Koutrouba2013

501062
13
IMP16310.1177/1365480213501062
Article
Improving Schools
Cognitive and socio-affective

16(3) 244–260
© The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permissions:
outcomes of project-based learning: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1365480213501062
Perceptions of Greek Second imp.sagepub.com
Chance School students
Konstantina Koutrouba and Elissavet

Karageorgou
Harokopio University, Greece
Abstract
The present questionnaire-based study was conducted in 2010 in order to examine 677 Greek Second
Chance School (SCS) students’ perceptions about the cognitive and socio-affective outcomes of project-
based learning. Data elaboration, statistical and factor analysis showed that the participants found that project-
based learning offered a second chance to develop various cognitive skills regarded as professional qualities
facilitating their re-integration in society. It also showed that socio-affective skills are developed during
project-based learning. The successful acquisition of skills such as persistence, willingness, cooperativeness,
creativity and initiative, according to the present work, depends on and is linked to each learner’s personal
experiences, traits, needs, interests and objectives which during project-based learning are engaged but
subordinated to social, cooperative objectives and expectations. Project-based learning provided in SCSs is,
therefore, considered to be a powerful means in fighting social marginalization, stigmatization and labelling
of school dropouts.
Keywords
Greek students’ perceptions, outcomes, project-based learning, Second Chance Schools
Introduction
Second Chance Schools (SCSs) were first established across Europe in 1995 in compliance with
the official guidelines of the European Commission’s White Paper on Education and Training
(1995) which aimed at adjusting educational systems to the increasingly exacting requirements
of European society. What had to be addressed more urgently was the progressive rise in the
number of dropouts from education that had driven more than 10 percent of the entire European
Union population to extreme social marginalization and consequent exclusion from the labour
market’s developmental orientations. SCSs, first set up in France, Germany, England and Spain,
Corresponding author:
Konstantina Koutrouba, Department of Home Economics and Ecology, Harokopio University, 70 El Venizelou Str.,
Kallithea, Athens 17671, Greece.
Email: kkout@hua.gr
Downloaded from imp.sagepub.com at TEXAS A&M UNIV TEXARKANA on August 29, 2015
Koutrouba and Karageorgou 245
provided adult students with the opportunity to complete compulsory education, in order to
develop cognitive, affective, social and professional skills regarded as indispensable to all citi-
zens of Europe. In 2000, the European Union in the European Council of Lisbon (European
Parliament, 2000) adopted the Memorandum on Lifelong Learning (European Commission,
2000), which set the principles, objectives, rules and procedures for the development of Lifelong
Learning national strategies across Europe in order to enhance social cohesion and generate
active citizenship. SCSs across Europe were further developed in 2006 and 2007 when the
European Parliament’s ‘Lifelong Learning Action Programme’ (2006) and the European
Commission’s ‘Action Plan on Adult Learning’ (2007) promoted the exchange and transference
of experience in lifelong learning and supported statutorily and fiscally educational institutions
which joined forces in fighting against school dropouts’ segregation, social ostracism and subse-
quent manpower ghettoization.
In Greece, the first SCSs were established in 2000, under the provisions of Law 2525 (Greek
Government Gazette, 1997) and further developed in 2008 under the stipulations of the
Ministerial Decree on the Organization and Operation of SCSs (Greek Government Gazette,
2008). Today (2012) 57 SCSs – six of them within prison areas – and 60 subsidiary branches
operate across the country with over 1335 teachers, providing education to more than 15,000
adult students on Greek and English language, mathematics, information technology, environ-
mental issues, social studies, aesthetic studies, technology and physics, in addition to orienta-
tion, career and vocational counselling in collaboration with public advisory support services
and the local labour market (Karalis & Vergidis, 2004). Graduates of SCSs are provided with a
title equivalent to the Junior High School Leaving Certificate, recognized by the Supreme
Council for Civil Personnel Selection (ASEP), enabling them to continue their studies in Upper
High School (either for General or Vocational Education) and in Private Institutes of Vocational
Training (IIEK) or attend professional training courses provided by the official Educational
Services of the Manpower Agency of Greece (OAED) (Papastamatis & Panitsidou, 2009;
Zarifis, 2008).
During the last decade, SCSs have decisively and clearly defined social and emotional skill
development as a sine qua non prerequisite for the cognitive and professional development of the
learners (European Council, 2003; European Parliament, 2006; University of Florence, 2010).
Adult students are expected, in fact, to change, improve and integrate their personalities through
their involvement in in-school interpersonal activities of problem-solving which, indeed, are simu-
lations of real-life problems that need to be successfully addressed (Bennetts, 2003; Cope &
Kalantzis, 2000; Zepke & Leach, 2006). Learners are also expected to develop, beyond academic
performance and achievements, personal traits and features such as determination, adaptability,
helpfulness, affective maturity, self-confidence, self-knowledge, inventiveness, resourcefulness,
creativity, imagination, sociability and openness (European Commission, 2007; Research voor
Beleid, 2010).
Project-based learning procedures are considered to serve as credible instruments and means
for the attainment of such objectives. Ravitz (2010, p. 293) defines project-based learning as ‘an
approach to instruction featuring (a) in-depth inquiry, (b) over an extended period, (c) that is
student self-directed to some extent, and (d) that requires a formal presentation of results’.
Recent research has confirmed a variety of positive outcomes regarding project-based learning
for adult and non-adult learners. Mergendoller, Maxwell, and Bellisimo (2007) and Walker and
Leary (2008) reported that students who engaged in project procedures displayed a significant
degree of understanding of complicated concepts and, even, subtle notions and connotations,
probably due to the constructive exchange of knowledge and information that takes place during
246 Improving Schools 16(3)
group members’ interaction and co-operation, as Geier and colleagues (2008) have also noticed.
In addition, Dochy, Segers, Van Den Bossche, and Gijbels (2003) and Kloppenborg (2009)
showed that project-based learning helps learners not only to understand their social environ-
ment but also to exert a positive influence on it through implementing in real life what they have
learnt in a classroom where problem-solving procedures, based on prior experiences and con-
structively elaborated social emotional and cognitive stimuli, are developed, as Savery (2006),
Strobel and van Barneveld (2008) and Van Ryzin and Newell (2009) have pointed out. Moreover,
Beckett (2002) and Polman (2000) reported that students’ ability to evaluate personal and their
classmates’ achievements is significantly improved, especially when students are fully informed
about the aims, the methods and the potential benefits of project-based learning.
Furthermore, DeFillippi (2001) has reported that learners who participate in project-based
learning are later more easily included in the labour market given the fact that they are more accus-
tomed to changeable learning and working environments. Nadler, Thompson, and Van Boven
(2003) found that familiarizing learners with demanding environments remarkably strengthens
their argumentation and negotiation skills, since they are expected not only to create and assimilate
knowledge within cooperative settings but also to transfer this knowledge to the members of other
groups. Volkema (2010), in addition, has reported that such positive social outcomes are further
developed when students have methodologically and systematically worked not only in groups
where friendly relationships between the members are developed, but also in groups where, despite
the absence of apparent amicable relations, mutual objectives and aspirations create bonds of com-
mitment and shared responsibility. As far as social inclusion is concerned, Raelin (2000) and Smith,
Smarkusky, and Corrigall (2008) have shown that the effective social integration of learners who
have developed reflective thinking and professional qualifications skills based on this kind of
thinking is one of the most significant outcomes of project-based learning as regards adult and non-
adult students. This is especially the case when projects carried out by students bring them in close
contact with the job market, provide them with meaningful knowledge regarding information tech-
nologies and encourage them to take on responsibilities and initiatives (Hedberg, 2009; Pearce &
Doh, 2005; Roper & Phillips, 2007) and assume roles and duties that further exercise reflective and
creative thinking (Paulson, 2011).
Project-based learning has been also reported (Frame, 2002; Wurdinger & Enloe, 2011) to facil-
itate self-knowledge, self-regulation and self-confidence in learners. Gray and Larson (2008),
Hansen (2006) and Harrison, Price, Gavin, and Florey (2002), have shown that learners who par-
ticipate in cooperative learning activities during project-based learning develop noticeable feelings
of persistence, decisiveness and determination which help them form a more reliable and clear
perception of their own personalities, abilities and potential. In addition, Ashraf (2004) and
Bransford, Brown, and Cocking (2000) have found connections between this optimistic, construc-
tive self-perception and the maturity process which is further consolidated when learning experi-
ences adapted to student traits, needs and interests within a school setting are linked to personal
real-life experiences where one is expected to display a better understanding, control and regula-
tion of one’s own life, as Bell and Kozlowski (2008) have shown.
In addition, Railsback (2002), Wurdinger and Rudolph (2009) and Wurdinger, Haar, Hugg, and
Bezon (2007) have reported that project-based learning significantly contributes to the develop-
ment of skills such as flexibility, cooperativeness, adaptability, enthusiasm and resourcefulness.
Such traits are reported by Newell (2003) to be transformed later into essential social skills, since
learners develop social adaptability and acceptance of diversity and, also, willingness to actively
ask for solutions to emerging social problems, in particular problems concerning exclusion, mar-
ginalization and labelling of underprivileged people. Such features are described by Bridgeland,
DiIulio, and Morison (2006), Littky and Grabelle (2004) and Wurdinger and Enloe (2011) as cru-
cially important as regards typical education dropouts and socially marginalized people.
As regards Greece, project-based learning is widely practised in adult education provided in
SCSs, is moderately implemented in some primary mainstream education schools (Chrisafidis,
2002; Kaldi, Filippatou, & Govaris, 2011; Mattheoudakis, 2005; Taratori-Tsalkatidou, 2007), but
it is almost unknown in secondary education, constituting, therefore, a significant novelty for the
conservative and rather inflexible Greek educational system (Koulaidis, Dimopoulos, Tsatsaroni,
& Katsis, 2006). Project-based learning in Greek SCSs is based on the principles of lifelong learn-
ing (Panitsidou & Papastamatis, 2009), utilizes students’ prior knowledge and involves them in
experiential learning procedures through interdisciplinary and cross-thematic approaches (Doukas,
2003; Katsarou & Tsafos, 2008). In addition, academic knowledge and socio-affective compe-
tences, such as perseverance, collaboration, flexibility, meta-cognitive awareness, sentimental sta-
bility, enthusiasm, determination, commitment, effectiveness, disposition to improvement et
cetera, are expected to be acquired through undertaking projects which involve discovery learning
in workshops, group activities, participation in cultural events and cooperation with the local job
market and advisory support services (Efstathiou, 2009; European Association for Education of
Adults, 2006; European Commission, 2009; Koutrouba, Vamvakari, Margara, & Anagnou, 2011).
Given that the outcomes of project-based learning in SCSs in Greece have not yet been fully
described from the point of view of the learners (Jimoyiannis & Gravani, 2011; Zembylas, 2008),
the present study aims at examining adult students’ perceptions about the cognitive and socio-
affective attainments achieved during project-based learning in SCSs in Greece.
Methodology
The present questionnaire-based research was conducted during the academic year 2010–2011. A
group of 10 university students were provided with systematic information by the researchers in
order to help SCSs’ adult students in different Greek areas to understand and complete a question-
naire comprising 45 close-ended questions. The university students and the researchers proceeded
to visit 24 SCSs and 10 subsidiary branches throughout Greece and distributed in total 900 ques-
tionnaires after making personal contact with school principals, teachers and adult students. These
SCSs were selected on the basis of criteria regarding teacher and student population and socio-
financial features of local communities in order to ensure that as many adult students as possible,
living in varied social, economic and educational environments, would provide relevant informa-
tion. The ratios of the selected students to schools and of schools to each area represented the cor-
responding national ratios, ensuring, as far as possible, that the sample was representative. A broad
outline of the project process carried out in these SCSs can be seen in Table 1.
The questionnaire comprised 45 close-ended questions with pre-coded replies: five of which
required adult students to provide information about their personal profile, while 40 special ques-
tions referred to students’ perceptions about cognitive and socio-affective outcomes of project-
based learning in SCSs. The questionnaire, originally written in Greek and then translated into
English for the purposes of this article, was self-administered because it was not possible to iden-
tify an instrument from the literature that allowed researchers to capture all the variables involved
in this study. For this reason, the synthesis of the questionnaire was mainly based on the research
findings of Beckett (2002), DeFillippi (2001), Katsarou and Tsafos (2008), Paulson (2011), Ravitz
(2010), Wurdinger and Enloe (2011) and Wurdinger and Rudolph (2009).
Six hundred and seventy-seven adult students (n = 677) agreed to cooperate with the researchers
and fill in the questionnaire (response rate: 75.2%). Three hundred and eighty participants (56.1%)
Table 1. Features of project process in Greek SCSs.
248
Subjects Aims Approach Learning methods Place of Duration

materialization
General Are selected by the A student is expected to Interdisciplinary Active learning is Combination of 2 years in total
overview students according accomplish the following & cross-thematic pursued. Students in- & out-of-class
to: interests, needs, four general aims and a approach is provided ‘create’ & disseminate activities
objectives. variety of sub-objectives from the following knowledge instead of
specified by students & 7 scientific areas. passively accepting it.
teacher. The more domains
are involved, the
better the process is
considered.
Specifications (examples): Cognitive • Social Studies • Inquiry learning Workshops, 1 project per
• Am I a good (knowledge acquisition • Mathematics • Experiential visits in semester, 2 during
consumer? & learning skills’ • Languages learning professional the academic year, 4
• ‘e-nviting’ European development: • Environmental • Peer-tutoring work places, until the completion
Museums (i.e. through inventiveness, Studies • Exclusive museums, of studies
Internet) resourcefulness, • Aesthetics cooperative work historical sites,
• Women in Greek creativity, imagination, • Information with a distinctive local authorities’
literature etc.) Technologies role of each places, public
• Exploring my city Affective • Applied Sciences member services, libraries,
• Am I a racist? (development of • Brain-storming news-paper
• Recreating ancient self-confidence, • Role-playing offices etc.
mechanisms determination • Simulation
• We are what we eat persistence, etc.) • Free-dialogue
• Domestic violence Social • Text-process
• Universe: our (adaptability, • Use of multimedia
neighbourhood helpfulness, • Case-study
• Sustainable commitment,
development sociability, openness,
• Addictions etc.)
Professional
(cooperation with
the local job market
and advisory support
Improving Schools 16(3)
services)
lived in Athens, the capital city of Greece, and two hundred and ninety-seven participants (43.9%)
lived in peripheral, rural and insular prefectures of the country.
The scoring of the special questions was based on nominal five-point Likert-type scales (i.e. 1
= not at all, 2 = slightly, 3 = moderately, 4 = much, 5 = very much), incorporating properties of
labelling and classification. A statistical coding of the questions and answers followed the collec-
tion of the questionnaires. Data elaboration and statistical analysis were performed using PASW
Statistics 18. Factor analysis was employed, using PCA with the Varimax rotation extraction
method, to pinpoint the main factors influencing the participants’ views on the cognitive, emo-
tional and social outcomes of project-based learning in SCSs. All relevant statistical tests were
performed at a significance level α = 0.01. A broad outline of the more significant results and con-
clusions of the present research is presented below.
Analysis of results
Participants’ profile
Of the 677 SCSs’ adult students who participated in the research, 54.2 percent were women, while
45.8 percent were men. The participants’ age was as follows: 18–30 years: 21.7 percent, 31–44
years: 52.3 percent, 45–60 years: 22.3 percent, over 60 years: 3.7 percent. Some 28 percent of the
participants were unemployed at the time of the research; 50.8 percent were part-time employees
while 21.2 percent of the participants had a full-time job.
Special questions
Table 2 presents SCS adult students’ degree of consent to items referring to students’ cognitive
features and attitudes which are considered to be developed and improved during project-based
learning. According to the data, the majority of the respondents reported that adult students ‘much’
to ‘very much’ utilize experiential learning and practise it in daily life to acquire a more integrated/
better knowledge of the real world (92%), get continuous feedback from fellow students and teach-
ers in order to improve their cognitive background (91.4%), develop meta-cognitive awareness to
increase and improve academic attainments (90.6%) and develop abilities of detailed observation
(90.2%). In addition, adult students reported that, during project-based learning, they ‘much’ to
‘very much’ are trained to implement effectively free or guided inquiry (87.5%), reach best solu-
tions through an amalgamation of different points of view and proposals (87.2%), improve profes-
sional skills and build a stronger/more effective professional profile (86.7%) and become familiar
with information technologies (86.4%). Moreover, they reported that ‘much’ to ‘very much’ they
develop reflective thinking and knowledge scaffolding (84.7%), improve writing skills (84.7%)
and develop skills for successful programming and time management (84.7%). Finally, as regards
cognitive attainments, they reported that, during project work, they ‘much’ to ‘very much’ improve
the ability of argumentation (83.4%), develop criteria for the evaluation of other members’ perfor-
mance (81.7%), attain individualized learning, adapted to personal characteristics, needs and inter-
ests (79.1%), develop criteria for personal performance evaluation (78%) and are encouraged to
access different sources of information by themselves (45.9%). Details of relevant students’
responses can be seen in Table 2.
Table 3 presents SCS adult students’ degree of consent to items referring to students’ socio-
affective features and attitudes which are considered to be developed and improved during
project-based learning. According to the data, the majority of the respondents reported that
Table 2. SCS students’ perceptions (in percentages) to the questions looking at cognitive outcomes of
project-based learning.
Degree of consent to the following cognitive Not at all Slightly Moderately Much Very much
outcomes of project-based learning. During
project-based learning, adult students:
[1] Are encouraged to access by themselves 6.8 18.6 28.7 27.9 18
different sources of information
[2] Are trained to implement effectively 0.5 1.5 10.5 28.7 58.8
free or guided inquiry
[3] Develop reflective thinking and 1 2.8 11.5 36.5 48.2
knowledge scaffolding
[4] Improve ability of argumentation 1.8 2.2 12.6 45.6 37.8
[5] Get individualized learning, adapted to 3.4 3.2 14.3 38.3 40.8
personal traits, needs, interests
[6] Get continuous feedback from fellow 0.5 1.9 6.2 34.7 56.7
students and teacher in order to
improve cognitive background
[7] Utilize experiential learning and practise 0.1 1.5 6.4 25.7 66.3
it in daily life to get a more integrated/
better knowledge of the real world
[8] Develop ability of detailed observation 0.2 2.8 6.8 34.1 56.1
[9] Improve writing skills 0.8 2.2 12.3 34.3 50.4
[10] Develop meta-cognitive awareness 0.7 2.1 6.6 34.9 55.7
to increase and improve academic
attainments
[11] Develop criteria for personal 2.7 5.3 14 38.7 39.3
performance evaluation
[12] Develop criteria for the evaluation of 0.7 2.8 14.8 36.5 45.2
other members’ performance
[13] Reach best solutions through 0.9 2.7 9.2 37.4 49.8
amalgamation of different points of view
and proposals
[14] Develop skills for successful 1.1 3.1 11.1 34.6 50.1
programming and time management
[15] Improve professional skills and build a 1.6 2.2 9.5 34.4 52.3
stronger/more effective professional
profile
[16] Become familiarized with information 1.7 2.4 9.5 31.3 55.1
technologies
adult students ‘much’ to ‘very much’ develop willingness to help each other (92.9%) and a
sense of parity (90.4%), express freely and unreservedly their opinions (90.4%), develop com-
mitment to fellow students/share mutual responsibility (90.2%) and feel able to address diffi-
culties (90.1%). In addition, they reported that ‘much’ to ‘very much’ they develop creativity,
resourcefulness and imagination (89.2%), feel able to provide a critical synthesis from differ-
ent/opposed ideas (89.1%), feel able and ready to fight for their re-embodiment in society
(88.3%), and develop social flexibility and adaptability (87.8%) as well as rules for cooperation
and subordinate personal to group objectives (87.5%). Moreover, as regards socio-affective
Table 3. SCS students’ perceptions (in percentages) to the questions looking at socio-affective outcomes
of project-based learning.
Degree of consent to the following Not at all Slightly Moderately Much Very much
socio-affective outcomes of project-
based learning. During project-based
learning, adult students:
[17] Develop bonds of friendship 1.1 2.2 24.2 30.7 41.8
[18] Develop persistence, decisiveness and 4 3.7 8.3 31.9 52.1
determination
[19] Develop creativity, resourcefulness, 0.9 2.1 7.8 34.1 55.1
imagination
[20] Develop enthusiasm regardless of the 2.2 2.8 12 29.5 53.5
project’s final outcome
[21] Develop commitment to fellow 0.2 1.6 8 31.3 58.9
students/share mutual responsibility
[22] Develop willingness to help each other 0 0.7 6.4 27.6 65.3
[23] Develop self-knowledge 2.9 6.6 13.3 30.7 46.5
[24] Feel able and ready to fight for their 1.8 1.9 8 32.2 56.1
re-embodiment in society
[25] Develop motivation and initiative 3.2 6.2 11.1 34.9 44.6
[26] Fight reluctance, laziness 0.5 2.7 9.5 36.8 50.5
[27] Feel able to address difficulties 0.1 2.4 7.4 34.9 55.2
[28] Feel able to provide a critical synthesis 1 2.1 7.8 38.7 50.4
from different/opposed ideas
[29] Develop social flexibility and adaptability 0.8 2.2 9.2 39.4 48.4
[30] Feel able to diffuse learning outcomes 2.9 4.6 15.4 36.2 40.9
to group members
[31] Develop strategies for self-regulation 0.4 2.4 10.6 38 48.6
[32] Develop rules for cooperation/ 0.8 3 8.7 24.4 63.1
subordinate personal to group
objectives
[33] Express freely and unreservedly their 1.3 1.2 7.1 29.2 61.2
opinions
[34] Develop a spirit of noble emulation 11.9 9 14.6 32.6 31.9
[35] Develop sense of parity 1.2 1.6 6.8 27.6 62.8
[36] Come into close contact with the 3.2 3.8 16.7 39.1 37.2
labour market, are provided with
opportunities for professional re-
embodiment
[37] Feel free to select a personal role in the 4.3 9.6 47.7 18.2 20.2
group
[38] Feel familiarized with foreign cultures 9.5 8.4 15.4 25.3 41.4
[39] Develop tolerance towards diversity 4.2 8 12.4 32.1 43.3
[40] Exercise active citizenship 2.8 4.3 10.5 34 48.4
attainments, they reported that, during project-work, they ‘much’ to ‘very much’ fight reluc-
tance, laziness (87.3%), develop strategies for self-regulation (86.6%), persistence, decisive-
ness, determination (84%), and enthusiasm regardless of the project’s final outcome (83%).
Table 4. KMO and Bartlett’s test of sphericity.
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy 0.935

Bartlett’s test of sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 13524.788
d.f. 780
Sig. 0.000
They, also, reported that they ‘much’ to ‘very much’ exercise active citizenship (82.4%),
develop motivation, initiative (79.5%), and self-knowledge (77.2%), feel able to disseminate
learning outcomes to group members (77.1%), and come in close contact with the labour mar-
ket since they are provided with opportunities for professional re-embodiment (76.3%). Finally,
the majority of the respondents reported that, during project-work, they ‘much’ to ‘very much’
develop tolerance towards diversity (75.4%) as well as bonds of friendship (72.5%), they feel
familiarized with foreign cultures (66.7%), develop a spirit of noble emulation (64.5%), and
feel free to select a personal role in the group (38.4%). Details of relevant students’ responses
can be seen in Table 3.
Factor analysis
All the above-mentioned 40 variables were taken into consideration, related in level of signifi-
cance α = 1% to the perceptions of the 677 participants about the cognitive and socio-affective
outcomes of project-based learning in SCSs (chi-square independence tests were performed).
These 40 variables can be seen in Table 2 (variables 1–16: cognitive outcomes of project-
based learning) and Table 3 (variables 17–40: socio-affective outcomes of project-based
learning).
Applying factor analysis, we attempted to ascertain the main factors that affect students’ percep-
tions about cognitive and socio-affective outcomes of project-based learning in SCSs.
The value 0.935 of the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure for sampling adequacy as an indicator of
comparison in the observed values of correlation coefficients to the partial correlation coefficients
implied factor analysis of variables was acceptable as a technique for analysing the data. In addi-
tion, Bartlett’s test of sphericity showed high statistical significance of the statistic χ2 (zero p-value),
rejecting the hypothesis that the correlation matrix is an identity one and, consequently, factor
analysis was adequate (see Table 4).
We applied factor analysis to the group of 40 previously mentioned variables (Cattell, 1977,
1978; Howitt & Cramer, 2008). Since the performance of the principal component analysis (PCA)
from the first nine components explained 62.842 percent of the total variance and that only the first
nine components had eigenvalues greater than 1, we proceeded by using PCA with the Varimax
rotation extraction method in nine components. The results are presented in Table 5. Scree plot
(Figure 1) represents the percentage of the total variance explained by each factor.
Comments on the factor analysis results

Based on the results of the factor analysis, the nine main factors were as follows:
Factor 1: Developing meaningful social maturity. Variables with significant positive influence
between them and with the Highest Factor Loadings (VHFL): [13], [14], [19], [20], [21], [22],
[29], [32], [33] and [35]. According to the results, the majority of the respondents reported that
Table 5. Factor analysis results.
Rotated Component Matrix
Variables Component Communalities
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
[1] –0.079 0.050 –0.029 –0.215 –0.025 –0.022 0.170 –0.028 0.769 0.678
[2] 0.373 0.206 0.153 0.010 0.587 0.044 0.019 0.049 0.131 0.572
[3] 0.209 0.477 0.181 0.011 0.532 0.009 0.036 0.081 –0.106 0.607
[4] 0.052 0.332 0.109 0.047 0.517 0.105 0.356 –0.036 –0.076 0.540
[5] 0.063 0.092 0.050 0.018 –0.002 0.076 0.110 0.733 0.077 0.576
[6] 0.213 0.766 0.078 0.136 0.072 0.115 0.060 0.039 0.042 0.683
[7] 0.405 0.470 0.023 0.211 0.160 0.068 0.148 0.096 0.088 0.499
[8] 0.294 0.610 0.176 0.180 0.121 0.063 0.106 0.187 –0.159 0.613
[9] 0.205 0.707 0.313 0.071 0.010 0.127 0.053 –0.057 –0.058 0.671
[10] 0.357 0.652 0.215 0.057 0.000 0.081 0.014 –0.016 0.128 0.625
[11] 0.207 0.022 0.619 0.201 0.112 0.012 0.342 0.247 0.007 0.657
[12] 0.291 0.270 0.535 0.026 –0.138 0.259 0.349 0.106 –0.086 0.670
[13] 0.598 0.201 0.148 0.165 0.002 0.074 0.369 0.136 0.118 0.621
[14] 0.502 0.184 0.187 0.492 0.090 0.111 0.130 0.042 –0.082 0.609
[15] 0.334 0.298 0.069 0.641 0.034 0.134 0.131 0.071 0.023 0.658
[16] 0.313 0.575 0.025 0.226 0.271 0.057 0.042 0.126 –0.037 0.576
[17] 0.063 0.075 –0.018 0.030 0.258 0.092 0.674 0.110 0.141 0.572
[18] 0.200 0.192 0.094 0.247 0.212 0.631 0.056 0.289 –0.125 0.692
[19] 0.617 0.275 0.116 0.214 0.130 0.282 –0.007 0.210 –0.029 0.657
[20] 0.518 0.137 0.098 0.249 0.247 0.373 0.014 0.241 –0.100 0.627
[21] 0.689 0.200 0.034 0.194 0.176 0.133 0.065 –0.046 –0.026 0.609
[22] 0.692 0.274 0.023 0.165 0.055 –0.004 0.109 –0.227 0.058 0.651
[23] 0.037 0.262 0.421 0.414 –0.022 0.454 0.037 –0.347 –0.061 0.751
[24] 0.289 0.230 0.091 0.720 –0.006 0.114 0.136 –0.043 0.028 0.696
[25] 0.082 0.219 0.511 0.403 0.023 0.405 0.034 –0.304 –0.082 0.743
[26] 0.419 0.235 0.069 0.074 0.101 –0.110 0.551 0.001 –0.090 0.575
[27] 0.384 0.492 0.017 0.214 0.160 0.035 0.150 –0.014 –0.068 0.490
[28] 0.240 0.745 0.082 0.136 0.117 0.118 0.104 0.001 –0.014 0.677
[29] 0.590 0.381 0.327 0.032 0.051 0.041 –0.048 0.003 0.024 0.608
[30] 0.146 0.117 0.655 0.165 0.064 –0.033 0.182 0.234 –0.100 0.595
[31] 0.370 0.309 0.265 0.028 0.120 0.560 0.041 –0.018 –0.019 0.634
[32] 0.615 0.282 0.173 0.153 0.164 0.146 0.007 0.241 –0.094 0.627
[33] 0.626 0.329 0.074 0.159 0.104 0.175 0.026 0.185 0.078 0.613
[34] 0.138 0.098 0.680 –0.054 0.140 0.119 –0.143 –0.116 –0.039 0.564
[35] 0.727 0.199 0.060 0.168 0.060 –0.070 0.121 –0.028 –0.031 0.625
[36] 0.086 0.003 0.040 0.224 0.706 0.095 0.172 –0.021 0.076 0.602
[37] 0.100 –0.083 –0.184 0.154 0.101 –0.088 –0.091 0.121 0.732 0.651
[38] –0.097 0.290 0.676 0.281 0.154 0.076 –0.211 –0.065 –0.122 0.722
[39] 0.229 0.243 0.276 0.517 0.193 –0.280 –0.159 0.249 –0.026 0.659
[40] 0.248 0.040 0.162 0.668 0.282 0.131 –0.058 0.009 –0.086 0.643
Percenta– Rotation 14.227 12.454 7.949 7.641 5.154 4.322 4.087 3.549 3.458 62.842
ge of total sums of
variance squared
explained loadings
Note: Communality or common factor variance: total variance of each variable explained by common factors.
Figure 1. Scree plot.
cognitive and social features, such as efficiency in scheduling and achieving attainments, inven-
tiveness, eagerness, helpfulness, adaptability, freedom and equality, are considerably developed
during project-based learning which takes place in a meaningful and socially mature learning
environment.
Factor 2: Thinking reflectively, actively and effectively. Variables with significant positive influ-
ence between them and with the Highest Factor Loadings (VHFL): [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [16], [27]
and [28]. According to the results, the majority of the participants reported that highly ranked
cognitive competences developed during project-based learning and based on well-established
links with the social life of the students, allow them to feel more confident and enable them to form
a personal idea of the world surrounding them.
Factor 3: Motivation for knowledge evaluation, dissemination and utilization in cooperation
with fellow members. Variables with significant positive influence between them and with the
Highest Factor Loadings (VHFL): [11], [12], [25], [30], [34] and [38]. According to the results, the
majority of the participants reported that project-based learning provided them to a great extent
with knowledge management skills and a clearer perception of personal performance in a diversi-
fied setting as regards students’ identities but unified as regards action targets and objectives.
Factor 4: Fighting for professional and social opportunities. Variables with significant positive
influence between them and with the Highest Factor Loadings (VHFL): [15], [24], [39] and [40].
According to the results, the majority of the respondents reported that project-based learning sig-
nificantly improved their professional profile as well as their determination on the one hand to
strive for their re-embodiment in society and on the other to be more active as regards civil rights
and obligations and more tolerant as regards diversity and differentiation within society.
Factor 5: Strengthening knowledge construction to facilitate professional re-embodiment.

Variables with significant positive influence between them and with the Highest Factor Loadings
(VHFL): [2], [3], [4] and [36]. According to the results, the majority of the students reported that
project-based learning effectively helped them to construct, develop and support a considerable
background of knowledge, facilitating thus their return to professional life where a professional is
expected to be a reflective thinker as well as possess an inquiring and rational mind.
Factor 6: Profound self-understanding and controlling. Variables with significant positive
influence between them and with the Highest Factor Loadings (VHFL): [18], [23] and [31].
According to the results, the majority of the participants reported that project-based learning
encouraged their persistence and determination and helped them not only to understand themselves
more clearly but also to control their actions and behaviour more effectively within their life
setting.
Factor 7: Social and intellectual alertness. Variables with significant positive influence between
them and with the Highest Factor Loadings (VHFL): [17] and [26]. According to the results, the
majority of the participants reported that project-based learning provided them with opportunities
for relations building, while, on the other hand it dissuaded them from displaying laziness and
reluctance.
Factor 8: Individualization. Variables with significant positive influence between them and
with the Highest Factor Loadings (VHFL): [5]. According to the results, the majority of the partici-
pants reported that project-based learning was effective due to high degree of individualization and
adaptation to their personal needs, interests and abilities.
Factor 9: Selecting effectively sources and roles. Variables with significant positive influence
between them and with the Highest Factor Loadings (VHFL): [1] and [37]. According to the
results, the majority of the respondents reported that project-based learning encouraged free access
to knowledge and uninfluenced selection of the in-group role that every student considered as best
for him-/herself.
Conclusions and discussion

The present study examined adult students’ perceptions about the cognitive and socio-affective
attainments achieved during project-based learning in SCSs in Greece. The present study
revealed, first of all, a rather noteworthy achievement of Greek SCSs’ students: the majority of
them displayed a high degree not only of understanding of the questionnaire’s abstract terms and
notions – confirming this way relevant international reports by Mergendoller et al. (2007) and
Walker and Leary (2008) – but also a willingness to realize and define as accurately as possible
the extent of awareness and consciousness regarding personal attainments and performance dur-
ing a process where they are the protagonists and which plays a significant part in their lives.
According to the data, for the majority of the respondents, similarly to what their counterparts
worldwide report (Savery, 2006; Strobel & van Barneveld, 2008; Van Ryzin & Newell, 2009),
knowledge seems to be tightly and, also, exclusively connected to real-life experiences and
needs; for the overwhelming majority of the students the most important outcome of project-
based learning is the utilization of their personal life experiences and the opportunity to con-
structively put amalgamated life and school experiences to good use. This probably explains
why, as factors 2 (Thinking reflectively, actively and effectively) and 3 (Motivation for knowledge
evaluation, dissemination and utilization in cooperation with fellow members) imply, knowl-
edge evaluation, dissemination and utilization during project-based learning and the develop-
ment of reflective, active and effective thinking are not, in fact, limited exclusively to the in-class
academic process per se, but they extend to, and are implemented in, interpersonal socio-
affective relations, where the group members are regarded more as partners and fellow-travellers
in the quest for knowledge (Volkema, 2010).
A strong relationship between knowledge construction and socio-professional development
through project-based learning seems also to be revealed through factor 5 (Strengthening knowl-
edge construction to facilitate professional re-embodiment). The majority of the participants
reported that during project development they were provided with the opportunity to build new
knowledge on a prior learning construction by using reflective thinking techniques and by imple-
menting free or assisted inquiry. Data also linked these reported achievements to an observable
improvement in argumentation ability, similar to the report findings by Nadler et al. (2003). To
explain this relation, one should probably take into account that students’ personal motivation,
initiative and active participation are very strong and continuously present during the whole pro-
cess, enabling students to expound more effectively personal argumentation as regards choices,
attitudes and views developed and displayed during the project (Pearce & Doh, 2005; Roper &
Phillips, 2007). If the personal contribution of the students in knowledge access, utilization, assim-
ilation and extension was weak, over-assisted or insignificant and non-conscious, adult students
would have been unable to provide strong, reasonable, well-documented arguments about anything
that took place during project-based group learning, as Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) have
shown.
Furthermore, examining factors 2 (Thinking reflectively, actively and effectively), 3 (Motivation
for knowledge evaluation, dissemination and utilization in cooperation with fellow members) and
5 (Strengthening knowledge construction to facilitate professional re-embodiment) together, one
could probably conclude that real-life activities which are based on personal motivation and initia-
tives connect prior experiences to new ones, develop skills which at the same time constitute job
pre-requisites, are considered by the adult students as having the most significant positive out-
comes as regards project-based learning. An overriding ambition of SCSs should, therefore, be the
systematic construction, scheduling and carrying-out of such activities within SCS learning set-
tings (Bell & Kozlowski, 2008; Newell, 2003).
Moreover, project-based learning seems to increase adult students’ determination to strive not
only for their personal re-embodiment in society but also the safeguarding of other members’
social rights, as factor 4 (Fighting for professional and social opportunities) indicates. It is pos-
sible that the participants, having already experienced social marginalization and labelling due to
former stigmatization as being ‘dropouts’, feel now that they have a real second chance to achieve
active inclusion and acceptance by a society which not long ago had given them the ‘cold shoul-
der’ (Bridgeland et al., 2006). The development of tolerance towards diversity by the adult stu-
dents, as an outcome of project-based learning, seems also to derive from their personal
experiences, as a counterbalancing reaction to the exclusion they had previously suffered. In fact,
they tend to support and stand up for those who are currently excluded from society (Littky &
Grabelle, 2004). If this is true, then project-based learning actually performs a social objective of
great importance; it triggers social awareness, alertness and consciousness as regards diversity
and differentiation within the social setting (European Association for Education of Adults, 2006;
Koutrouba et al., 2011).
Moreover, when factor 6 (Profound self-understanding and controlling) is taken under consid-
eration, students’ desire to utilize their newly provided education not only in order to have a posi-
tive impact on society but also in order to better understand, control and regulate their own lives,
emerges and seems to hold a dominant place over other objectives of project-based learning. Adult
students reported that project-based learning encouraged their perseverance and determination.
This inclination to self-knowledge and self-regulation should not be taken for granted neither for
adult nor for non-adult students. The better and more integrated the provided education is, the more
effective the development of self-knowledge and self-regulation is expected to be (Chrisafidis,
2002). Thus, project-based teaching should provide all students with opportunities to obtain a
clearer perception and view of their performance, achievements, attainments and potential, as it has
already been indicated through factor 3 (Motivation for knowledge evaluation, dissemination and
utilization in cooperation with fellow members).
In addition, if factor 7 (Social and intellectual alertness) is taken into account, teachers in
SCSs, who work on project scenarios, should ensure that bonds of friendship are developed
among the members of the group, given the fact that the establishment of true human relation-
ships seems to be linked to the prevention and dissuasion of reluctance and laziness which very
often appear during the teaching/learning process in typical education (Koulaidis et al., 2006).
To design and help students carry out a project, bearing in mind that students must be on friendly
terms with each other so that their alertness and conscious commitment to active participation
are ensured, teachers in SCSs should not only record in advance their students’ preferences as
regards their fellow members and with whom they would like to cooperate in the group, but also
take all precautionary measures which ensure that all disputes are settled in time and in an ami-
cable way (Kirschner et al., 2006).
Finally, factor 1 (Developing meaningful social maturity) indicates that for the majority of the
adult students the ability to amalgamate different points of view in order to reach the best solutions
in combination with the ability to take full advantage of successful time management are very
important cognitive outcomes of project-based learning. Teachers in SCSs should therefore design
and propose project activities where students are expected to create personal ideas through the
amalgamation of different perceptions in pre-scheduled, well-designed and adequately adapted to
expected learning outcome time margins (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000).
Project-based learning seems to be, according to the present work, a highly constructive and
powerful weapon which facilitates meaningful knowledge acquisition, developing maturity,
social re-embodiment, and a reconstruction of self-knowledge and self-respect. The present
research was limited to the positive cognitive and socio-affective outcomes of project-based
learning, leaving, for the time being, out of the scope of its present interest possible difficulties
and obstacles which could probably hinder or downgrade the above-mentioned positive out-
comes. As a matter of fact, difficulties already reported, regarding SCSs, have been considered
to render adult education a challenging, complicated but also overriding ambition for every
educational system around the world (European Council, 2003; Van Ryzin & Newell, 2009;
Zepke & Leach, 2006). Since, however, the overwhelming majority of educators and intellectu-
als believe that the only way to social maturity, balance and effectualness is through lifelong
learning which extends beyond the limits of typical education (Doukas, 2003; European
Commission, 2000; Research voor Beleid, 2010), educational policy planners, teachers, and
adult students should take full advantage of all possible positive outcomes of project-based
learning and try to overcome obstacles that hinder students’ determination and will to learn and
succeed whenever a real second chance is offered to them.
References
Ashraf, M. (2004). A critical look at the use of group projects as a pedagogical tool. Journal of Education for
Business, 79, 213–216.
Beckett, G. H. (2002). Teacher and student evaluations of project-based instruction. TESL Canada Journal,
19(2), 52–66.
Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2008). Active learning: Effects of core training design elements on self-
regulatory processes, learning, and adaptability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 296–316.
Bennetts, C. (2003). The impact of transformational learning on individuals, families and communities.
International Journal of Lifelong Education, 22(5), 457–480.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and
school. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Bridgeland, J., DiIulio, J., & Morison, K. (2006). The silent epidemic: Perspectives of high school dropouts.
Washington, DC: Civic Enterprises, LLC.
Chrisafidis, K. (2002). Βιωματική – Επικοινωνιακή διδασκαλία. Η εισαγωγή της μεϑόδου project στο σχολείο
[Experiential-communicative teaching. The introduction of project method in school]. Athens: Gutenberg
(in Greek).
Cattell, R. B. (1977). Factor analysis: An introduction and manual for the psychologist and social scientist.
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Cattell, R. B. (1978). The scientific use of factor analysis in behavioral and life sciences. New York: Plenum
Press.
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.) (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures.
London: Routledge.
DeFillippi, R. J. (2001). Introduction: Project-based learning, reflective practices and learning outcomes.
Management Learning, 32(1), 5–10.
Dochy, R., Segers, M., Van Den Bossche, P., & Gijbels, D. (2003). Effects of problem-based learning: A
meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 13, 533–568.
Doukas, C. (2003). New topologies in European policies: The framework of lifelong learning policies. In C.
Medel-Añonuevo (Ed.), Lifelong learning discourses in Europe (pp. 27–35). Hamburg: Unesco Institute
for Education. Retrieved 10 December 2012, from http://www.unesco.org/education/uie/pdf/uiestud39.
pdf.
Efstathiou, I. (2009). Enhancing students’ critical awareness in a Second Chance School in Greece: Reality or
wishful thinking? Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 7(1), 382–405.
European Association for Education of Adults. (2006). Adult education trends and issues in Europe. Restricted
tender No. EAC/43/05 as completed by 11th of August 2006. Brussels: EAEA. Retrieved 10 December
2012, from http://www.eaea.org/doc/eaea/ AETIstudyfinal.doc.
European Commission. (1995). White paper on education and training. Teaching and learning: Towards the
learning society. COM(95) 590. Brussels: EC. Retrieved 10 December 2012, from: http://europa.eu/docu-
ments/comm/white_papers/ pdf/com95_590_en.pdf.
European Commission. (2000). A memorandum on lifelong learning: Commission staff working paper.
SEC(2000) 1832. Brussels: EC. Retrieved 10 December 2012, from: http://www.bologna-berlin2003.de/
pdf/MemorandumEng.pdf.
European Commission. (2007). Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European
Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Action
Plan on Adult Learning: It is always a good time to learn. COM(2007) 558 final. Brussels: EC. Retrieved
10 December 2012, from: http://ec.europa.eu/ education/policies/adult/com558_en.pdf.
European Commission. (2009). Organisation of the education system in Greece, 2008/09. Brussels:
EC-Eurydice: Education, Audiovisual & Culture Executive Agency). Retrieved 10 December 2012,
from: http://www.eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/eurybase/ eurybase_ful_reports/
EL_EN.pdf.
European Council. (2003). Council conclusions on reference levels of European average performance in
education and training (Benchmarks). Brussels: EC. Retrieved 10 December 2012, from: http://www.
ec.europa.eu/education/policies/2010/doc/after-council-meeting_ en.pdf.
European Parliament. (2000). Lisbon European Council 23 and 24 March 2000: Presidency conclusions.
Brussels: EC. Retrieved 10 December 2012, from: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ summits/lis1_en.htm.
European Parliament. (2006). Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November
2006, establishing an action programme in the field of lifelong learning. Brussels: Official Journal of the
European Union. Retrieved 10 December 2012, from: http://www.eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/

oj/2006/1_327/1_32720061124en00450068.pdf.
Frame, J. D. (2002). The new project management: Tools for an age of rapid change, complexity and other
business realities (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Geier, R., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., & Clay-Chambers, J.
(2008). Standardized test outcomes for students engaged in inquiry-based science curricula in the context
of urban reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 922–939.
Gray, C. F., & Larson, E. W. (2008). Project management: The managerial process (4th ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Greek Government Gazette. (1997). Comprehensive lyceum, access of graduates to tertiary education, evalua-
tion of educational performance and other provisions. Law 2525, 188A. Athens: National Printing Office.
Greek Government Gazette. (2008). Organization and operation of Second Chance Schools. Ministerial
Decree 260, B34. Athens: National Printing Office.
Hansen, R. S. (2006). Benefits and problems with student teams: Suggestions for improving team projects.
Journal of Education for Business, 82, 11–19.
Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. (2002). Time, teams, and task performance:
Changing effect of surface- and deep-level diversity on group functioning. Academy of Management
Journal, 45, 1029–1045.
Hedberg, P. R. (2009). Learning through reflective classroom practice: Applications to educate the reflective
manager. Journal of Management Education, 33, 10–36.
Howitt, D., & Cramer, D. (2008). Introduction to statistic psychology. Harlow: Pearson.
Jimoyiannis, A., & Gravani, M. (2011). Exploring adult digital literacy using learners’ and educators’ per-
ceptions and experiences: The case of the Second Chance Schools in Greece. Educational Technology &
Society, 14(1), 217–227.
Kaldi, S., Filippatou, D., & Govaris, C. (2011). Project-based learning in primary schools: effects on pupils’
learning and attitudes, Education 3–13, 39(1), 35–47
Karalis, T., & Vergidis, D. (2004). Lifelong education in Greece: Recent developments and current trends.
International Journal of Lifelong Education, 23(2), 179–189.
Katsarou, E., & Tsafos, V. (2008). Collaborative school innovation project as a pivot for teachers’ profes-
sional development: The case of Acharnes’ Second Chance School in Greece. Teacher Development,
12(2), 125–138.
Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An
analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teach-
ing. Educational Psychologist, 41(20), 75–86.
Kloppenborg, T. J. (2009) Contemporary project management: Organize/plan/perform. Mason, OH:
Southwestern Cengage Learning.
Koulaidis, V., Dimopoulos, K., Tsatsaroni, A., & Katsis, A. (2006). Young people’s relationship to education:
The case of Greek youth. Educational Studies, 32(4), 343–359.
Koutrouba, K., Vamvakari, M., Margara, T., & Anagnou, E. (2011). Adult student assessment in Second
Chance Schools in Greece: Teachers’ views. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 30(2), 249–270.
Littky, D., & Grabelle, S. (2004). The big picture: Education is everyone’s business. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Mattheoudakis, M. (2005). Language education of adult immigrants in Greece: Current trends and future
developments. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 24(4), 319–336.
Mergendoller, J. R., Maxwell, N., & Bellisimo, Y. (2007). The effectiveness of problem based instruction:
A comparative study of instructional methods and student characteristics. Interdisciplinary Journal of
Problem-Based Learning, 1(2), 49–69.
Nadler, J., Thompson, L., & van Boven, L. (2003). Learning negotiation skills: Four models of knowledge
creation and transfer. Management Science, 49, 529–540.
Newell, R. (2003). Passion for learning: How project based learning meets the needs of 21st-century stu-
dents. Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow Press.
Panitsidou, E., & Papastamatis, A. (2009). European lifelong learning educational policy in the light of the
‘Lisbon Agenda’: The Greek case. Review of European Studies, 1(1), 2–8.
Papastamatis, A., & Panitsidou, E. (2009). The aspect of ‘accessibility’ in the light of European lifelong
learning strategies: Adult Education Centres – A case study. International Journal of Lifelong Education,
28(3), 335–351.
Paulson, E. (2011). Group communication and critical thinking competence development. Business
Communication Quarterly, 74(4), 399–411.
Pearce, J. A., & Doh, J. P. (2005). The high impact of collaborative social initiatives. MIT Sloan Management
Review, 46(3), 30–39.
Polman, J. L. (2000). Designing project-based science: Creating learning through guided inquiry. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Raelin, J. A. (2000). Work-based learning: The new frontier of management development. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Railsback, J. (2002). Project-based instruction: Creating excitement for learning. Portland, OR: Northwest
Regional Educational Laboratory.
Ravitz, J. (2010). Beyond changing culture in small high schools: Reform models and changing instruction
with project-based learning. Peabody Journal of Education, 85(3), 290–312.
Research voor Beleid. (2010). Key competences for adult learning professionals. Final report. Zoetermeer:
RvB. Retrieved 10 December 2012, from http://www.ec.europa.eu/education/more-information/
doc/2010/keycomp.pdf.
Roper, K. O., & Phillips, D. R. (2007). Integrating self-managed work teams into project management.
Journal of Facilities Management, 5, 22–36.
Savery, J. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. Interdisciplinary
Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1), 9–20.
Smith, H. III, Smarkusky, D., & Corrigall, E. (2008). Defining projects to integrate evolving team fundamen-
tals and project management skills. Journal of Information Systems Education, 19, 99–110.
Strobel, J., & van Barneveld, A. (2008). When is PBL more effective? A meta-synthesis of meta-analyses
comparing PBL to conventional classrooms. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 3,
44–58.
Taratori-Tsalkatidou, E. (2007). The project method in theory and practice (2nd ed.). Thessaloniki: Kyriakidis
(in Greek).
University of Florence. (2010). Enabling the low skilled to take their qualifications ‘One Step Up’,
Implementation of action plan on adult learning, Final Report: Case study reports. Florence: University
of Florence. Retrieved 10 December 2012, from: http://www.ec.europa.eu/education/more-information/
doc/2010/lowskill1.pdf.
Van Ryzin, M., & Newell, R. (2009). Assessing what really matters in schools: Building hope for the future.
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Volkema, R. J. (2010). Designing effective projects: Decision options for maximizing learning and project
success. Journal of Management Education, 34(4), 527–550.
Walker, A., & Leary, H. (2008). A problem based learning meta-analysis: Differences across problem types,
implementation types, disciplines and assessment levels. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem Based
Learning, 3(1), 12–43.
Wurdinger, S., & Enloe, W. (2011). Cultivating life skills at a project-based charter school. Improving
Schools, 14(1), 84–96.
Wurdinger, S., & Rudolph, J. (2009). A different type of success: Teaching important life skills through pro-
ject based learning. Improving Schools, 12(2), 115–129.
Wurdinger, S., Haar, J., Hugg, B., & Bezon, J. (2007). A qualitative study using project based learning in a
mainstream middle school. Improving Schools, 10(2), 150–161.
Zarifis, G. K. (2008). Bringing learning closer to home: The value and impact of the Lisbon Strategy for
strengthening the role of Local Learning Centres and Partnerships in south-eastern Europe. International
Journal of Lifelong Education, 27(6), 641–657.
Zembylas, M. (2008). Engaging with issues of cultural diversity and discrimination through critical emotional
reflexivity in online learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 59, 61–82.
Zepke, N., & Leach, L. (2006). Improving learner outcomes in lifelong education: Formal pedagogies in non-
formal learning contexts? International Journal of Lifelong Education, 25(5), 507–518.

Koutrouba2013

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Koutrouba2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

501062

Cognitive and socio-affective

Chance School students

Konstantina Koutrouba and Elissavet

Subjects Aims Approach Learning methods Place of Duration

Table 4. KMO and Bartlett’s test of sphericity.

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy 0.935

Comments on the factor analysis results

Table 5. Factor analysis results.

Rotated Component Matrix

Variables Component Communalities

Figure 1. Scree plot.

Factor 5: Strengthening knowledge construction to facilitate professional re-embodiment.

Conclusions and discussion

European Union. Retrieved 10 December 2012, from: http://www.eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/

You might also like