom. For Kilpatrick, projects connected student learning to
interactions with social and physical environments that piqued student interest
(Beyer, 1997; Pecore, 2009). By intertwining activities of school and community
with a goal of socially minded development, students are equipped to become
participating and contributing members of a democratic society (Pecore, 2009;
Tenenbaum, 1951).

K I L PAT R I C K ’ S P R O J E C T M E T H O D :
A N E C D O T E S A N D E X P L I C AT I O N

One project method story shared by William Heard Kilpatrick and recounted by
Samuel Tenenbaum (1951) was about an eighth-grade boy who shared a maga-
zine article with his class on how the Boston Massacre was false. The students in
the class proceeded to investigate the claim by reading 14 history books. All but
four of the books, which were more cautious in their interpretation, gave the same
account, and the students became perplexed as to which stories were correct and
how historians know of the events. The students then wrote all of the authors but
received no reply. They wrote a second letter explaining how sincere they were in
finding an answer. A few authors replied, including one of the more guarded ones,
who explained where to find the small amount of primary source information
that exists. The students found the source and concluded that while most of the
books embellished the story, the facts supported more than the magazine article
claimed. Later that year a student brought in a newspaper article reporting that
Mrs. Berger, a candidate for school board reelection, was against interschool ath-
letic competition. The students were upset until one girl reminded them of the
Boston Massacre. The class decided to investigate by contacting Mrs. Berger, who
subsequently denied the allegations, explaining that City Hall records would show
that her previous votes were in favor of athletic programs. A group of students
went down to City Hall and verified that Mrs. Berger was being truthful and that
the newspaper printed false statements. The students and their parents proceeded
to campaign for Mrs. Berger, who was reelected.
The project method example of the Boston Massacre illustrates progressive
education in practice by involving students in meaningful learning opportu-
nities connected to the world in which they live. Project method links purpose
and democracy. While Kilpatrick readily admitted that he neither coined the
158 | J OHN L . P E CO RE

term “project” nor its application to education, he sought to clarify and defend
the use of projects in education (Kilpatrick, 1918). For Kilpatrick, the project
should represent a wholehearted purposeful activity of the worthy life in a dem-
ocratic society, and thus the project or purposeful act is considered as life itself
and not preparation for later living. Kilpatrick’s project method was influenced
by John Dewey’s writings and by Edward L. Thorndike’s psychology of learn-
ing. Accordingly, Kilpatrick advocated for student-initiated projects that utilize
the laws of learning to intrinsically motivate the student to emerge with a high
degree of skill and knowledge, view school activity with joy and confidence, and
appreciate school and other social agencies. He cautioned against student-coerced
projects where the extrinsically motivated student obtains fleeting skill and knowl-
edge, views school as a bore, and considers teachers, school, and social agencies
as instruments of suppression (Kilpatrick, 1918). For Kilpatrick, project meth-
od’s greatest strength is the potential for building moral character, with students
acting in pursuit of a rich variety of purposes, individually or collectively, under
the supervision of a skilled teacher to help guide students to make increasingly
finer discriminations of right and proper ideas and judgments. Ideally, the demo-
cratic teacher will gradually remove himself or herself from the educative process
(Kilpatrick, 1918).
Kilpatrick (1918) offered a broad conception of project method. He identified
four types of projects with procedures: Type 1 projects embody some external idea
or plan; Type 2 involve enjoying an esthetic experience; Type 3, problem solving;
and Type 4 involve obtaining a certain item of skill or knowledge. Examples of
Type 1 projects include building a boat, writing a letter, or presenting a play. A
four-step process (purposing, planning, executing, and judging) is suggested for
Type 1 projects. Type 2 projects involve enjoying an esthetic experience, such as
listening to a poem, hearing a symphony, or appreciating a painting. Projects of
Type 2 were not fully realized by Kilpatrick, and thus he offered no specific proce-
dure or process for Type 2 projects. Kilpatrick labelled the solving of some problem
as Type 3 projects. Examples of intellectually difficult problems that define Type
3 projects include interpreting the effects of war or findings of an experiment.
Dewey’s (1910) reflective thinking suggests a series of logical, rational steps or
process based on the scientific method of defining, analyzing, and solving a prob-
lem for Type 3 projects as follows: 1) identify and define the problem, 2) deter-
mine the hypothesis or reason why the problem exists, 3) collect and analyze data,
4) formulate conclusions, and 5) apply conclusion to the original hypothesis. Type 4
projects involve obtaining a certain item of skill or knowledge. Examples of
Type 4 projects include learning grade-appropriate writing or conjugation of verbs.
The four-step process (purposing, planning, executing, and judging) suggested
for Type 1 projects is also applicable for Type 4 projects, with the planning left
to specific learning strategies.
 FR OM K IL PAT RICK ’ S PR O JEC T ME T HO D TO PR OJ EC T - BA SED L EA RNI NG | 159

Kilpatrick (1918) cautioned against the over-emphasis of Type 4 projects and

the discrimination of a project drill from a set task, warning that the results will
be markedly different. Key to project method success is the skilled teacher guiding
the student through the process such that the student takes as much ownership as
possible over each step so as to provide a healthy level of stress but prevent discour-
agement from too great a level of difficulty. In this sense, the responsibility of the
teacher is to build bonds between students (Beineke, 1998).
Critics of Kilpatrick’s project method point out that his definition of the proj-
ect was ambiguous and not a method. Kilpatrick broke from tradition by rede-
fining the project from the more precise “independent constructive activity” to
“whole-hearted purposeful activity,” which infuriated some (Knoll, 2010, 2012).
However, the strongest concern was in Kilpatrick’s idea of a student-determined
project. His friend and colleague, John Dewey (1981; Knoll, 2010), remarked that
allowing the child to decide the learning process was impossible. For Dewey, Kil-
patrick and his supporters were confusing the means and the aim by failing to
realize that thinking was achieved through the leadership of the teacher to pro-
mote the student’s ability to think and not through providing the student with
the freedom to self-direct. Dewey, unlike Kilpatrick, did not view the teacher-lead
project as a means of suppression (Knoll, 2010).

PROJEC T METHOD IN THE 21ST CENTURY:

PROJECT-BASED LEARNING

A resurgence of project method has taken root in the 21st century under the
auspices of project-based learning (PBL). While a single accepted definition for
PBL does not exist, the Buck Institute for Education (BIE) does offer a concise
standards-focused definition, broad in scope. According to the BIE (Markham,
Larmer, & Ravitz, 2003), project-based learning is “a systematic teaching method
that engages students in learning knowledge and skills through an extended inquiry
process structured around complex, authentic questions and carefully designed
products and tasks” (p. 4). Implementing a project or activity is not enough to
be considered project-based learning unless five definitive features are met. The
essential features of PBL include 1) a central project; 2) a constructivist focus on
important knowledge and skills; 3) a driving activity in the form of a complex
question, problem, or challenge; 4) a learner-driven investigation guided by the
teacher; and 5) a real-world project that is authentic to the learner (Barron &
Darling-Hammond, 2008; Thomas, 2000).
Similar to how project method was grounded in Thorndike’s psychology of
learning, PBL is grounded in constructivist learning theory influenced by the
work of early-20th-century psychologists Jean Piaget, Lev Vygotsky, and Jerome
160 | J OHN L . P E CO RE

Bruner. Constructivism is the philosophical view that knowledge is individu-

ally constructed, transmitted by interaction with the environment, and socially
developed (Crotty, 1998; Savery & Duffy, 1995). Individually constructing
knowledge involves cognitive conflict as a stimulus or goal for learning. Learn-
ers bring personal experiences with them into the classroom, which have a tre-
mendous impact on how they view the world. Therefore, constructivists reason
that learning begins with the prior knowledge, feelings, and skills students bring
with them to learning situations (Schulte, 1996). The stimulus provides initial
activation of prior experiences, a reason for engaging in the learning environ-
ment, and, thus, the understanding the learner eventually constructs. Learners
then test the degree (i.e., evaluate the validity) to which their individually con-
structed understandings are compatible with other understandings or alterna-
tive views provided by the social environment (Savery & Duffy, 1995). Thus,
learners build up their knowledge with experiences that they use to support
their understanding. Teachers assist learners by assessing how students are con-
structing knowledge and by providing guidance through cognitive tribulations
(Schulte, 1996).
A diversity of learning features combined with the lack of a universally
accepted PBL model provides for a broad interpretation of PBL that is reminis-
cent of Kilpatrick’s project method. A number of X-based learning approaches
(i.e., case-based learning, community-based learning, game-based learning, pas-
sion-based learning, service-based learning, team-based learning) that fit into the
general category of PBL have emerged over recent years. Five most prominent
types of PBL include challenge-based learning, problem-based learning, place-
based learning, activity-based learning, and design-based learning.

Challenge-Based Learning
Challenge-based learning encourages student use of technology to solve real-world
problems by engaging in a multidisciplinary approach to teaching and learning over
an extended period of time. A challenge-based learning curriculum often focuses
on global challenges with local solutions. The Ambition program created by the
National Flight Academy, the University of West Florida’s Innovation Institute
and TEQ Games is one example of a challenge-based learning curriculum. The
immersive-inspired-play Ambition program is set in the context of a story on
a naval aircraft carrier and integrates social studies, math, science, and language
arts concepts into missions that require the technology of flight simulators and
air traffic control and challenges students to apply their knowledge to solve real-
world problems. Learners are provided with the knowledge and skills necessary
for navigation using latitude and longitude, time-distance-rate calculations, and
 FR OM K IL PAT RICK ’ S PR O JEC T ME T HO D TO PR OJ EC T - BA SED L EA RNI NG | 161

unit conversions to develop flight plans, interpret radar signals, and establish mis-
sion command and control communications. Missions increase in complexity and
seriousness over time, from initial flight familiarization to environmental impact
missions to large-scale rescue operations challenging learners to apply knowledge
and skills. While not a requirement for challenge-based learning, the Ambition
curriculum includes aspects of game-based learning, where students play a type
of game with defined learning outcomes. Most game-based learning applications
involve drawing students into a virtual environment through computer simula-
tions that look and feel real.

Problem-Based Learning
Problem-based learning is an instructional approach that presents students with
solving ill-structured (open-ended) problems, usually in the form of case studies.
The modern approach to problem-based learning is credited to Canadian med-
ical schools that used case-study teaching involving real patient problems. This
classical approach defined problem-based learning as small permanent groups of
students working with an instructor on a new case approximately every three class
meetings. On the first day, the group receives a new case and begins to analyze
the preliminary data. With instructor assistance, the group decides on the issues
to be addressed and distributes the research workload. When the students return
the next day, they share their analysis, receive additional information, and con-
tinue their search. The third class meeting brings closure to the case when groups
pull together their knowledge and prepare a final report. This classical definition
of problem-based learning has been redefined and modified in various ways for
different courses (Herreid, 2003; Pecore, 2009). Most often, cases provide the
ill-structured driving problem to be solved by students through an open-inquiry
method of instruction with multiple possible answers. In this way, problem-based
learning differs from case-based learning, a more structured guided inquiry
approach to solving a case.

Place-Based Learning
Place-based learning immerses students in authentic work within the local com-
munity, emphasizing a service-learning component connected to the local heri-
tage, culture, landscape, and so forth, as the foundation for the subject or subjects
being studied. As an example place-based learning event, students could create
a civil rights journey through their city. Students are first immersed in the local
community by preparing for and then collecting narratives of people’s experiences
during the civil rights era through recorded interviews. Interviews are then placed
162 | J OHN L . P E CO RE

into context, edited, and produced by students into a short recording. For the
service-learning component, recordings can be placed on civil rights buildings
around the city for visitors to play and develop a deeper understanding of the
civil rights era from personal experiences of local community members. Other
examples of place-based learning projects include building a community garden
and donating the food to a local food pantry and studying the local ecology and
clearing a park of nonnative species.

Activity-Based Learning
Activity-based learning provides a physical (hands-on) and mental (minds-on)
approach for students exploring a subject through experiments and activities
involving the manipulation of tools and materials in performance of a real-work
task. Activity-based learning is popular in India, especially in elementary schools.
A typical sequence of activity-based learning begins with an introduction that
might include a demonstration, distribution of resources, followed by an exper-
iment or activity, and finally review/debrief/closure to end the lesson. As an
example activity-based learning event, students are introduced to the topic of the
relationship between exercise and health with a demonstration on how to calculate
pulse rate. Students are then provided with the materials necessary to design and
conduct an experiment such as determining the relationship between exercise and
pulse rate. The lesson concludes with a discussion of student data, findings, and
conclusions.

Design-Based learning
Design-based learning invites students to actively engage in the task of designing or
redesigning a product or system or creating a physical object connected to the curric-
ulum with the purpose of enhancing creativity. According to Wijnen (2000), design-
based learning is a concept from technical or industrial education where students
actively work together on multidisciplinary design tasks to gain qualifications as
creative professionals. They analyze technical systems and make assessments based
on quality, functionality, and cost in order to design new products and enhanced
systems. Types of design tasks include prototyping a recyclable lunch tray, a dura-
ble cost-effective two-way radio that can be distributed to villages in developing
countries for communicating health tips and announcements from nearby clinics,
or an affordable, lightweight backpack to reduce user back injuries. A variety of
design-based learning processes exist. They typically involve a cyclical engineering
design process of 1) defining the program, 2) researching the problem, 3) developing
possible solutions, 4) choosing the best solution, 5) creating a prototype, 6) testing
 FR OM K IL PAT RICK ’ S PR O JEC T ME T HO D TO PR OJ EC T - BA SED L EA RNI NG | 163

and evaluating the prototype, 7) communicating the design, and 8) redesigning the
prototype based on feedback.

RESEARCH ON PROJECT-BASED LEARNING

According to Thomas (2000), the research on PBL began in the 1990s. His review
of the early years of PBL pointed out how a broad definition of PBL presents a
few problems. When reviewing research projects, the degree to which observed
classroom practices meet the five essential features of PBL is difficult to deter-
mine. For example, to what extent are packaged materials with scripted student
roles authentic learning experiences and thus considered to be PBL curriculum?
Additionally, differences in the PBL types (i.e., challenge-based, problem-based,
place-based, activity-based, design-based) are an important consideration when
making generalizations based on similarities. The limitations of interpreting the
PBL research should be considered when reporting on PBL effectiveness.
The Center of Excellence in Leadership of Learning (2009; Bradley-Levine,
Berghoff, Seybold, Sever, & Blackwell, 2010) at the University of Indianapolis pre-
pared a summary of research on project-based learning, reporting positive student
learning outcomes in the areas of content knowledge, engagement and motivation,
and critical thinking and problem-solving skills. The student benefits of project-based
learning include improved attendance, advanced self-reliance, and enhanced attitudes
toward learning (Thomas, 1998); equal or better academic gains with greater accep-
tance of responsibility for learning (Boaler, 1999; SRI, 2000); increased development
of complex skills (i.e., higher-order thinking, problem-solving, collaborating, and
communicating; SRI, 2000); and access to a broader range of learning opportunities
propitious for engaging culturally diverse learners (Railsback, 2002).
PBL research shows positive effects on student content knowledge (Boaler, 1997;
Penuel & Means, 2000; Stepien, Gallagher, & Workman, 1993), including students
with special needs. Research conducted by Mergendoller, Maxwell, and Bellisimo
(2006) and Mioduser and Betzer (2003) concluded that students with limited prior
content knowledge and students with average to low verbal ability learned more in
PBL classes. Filippatou and Kaldi (2010) also found gains in academic performance
of students with learning disabilities resulting from the use of PBL. Additionally,
PBL improved students’ specific content-area skills (Hernandez-Ramos & De La
Paz, 2009; Mioduser & Betzer, 2003; Peck, Peck, Sentz, & Zasa, 1998). For example,
Barron and associates (1998) found 84 percent of students working on a geome-
try design project linked to architecture developed blueprints meeting architectural
building standards. According to Boaler (1997), PBL results in students with useful,
real-world content knowledge applicable to a variety of tasks.
164 | J OHN L . P E CO RE

A high level of student engagement is another benefit of PBL (Belland,

Ertmer, & Simons, 2006; Brush & Saye, 2008). For one study involving a PBL
economics unit, students with low and high levels of interest, including stu-
dents with an initial low interest in economics, engaged in learning (Ravitz &
Mergendoller, 2005). Research by Bartscher, Gould, and Nutter (1995) reported
that PBL had a positive effect on student motivation to learn. In a study of ele-
mentary teachers dedicating 37 percent of instructional time to PBL, students’
work ethic, confidence, and attitudes towards learning improved (Tretten &
Zachariou, 1995). While most of the research on PBL engagement is positive,
Edelson, Gordon, and Pea (1999) concluded that sustaining high school student
interest was difficult; although, freedom to determine project requirements leads
to changing student beliefs (Grant, 2009) and positive attitudes (Hernandez-
Ramos & De La Paz, 2009).
Students participating in PBL demonstrate improved critical-thinking and
problem-solving skills (Mergendoller, Maxwell, & Bellisimo, 2006; Shepherd,
1998; Tretten & Zachariou, 1995). In one PBL study, students with low abil-
ity increased their use of high-order critical-thinking skills (i.e., synthesizing,
evaluating, predicting, and reflecting) by 446 percent, while students with high
ability improved by 76 percent (Horan, Lavaroni, & Beldon, 1996). Barron and
colleagues (1998) found students’ initiatives, such as using resources and revising
work uncharacteristic prior to engaging in PBL, present during PBL. While
other studies also found improved scientific investigation skills (Baumgartner
& Zabin, 2008) and critical-thinking skills (Doppelt, 2009), Beringer (2007)
reported limited problem-solving skills due to students’ difficulty with adapting
to the PBL structure.
When implemented in cooperative learning groups, PBL benefits the devel-
opment of collaborative skills for a variety of students (Bradley-Levine et al.,
2010). PBL provides occasions for elementary students to view events through
multiple different perspectives and to learn conflict-resolution skills (ChanLin,
2008); for students with special needs to develop social skills including patience
and empathy (Belland, Ertmer, & Simons, 2006); and for students with low abil-
ities to demonstrate teamwork, management, and conscientiousness. Belland and
associates (2006), and Lightner, Bober, and Willi (2007) reported that students
enjoyed the opportunities cooperative projects through PBL provide for interact-
ing with friends and making new friends. Group efficacy and self-efficacy, how-
ever, depend largely on the quality of the instructor to facilitate group processing
(Weng-yi Cheng, Shui-fong, & Chung-yan Chan, 2008), especially for groups
of older adolescents struggling to work collaboratively (Achilles & Hoover,
1996). An added benefit to collaboration, in the science classroom especially, is
growth in the development of a sense of a scientific community (Baumgartner
& Zabin, 2008).
 FR OM K IL PAT RICK ’ S PR O JEC T ME T HO D TO PR OJ EC T - BA SED L EA RNI NG | 165

CRITIQUE OF PROJECT-BASED LEARNING

In early studies on the effectiveness of one type of PBL, problem-based learning in

medical education, Albanese and Mitchell (1993; Strobel & Van Barneveld, 2009)
found students tended to perform lower on standardized tests, having not ade-
quately covered the breadth of content. Similarly, in a review of studies conducted
from 1992 to 1998, Colliver (2000) concluded that PBL did not convincingly
improve knowledge base. While Dochy, Serges, Van den Bossche, and Gijbels
(2003; Strobel & Van Barneveld, 2009) supported this finding in their review of
43 studies, they concluded that assessment measures focusing on application of
knowledge favored PBL over traditional learning environments.
Despite the number of positive benefits, critics of PBL mainly cite the chal-
lenges for teachers, especially if PBL represents a substantial change from a con-
sistent teaching perspective and a dramatic departure from the theoretical basis of
established practices. Effective facilitation of and prior teaching experiences with
PBL are important factors as authoritative classroom management, previously
established inquiry classroom culture, and beliefs about the nature of teaching
and learning may attribute to the effectiveness of PBL (Pecore & Bohan, 2013).
Marx, Blumenfeld, Krajcik, and Soloway (1997) found the following barriers to
successful implementation of PBL: 1) length of time for in-depth exploration,
2) adherence to district curriculum guidelines, 3) balance of healthy student control,
4) control of the flow of information, 5) scaffolds to balance student independence
with supports, 6) use of technology as a cognitive tool, and 7) design of authentic
assessment to measure student understanding. In general, teachers address a few
challenges per PBL event, gradually incorporate techniques with varied success,
and resort back to established practices when confronted with feelings of discom-
fort (Marx et al., 1994; Marx et al., 1997; Pecore & Shelton, 2013). Well-estab-
lished practices and entrenched beliefs lead to additional struggles for teachers,
causing challenges when negotiating the tensions between students exploring their
interests and covering state standards, respecting student responses and providing
accepted answers, and empowering student self-directed learning and controlling
the distribution of expert knowledge (Ladewski, Krajcik, & Harvey, 1994).

C O N C L U S I O N : K I L PAT R I C K ’ S L A S T I N G L E G A C Y

While dating back to the early 18th century, the use of projects to drive learning
gained popularity after Kilpatrick’s (1918) project method. Almost 100 years after
publication, “The Project Method” is considered by educators to be one of the
10 most influential curriculum documents (Beineke, 1998). The project method
has always been integrated into the curriculum in one form or another. However,
166 | J OHN L . P E CO RE

toward the end of the 20th century, project method took on a new life, re-imag-
ined as project-based learning. Advances in educational psychology on how chil-
dren learn, from Piaget, Vygotsky, and Bruner, as well as more recent research
on learning theory, including multiple intelligences (Gardner, 1983), theories of
intelligences (Sternberg, 1985), learning communities (Lave & Wenger, 1991),
and choice theory (Glasser, 1998), have led to a change in the project method
from Thorndike’s psychology of learning informing to constructivist learning as
the theoretical framework for PBL.
Although both Kilpatrick’s project method and its contemporary, PBL, oper-
ate under broad interpretations, key essential features aligned to a constructivist
framework are necessary components of a PBL environment. While Kilpatrick’s
idea of the student-determined project was most problematic to his colleagues,
PBL currently continues to operate mostly through teacher-led, student-driven
projects. A broader interpretation has led to the creation of a number of X-based
learning approaches, which adhere to the features of the constructivist PBL model
but provide more specific learning features. One of the issues of a broad interpre-
tation is the challenge of interpreting research data, as the degree to which PBL
approaches are implemented varies.
For Kilpatrick, “The project method is not a device but an idea to be developed
in education” (Beineke, 1998, p. 116) and acknowledges the tentative, incomplete,
and untested nature of the ideas, suggesting years later the gathering of systematic
evidence on the process and possibility (Beineke, 1998). The beginning of the
21st century has produced much research in support of project-based learning
(Bredley-Levin et al., 2010). Support for PBL instruction from the education
community led to the creation of Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learn-
ing in 2006 and the publication of a special issue on the efficacy of problem-based
learning in 2009. When done well, proponents of PBL emphasize student gains
such as improved thinking skills, enhanced cognitive abilities, and increased inter-
est and enjoyment in the content. Other gains mentioned are students becoming
more independent learners as measured by more frequent use of libraries and other
information resources, acquiring life-long learning skills, and developing a more
holistic approach to content. PBL supporters also characterize PBL-educated
students as more adaptable to change and able to work well as team members
(Smith, 1995; Sonmez & Lee, 2003). Researchers attribute the increased success
of students participating in PBL to a constructivist framework of effectively acti-
vating prior knowledge, promoting meta-cognition through increased elaboration
of information, greater understanding and recall, and situating learning in a “real-
world” context (Sonmez & Lee, 2003).
In response to the advantages and increased awareness of PBL, public, char-
ter, and private schools are self-identifying as PBL environments. While many of
these schools embrace PBL as a method of instruction, the degree to which the
 FR OM K IL PAT RICK ’ S PR O JEC T ME T HO D TO PR OJ EC T - BA SED L EA RNI NG | 167

teachers implement, with fidelity, a PBL approach varies, as the tendency is for
teachers to adapt PBL to preexisting systems of practice (Pecore, 2012). Thus,
studies show the challenges to implement PBL effectively without inquiry-
facilitation skills and organizational supports (Brush & Saye, 2008; Krajcik,
Blumenfeld, Marx, & Bass, 1998). The degree to which teachers implement
the five essential features of PBL within a constructivist framework often var-
ies. Pecore and Bohan (2013) suggested tackling the challenges of facilitating
PBL by addressing motivation with a suitable problem, positive student-teacher
relationships and focused checkpoints; facilitation through carefully monitor-
ing and skillfully guiding student progress; collaboration by providing structure
and accountability; and reflection through discussions that foster thinking about
knowledge gains.
Almost prophetically, Kilpatrick expressed several warnings in an adoption of
a project method approach. He voiced a need for changes in textbooks, curricu-
lum, grading, and student advancement as well as modifications to furniture and
school architecture. Most insightfully, he predicted opposition from incompetent
or unprepared teachers (Beineke, 1998), recognizing the need to adequately edu-
cate teachers. Being grounded in best modern practices, Kilpatrick was optimistic
that a project method approach would result in student development in terms
of citizenship, critical thinking, intelligent actions, and adaptability to new social
conditions (Beineke, 1998). A decade later, research on PBL provides a degree of
affirmation for Kilpatrick’s optimism.

REFERENCES

Achilles, C. M., & Hoover, S. P. (1996). Exploring problem-based learning (PBL) in grades 6–12. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Tusca-
loosa, AL.
Albanese M. A., & Mitchell S. (1993). Problem-based learning: A review of literature on its outcomes
and implementation issues. Academic Medicine, 68, 52–81.
Barron, B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Teaching for meaningful learning: A review of research
on inquiry-based and cooperative learning. In G. N. Cervetti, J. L. Tilson, L. Darling-Ham-
mond, B. Barron, D. Pearson, A. H. Schoenfeld … T. D. Zimmerman (Eds.), Powerful learning:
What we know about teaching for understanding. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Barron, B. J. S., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., … The Cognition and
Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on
problem- and project-based learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 271–311.
Bartscher, K., Gould, B., & Nutter, S. (1995). Increasing student motivation through project-based learn-
ing (master’s research project). Saint Xavier and IRI Skylight.
Baumgartner, E., & Zabin, C. (2008). A case study of project-based instruction in the ninth grade:
A semester-long study of intertidal biodiversity. Environmental Education Research, 14(2),
97–114.
168 | J OHN L . P E CO RE

Beineke, J. A. (1998). And there were giants in the land: The life of William Heard Kilpatrick. New York,
NY: Peter Lang.
Belland, B. R., Ertmer, P. A., & Simons, K. D. (2006). Perceptions of the value of problem-based
learning among students with special needs and their teachers. The Interdisciplinary Journal of
Problem-Based Learning, 1(2), 1–18.
Beringer, J. (2007). Application of problem based learning through research investigation. Journal of
Geography in Higher Education, 31(3), 445–457.
Beyer, L. E. (1997). William Heard Kilpatrick. Prospectus: The quarterly review of comparative education
(Paris, UNESCO: International Bureau of Education), 27(3), 470–485.
Boaler, J. (1997). Experiencing school mathematics: Teaching styles, sex, and settings. Buckingham, Eng-
land: Open University Press.
Boaler, J. (1999, March 31). Mathematics for the moment, or the millennium? Education Week. Retrieved
from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/1999/03/31/29boaler.h18.html?qs=mathematics
Bradley-Levine, J., Berghoff, B., Seybold, J., Sever, R., & Blackwell, S., (2010, April). What teachers
and administrators “need to know” about project-based learning implementation. Paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.
Brush, T., & Saye, J. (2008). The effects of multimedia-supported problem-based inquiry on stu-
dent engagement, empathy, and assumptions about history. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Prob-
lem-based Learning, 2(1), 21–56.
Center of Excellence in Leadership of Learning. (2009, June). Summary of research on project-based
learning. Retrieved from http://cell.uindy.edu/docs/PBL%20research%20summary.pdf
ChanLin, L.-J. (2008). Technology integration applied to project-based learning in science. Innova-
tions in Education and Teaching International, 45, 55–65.
Colliver J. (2000). Effectiveness of problem based learning curricula. Academic Medicine, 75,
259–266.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston, MA: D. C. Heath & Co.
Dewey, J. (1981). Individuality and experience. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), The later works of John Dewey,
1925–1953 vol. 2 (pp. 55–61). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. (Original
work published 1926)
Dewey, J. (1981). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative
process. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), The later works of John Dewey, 1925–1953 vol. 8 (pp. 105–132).
Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. (Original work published 1933)
Dochy, F., Serges, M., Van den Bossche, P., & Gijbels, D. (2003). Effects of problem-based learning:
A meta analysis. Learning and Instruction, 13, 533–568.
Doppelt, Y. (March, 2009). Assessing creative thinking in design-based learning. International Journal
of Technology Design in Education, 19(1), 55–65.
Edelson, D. C., Gordon, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1999). Addressing the challenge of inquiry-based
learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8, 392–450.
Filippatou, D., & Kaldi, S. (2010, August). The effectiveness of project-based learning on pupils with
learning difficulties regarding academic performance, group work and motivation. International
Journal of Special Education, 25, 17–26.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences, New York, NY: Basic Books.
Glasser, W. (1998). Choice theory: A new psychology of personal freedom. New York, NY: Harper
Perennial.
 FR OM K IL PAT RICK ’ S PR O JEC T ME T HO D TO PR OJ EC T - BA SED L EA RNI NG | 169

Grant, M. M. (2011). Learning, beliefs, and products: Students’ perspectives with project-based
learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 5(2). Retrieved from http://dx.doi.
org/10.7771/1541-5015.1254
Hernandez-Ramos, P., & De La Paz, S. (2009). Learning history in middle school by designing
multimedia in a project-based learning experience. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
42(2), 151–173.
Herreid, C. F. (2003). The death of problem-based learning? Journal of College Science Teaching, 32(6),
364–366.
Horan, C., Lavaroni, C., & Beldon, P. (1996). Observation of the Tinker Tech Program students for criti-
cal thinking and social participation behaviors. Novato, CA: Buck Institute for Education.
Kilpatrick, W. H. (1918, September). The project method. Teachers College Record, 19, 319–335.
Knoll, M. (2010). “A marriage on the rocks”: An unknown letter by William H. Kilpatrick about his project
method. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED511129)
Knoll, M. (2012). “I had made a mistake”: William H Kilpatrick and the project method. Teachers
College Record, 114(2), 1–45.
Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P., Marx, R., & Bass, K. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms:
Initial attempts by middle school students. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3/4), 313–350.
Ladewski, B. G., Krajcik, J. S., & Harvey, C. L. (1994). A middle grade science teacher’s emerging
understanding of project-based instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 94(5), 498–515.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Lightner, S., Bober, M. J., & Willi, C. (2007). Team-based activities to promote engaged learning.
College Teaching, 55, 5–18.
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. Novato, CA: Buck Institute for
Education.
Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., Blunk, M., Crawford, B., Kelley, B., & Meyer, K. M.
(1994). Enacting project-based science: Experiences of four middle grade teachers. Elementary
School Journal, 94, 517–538.
Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (1997). Enacting project-based science:
Challenges for practice and policy. Elementary School Journal, 97, 341–358.
Mergendoller, J. R., Maxwell, N. L., & Bellisimo, Y. (2006). The effectiveness of problem-based
instruction: A comparative study of instructional methods and student characteristics. The Inter-
disciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(2), 49–69.
Mioduser, D., & Betzer, N. (2003). The contribution of project-based learning to high-achievers’
acquisition of technological knowledge and skills. International Journal of Technology and Design
Education, 18, 59–77.
Monahan, A. C., & Lane, C. H. (1915). Agricultural education. Report of the US Commissioner of
Education. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Park, J. C., & Harlan, C. L. (1916). Some facts concerning manual arts and home-making subjects
in 156 cities. Bulletin of the US Bureau of Education, 32. Washington, DC: Government Printing
Office.
Peck, J. K., Peck, W., Sentz, J., & Zasa, R. (1998). Students’ perceptions of literacy learning in a
project based curriculum. In E. G. Stutevant & J. Dugan (Eds.), Literacy and community: The
twentieth yearbook: A peer reviewed publication of the College Reading Association (pp. 94–100).
Carrollton, GA: Beacon.
170 | J OHN L . P E CO RE

Pecore, J. L. (2009). A study of secondary teachers facilitating a historical problem-based learning instruc-
tional unit (Middle-Secondary Education and Instructional Technology dissertation). Retrieved
from http://digitalarchive.gsu.edu/msit_diss?52. (Paper 52)
Pecore, J. L. (2012). Beyond beliefs: Teachers adapting problem-based learning to preexisting systems
of practice. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 7(2), 1–27.
Pecore, J. L., & Bohan, C. H. (2013). Problem-based learning: Some teachers flourish and others
flounder. Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, 14(1), 123–126.
Pecore, J. L., & Shelton, A. (2013). Challenging preservice students’ teaching perspectives in an
inquiry-focused program. The Journal of Mathematics and Science: Collaborative Explorations, 13,
57–77.
Penuel, W. R., & Means, B. (2000). Designing a performance assessment to measure students’ communica-
tion skills in multi-media-supported, project-based learning. Paper presented at the Annual Meet-
ing of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
Project method as old as Adam. (1921, December 31). New York Evening Post.
Railsback, J. (2002). Project-based instruction: Creating excitement for learning. Portland, OR: North-
west Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved from http://www.nwrel.org/request/2002aug/
index.html
Ravitz, J., & Mergendoller, J. (2005, April). Evaluating implementation and impacts of problem-based
economics in U.S. high schools. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educa-
tional Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
Savery, J. R., and Duffy, T. M. (1995). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its con-
structivist framework. Educational Technology, 45(1), 31–38.
Schulte, P. L. (1996). A definition of constructivism. Science Scope, 20(3), 25–27.
Shepherd, H. G. (1998, September). The probe method: A problem-based learning model’s effect on
critical thinking skills of fourth- and fifth-grade social studies students. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 59(3–A), 0779.
Smith, C. A. (1995). Features section: Problem based learning. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
Education, 23(3), 149–152.
Sonmez, D., & Lee, H. (2003). Problem-based learning in science. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearing-
house for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.
SRI International. (2000, January). Silicon valley challenge 2000: Year 4 Report. San Jose, CA: Joint
Venture, Silicon Valley Network.
Stepien, W. J., Gallagher, S. A., & Workman, D. (1993). Problem-based learning for traditional and
interdisciplinary classrooms. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 338–357.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of intelligence. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Strobel, J., & Van Barneveld, A. (2009). When is PBL more effective? A meta-synthesis of meta-anal-
yses comparing PBL to conventional classrooms. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based
Learning, 3(1), 44–58.
Tenenbaum, S. (1951). William Heard Kilpatrick: Trail blazer in education. New York, NY: Harper &
Brothers.
Thomas, J. W. (1998). Project-based learning: Overview. Novato, CA: Buck Institute for Education.
Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. San Rafael, CA: The Autodesk
Foundation.
Tretten, R., & Zachariou, P. (1995). Learning about project-based learning: Assessment of project-based
learning in Tinkertech schools. San Rafael, CA: The Autodesk Foundation.
 FR OM K IL PAT RICK ’ S PR O JEC T ME T HO D TO PR OJ EC T - BA SED L EA RNI NG | 171

Weng-yi Cheng, R., Shui-fong, L., & Chung-yan Chan, J. (2008). When high achievers and low
achievers work in the same group: The roles of group heterogeneity and processes in pro-
ject-based learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 205–221.
Wijnen, W. H. F. W (2000). Towards design-based learning. Retrieved from http://w3.tue.nl/fileadmin/
osc/OSC_oo/doc/OGO_brochure_1_EN.pdf