Education 3–13

ISSN: 0300-4279 (Print) 1475-7575 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rett20

Project-based learning in primary schools: effects

on pupils' learning and attitudes

Stavroula Kaldi, Diamanto Filippatou & Christos Govaris

To cite this article: Stavroula Kaldi, Diamanto Filippatou & Christos Govaris (2011) Project-
based learning in primary schools: effects on pupils' learning and attitudes, Education 3–13,
39:1, 35-47, DOI: 10.1080/03004270903179538

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03004270903179538

Published online: 23 Sep 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 19078

View related articles

Citing articles: 17 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rett20
Education 3–13
Vol. 39, No. 1, February 2011, 35–47

Project-based learning in primary schools: effects on pupils’ learning and

attitudes
Stavroula Kaldi*, Diamanto Filippatou and Christos Govaris

Department of Primary Education, University of Thessaly, Argonafton & Filellinon, Volos,

Greece
(Received 8 June 2009; accepted 12 July 2009)

This study focuses upon the effectiveness of project-based learning on primary

school pupils regarding their content knowledge and attitudes towards self-
efficacy, task value, group work, teaching methods applied and peers from diverse
ethnic backgrounds. A cross-curricular project was implemented within the
curriculum area of environmental studies under the title of ‘sea animals’. The
methodology applied in this study was the quasi-experimental research design.
The findings of the present study support the view that pupils can gain benefits
through project-based learning in obtaining content knowledge and group work
skills and that they became less favourable to traditional teaching versus
experiential learning. Motivation (self-efficacy and task value in terms of
environmental studies) and developing positive attitudes towards peers from a
different ethnic background were changed in moderate levels after the project.
Keywords: project-based learning; primary school; pupils

Introduction
The focus of this enquiry is to investigate the effects of project-based learning on the
on-task academic and co-operative behaviours, motivation (self-efficacy and task
value) and attitudes of pupils towards modes of learning and other peers. Within the
frame of expectations and demands in the new era of contemporary society,
schooling should provide pupils with the opportunities to develop cognitive and
social skills (e.g. skills for critical and analytical thinking, problem-solving and
co-operation skills and self-regulated learning techniques). Self-regulated techniques
include self-efficacy and task value. Self-efficacy was introduced by Bandura (1986)
and refers to an individual’s evaluation or belief of his ability to organise and carry
out tasks successfully. Zimmerman (2000) has reported that these beliefs influence
pupils’ choice of activities, their efforts and emotional reactions to be cognitively
engaged. Task value refers to an individual’s evaluation of the task assigned and
according to the socio-cognitive model of Eccles and Wigfield (Wigfield and Eccles
1992; Eccles and Wigfield 1995), an individual’s expectations and values are
cognitive beliefs which are linked to personal decisions and choices. In order to
achieve the skills and strategies mentioned above, curricula have become child-
centred including topic work based on the ‘real world’. Within the context of

*Corresponding author. Email: kaldi@uth.gr

ISSN 0300-4279 print/ISSN 1475-7575 online

Ó 2011 ASPE
DOI: 10.1080/03004270903179538
http://www.informaworld.com
36 S. Kaldi et al.

child-centred learning, project-based teaching methods have become increasingly

prominent as a response of schooling to the challenges of the 21st century. Project-
based learning (P-BL) involves the study/research of a topic in depth where students’
interests, ideas, questions and predictions form the experiences lived and the works/
activities undertaken; it is a collaborative activity between the teacher and pupils, the
latter being often in groups. This study draws its theoretical background from the
sociocultural perspective of education and the ‘learning by doing’ approach of
teaching.

Project-based learning and previous research

The main characteristics of P-BL are described in the literature as follows (Frey
1994; Harris 2002; McGrath 2002; Solomon 2003): students can become commu-
nicative, creative and develop practical thinking as they are engaged in active
inquiry/discovery, exploration and decision making; knowledge is based on
experience and experimentation in real/authentic life; P-BL links manual and
intellectual work. In addition, Westwood (2006) points out that projects promote
meaningful learning, connecting new learning to students’ past experience and prior
knowledge, they increase self-direction and motivation, since students are
responsible for their own learning, and they utilise various modes of communication
and presentation (e.g. multi-sensory approach). P-BL practitioners have also stated
that ‘P-BL, because of its various features, is a more effective means of adapting to
students’ various learning styles or ‘multiple intelligences’ than is the traditional
instructional model’ (in Thomas 2000, 20). Therefore, P-BL is an inclusive approach,
in that all learners can participate to the best of their ability.
Published research on the effects of P-BL on pupils’ learning has been reported in
the international context (i.e. Tretten and Zachariou 1997; Boaler 1998; Barron et al.
1998; Katz and Chard 1999; Curtis 2002; Davies 1993; Wurdinger et al. 2007). More
specifically, Tretten and Zachariou (1997) claimed that pupils learned and
strengthened their work habits, their critical thinking skills and their productivity.
Rosenfeld and Rosenfeld (1999) suggested that pupils who do poorly in traditional
classrooms should be exposed to P-BL contexts where their learning styles constitute
a better match. Similarly, Curtis (2002) found that pupils’ motivation and active
engagement in learning is enhanced when the assignments are linked to real-world
issues and comparable to projects carried out in the business world. Horan,
Lavaroni, and Beldon (1996) observed that the lower-ability pupils demonstrated the
greatest gain in critical thinking and social participation behaviours compared to the
high-ability pupils. Boaler (1998), who carried out a longitudinal study of
mathematics instruction in secondary education and compared the effectiveness of
P-BL versus traditional teaching, found that more pupils at the project-based school
passed the national examination than traditional school pupils. Barron et al. (1998)
and Liu and Hsiao (2002) discovered that academic performance, cognitive strategy
use and motivation towards learning are improved when using P-BL with low-,
average- and high-ability middle school pupils. Cornell and Clarke (1999) reported
that P-BL not only provided secondary school pupils with the opportunity to work
with each other while doing hands-on activities and discover unique skills necessary
to complete projects, but also allowed the lower performing pupils to progress at
their own pace. Davies (1993) reported that P-BL gave teachers the opportunity to
take into account that individual pupils learn, think and process information in
 Education 3–13 37

different ways. Wurdinger et al. (2007) found that P-BL increased higher and lower
performing middle school pupils’ engagement in learning activities. From the
research mentioned above it seems to be evident that P-BL has been studied
thoroughly with either older pupils towards the secondary level of education or
younger pupils in pre-school education.
A significant part of P-BL is the collaborative activity amongst pupils in order to
carry out the task assigned. Co-operative learning is based on constructivism,
including talking and listening, questions, argument and sharing (Jarvis, Holford,
and Griffin 1998). Cross (1998) views group work as the core of constructivism where
knowledge is co-constructed by people working interdependently and not passed
from an authority to a novice as it is in the traditional view of learning. In research
conducted in Dutch primary schools by Veenman, Kenter, and Post (2000) about
teachers’ use and evaluation of co-operative learning along with pupils’ reactions to
co-operative learning, it was claimed that pupils reported a positive attitude towards
co-operative learning and rated their work in groups as effective.
P-BL has also received criticism for being demanding of staff time and teaching
materials. The demand on teaching staff is largely determined by class size
(Finucane, Johnson, and Prideaux 1998). Another disadvantage often voiced is that
less time is used for taught knowledge, especially in basic sciences (Finucane,
Johnson, and Prideaux 1998) and that pupils tend to take more time compared with
more traditional teaching methods and they should be able to work together in order
to successfully complete the task assigned. Nevertheless, P-BL is not a panacea for
ills in education and is an alternative – and often complementary – teaching
approach to the so-called traditional teaching methods.
P-BL is not often implemented in Greek school classes and depends on teachers’
enthusiasm and personal interest to work to try innovative and new ways in their
teaching. The formal system of Greek school education during the 20th century
applied the traditional paradigms of teaching and learning, i.e. teacher-centred
teaching, prescribed syllabus for everyday lessons, national curriculum with subjects
not interlinked (Greek language, maths, history, etc). A few exceptions of proposals
for child-centred and integrated school education never became implemented by the
state. However, in the previous decade there were extended discussions about
shifting from the traditional to more progressive paradigms of curriculum and
teaching approaches. These resulted in changing the national curriculum and
legalising the new Cross-Curricular Integrated Frame of Programmes of Study
(CCIFPS) for all compulsory education in 2001 (between Year 1 and Year 9,
including kindergartens) (Pedagogical Institute 2001). Compulsory education
includes the six classes of primary school (Demotiko) and the three classes of the
lower (junior) secondary school (Gymnasium). The new CCIFPS connects concepts
across the national curriculum subjects and provides a syllabus which is based on
child-centred learning and links across the different subjects. Therefore, pupils can
understand concepts and acquire skills holistically and not compartmentalised, as
they were in the previous national curriculum. Part of the CCIFPS is the Flexible
Zone of Innovative Actions (FZIA), during which teachers are expected to use
project work (project-based learning) for one to two teaching hours per week
minimum. Projects could be cross-curricular or interdisciplinary and the central
concept of project work was child-centred, open-ended and explorative learning.
Nevertheless, since 2003 FZIA has been changing between being compulsory and
optional for teachers to apply, based on teachers’ reactions, resulting in its official
38 S. Kaldi et al.

compulsory character by the Ministry of Education but in a non-official optional

character by class teachers, many of whom prefer to work on core subjects during
the time allocated for FZIA. Therefore, P-BL in Greek primary education has not
been evaluated thoroughly.
Research on P-BL regarding primary school pupils can be investigated further.
Within the framework mentioned above, the present study contributes to a fuller
understanding of the advantages and weaknesses of project-based learning for a
cognitively and culturally diverse primary school pupil population. More
specifically, the aim of the present study is to investigate the effectiveness of P-BL
on primary school pupils regarding enrichment of content knowledge and attitudes
towards self-efficacy and task value in terms of environmental studies, group work
skills (pupils’ engagement and collaboration in the learning process during group
work), teaching methods (traditional teaching versus experiential learning) and
attitudes towards peers from other ethnic backgrounds. Thus this study can enhance
effective long-term planning of a child-centred curriculum in primary education, for
which the scientific discourse on educational policy for improving and assuring
quality in education is at the front line internationally.

Methodology
The present study is qualitative and part of a larger one that included six Year 4
primary school mainstream classrooms with 94 pupils of mixed learning abilities and
multi-ethnic origin. The methodology applied in this study was that of a quasi-
experimental design (pre-test-post-test design) (Cohen and Manion 1991). The aim
was twofold: (a) to account for differences between pre-test and post-test scores of
pupils on academic performance, self-efficacy, task value, group work skills (e.g.
pupils’ engagement in the learning process), teaching methods (traditional teaching
versus experiential learning) and attitudes towards peers from a diverse ethnic
background by reference to the effects of the P-BL applied for almost a school term;
and (b) to study both the process and the products of learning during the
implementation of the project regarding pupils.

Participants
Seventy Year 4 pupils (29 boys and 41 girls) from six mainstream mixed ability and
multi-ethnic classes from the towns of Volos and Lamia and the capital city Athens
(Greece) participated in the study. Twenty one pupils (12 boys and 9 girls) came from
a different ethnic or cultural background. The ethnic origin of these pupils was mainly
Albanian (12), one was from Romania and eight were Roma children. Ages ranged
from 9 years and 2 months to 10 years and 1 month (M ¼ 9.6 mths, SD ¼ 0.7 mths).
Pupils of this study did not have previous experience of a similar P-BL educational
programme. The selection of the classes was based on two criteria: (a) class teachers
who volunteered to implement a P-BL educational programme; (b) teachers with a
similar amount of experience on P-BL implementation in the classroom.

Research methods
A variety of data collection methods was used to inform the results of this study. The
use of multiple methods helped to triangulate the data and to confirm the findings
 Education 3–13 39

and interpretations. The methods chosen for the research included knowledge test,
attitude scale and interviews (from pupils and teachers) and classroom observations
(field notes and observation scales).

Knowledge test
We assessed pupils’ content knowledge about the topic of the P-BL educational
programme (sea animals) with 15 open-ended and multiple choice questions,
which were developed based on the eight thematic units of the project, including
information presented in whole class and small group activities. This test was
administered to pupils in each class prior to and at the conclusion of the project.
It was read to the whole class to compensate for any reading problems. The
evaluation of the answers was done using a 3-point scale: 0 indicated either no
answer or a wrong answer, 1 indicated either a limited number of correct answers
and/or 1–2 wrong answers, and 2 indicated correct and adequate number of
answers. A total score on knowledge test was given for each pupil. All pupils’
protocols were scored initially by one researcher. A random sample of 30% of
the protocols was independently scored by a second researcher. Inter-rater
reliability for the total score was 0.95 (Pearson r), meaning that there is not any
statistically significant difference between the scores of the first and the second
researcher.

Attitude scale
Students’ attitudes were examined with an instrument including 43 statements which
consisted of six factors. The first factor assessed pupils’ attitudes towards task value
concerning environmental studies (r ¼ .83, a ¼ .80), the second factor assessed
pupils’ academic self-efficacy in learning environmental studies (r ¼ .85, a ¼ .88).
The statements regarding the above two factors were part of the relevant statements
included in Pintrich and DeGroot’s (1990) ‘Motivated Strategies for Learning
Questionnaire (MSLQ)’ adapted for the present study. The third factor assessed
pupils’ attitudes towards group work and collaborating with peers (r ¼ .91, a ¼ .89).
The statements used to assess this factor were part of the Collaborative Inquiry-
based Project Questionnaire (CIPQ) (Chow and Law 2005) and the Pupils’
Perceptions of Cooperative Learning (PPCL) (Veenman, Kenter, and Post 2000)
adapted for the present study. The fourth factor assessed pupils’ attitudes towards
traditional teaching (r ¼ .87, a ¼ .85), and the fifth factor assessed pupils’ attitudes
towards experiential learning (r ¼ .89, a ¼ .84). The sixth factor assessed pupils’
attitudes towards their peers from different ethnic background (r ¼ .47, a ¼ .65).
The statements for the evaluation of the last three factors were constructed by the
authors. The statements were evaluated using a 4-point scale (from 1 ¼ not true to
4 ¼ always true).

Individual interviews
A semi-structured interview protocol for pupils was designed with 13 open-ended
questions. The interview was conducted with a sample of 21 pupils within two weeks
of the end of the project. The questions referred to issues regarding group work,
engagement in the learning process, evaluation of the project procedure, the activities
40 S. Kaldi et al.

and the experiential learning. Each of the interviews lasted for approximately 30
minutes. Content analysis was carried out for all pupils’ interviews.
A similar interview protocol was designed for the teachers in the six participant
classes concerning their views about: (a) the specific P-BL educational programme;
(b) pupils’ levels of engagement in the learning process compared to the traditional
teaching applied daily; (c) pupils’ cognitive and social learning skills; and (d) their
suggestion for future implementation. Content analysis was also followed for all
teachers’ interviews.

Description of the topic chosen

The topic lasted for 8 to 12 weeks and planned activities were implemented for 2–4
teaching hours a week in each class case study. The fundamental axis of the
educational programme lies on the pedagogical concept of project-based learning as
developed earlier.
The topic studied during P-BL was ‘sea animals’ which arose from discussions in
the class about pupils’ interests. Pupils expressed a personal interest in studying the
sea animals further. This was also linked to the nature of the topic, which could
provide pupils with opportunities for experiential and field-based learning. Children
who live in towns and cities near the sea have cognitive stimuli and experiences about
the sea animals from their daily life, therefore they bring valuable experiences which
can be reinforced and expanded. Moreover, Greece’s sea parks with animals
threatened by extinction (i.e. the seal ‘monachus-monachus’ and sea turtle ‘caretta-
caretta’) can offer rich material to be studied and develop pupils’ environmental
sensitivity.
The main thematic units of the topic ‘sea animals’ were the following:

(1) Classifying the sea animals.

(2) Anatomy of sea animals.
(3) Sea animals’ reproduction.
(4) Sea animals’ food.
(5) Sea animals and human nutrition.
(6) Sea animals of the local area.
(7) Sea animals threatened by extinction in the country.
(8) Constructing an aquarium (simulation).

For each thematic unit 1–3 teaching hours were spent on average. Activities
included studying and searching for information in primary sources (i.e. field-based
visits, hands-on experiences, experts’ visits to the class) and in secondary sources
(i.e. books, leaflets, pictures, DVDs) as well as learning based on games. The topic
involved cross-curricular linking of concepts and principles from different subjects
of the national curriculum such as environmental studies, language, local and
national geography. In Table 1 we present the thematic units of the topic, the type
of activity and the class organisation for each unit. Teachers were finally handed a
draft of the thematic units with information on the type of activities and the class
organisation. They needed to adapt this draft to their pupils’ needs, ideas and
questions of the works to be undertaken, therefore the topic lasted for different
lengths of time and was implemented differently in each class case study. They also
had not worked before with P-BL, except in one case, and pupils were not used to
 Education 3–13 41

Table 1. A summary of the topic about ‘sea animals’.

Thematic units Types of activities Class organisation

1. Classifying sea
animals
2. Anatomy of sea animals
3. Sea animals’ reproduction
4. Sea animals’ food
5. Sea animals and human
nutrition
6. Sea animals of the local area
7. Sea animals threatened by
extinction in the country
8. Making a dummy aquarium
From secondary sources
(pictures & texts)
Hands-on (real sea animals
in the class)
DVD
From secondary sources
and a game on food chain
An expert’s visit
(nutritionist)
Visit to a local fish market
Books, leaflets, pictures,
information from an
environmental society
Crafty
Whole class teaching and
group work
Whole class teaching and
group work
Whole class teaching and
individual work
Whole class teaching
Whole class teaching
Whole class teaching and
pair and individual work
Whole class teaching and
group work
Whole class teaching and
group work

working with projects and/or in group work activities, so the authors carried out a
short seminar on P-BL, group work guidelines and techniques for active
engagement of pupils with learning difficulties to almost all teachers participating
in the study.

Results
Quantitative outcomes on knowledge test and attitude scale
Prior to statistical analysis, total knowledge score and attitudes towards academic
self-efficacy, task value, group work, traditional teaching, experiential learning and
peers with learning difficulties and/from different ethnic background were examined
for missing values and fit assumptions of multivariate analysis. Any missing values
on total scores were deleted.
In order to account for differences between pupils’ achievement and attitudes, the
pre- and post-test rating scores regarding knowledge of the topic, academic self-
efficacy on environmental studies, task value on environmental studies, group work
skills, traditional teaching, experiential learning and attitudes towards peers with
learning difficulties and/or from different ethnic backgrounds were analysed using
paired t-tests. Mean scores and standard deviations of pre- and post-testing
conditions are presented in Table 2. Statistically significant differences before and
after the implementation of the project were found for all the dependent variables,
that is total knowledge score, academic self-efficacy on environmental studies, task
value concerning learning environmental studies, group work, traditional teaching,
experiential learning and attitudes towards peers from different ethnic backgrounds
(see Table 2). It is also evident that pupils scored significantly higher on the
knowledge test administered after the completion of the project, indicating that they
enriched their knowledge on all seven thematic units (classification of sea animals,
anatomy of sea animals, reproduction, sea animals’ food, sea animals and human
42 S. Kaldi et al.

Table 2. Means, standard deviations and significance of six dependent variables before and
after the implementation of the P-BL about ‘sea animals’.

Std.
Dependent variables Mean N deviation t values & sig. d
Pair 1 Total Knowledge Score 1 8,2 70 4,09 t(69) ¼ 718.83 2.25
Total Knowledge Score 2 19,6 70 5,99 p ¼ .000
Pair 2 Task value 1 3,56 70 0,39 t(69) ¼ .24 0.24
Task value 2 3,55 70 0,50 p ¼ .08
Pair 3 Self-efficacy 1 2,94 70 0,56 t(69) ¼ 73.48 0.11
Self-efficacy 2 3,21 70 0,42 p ¼ .001
Pair 4 Group Work 1 3,02 70 0,44 t(69) ¼ 72.26 0.36
Group Work 2 3,21 70 0,41 p ¼ .026 0.54
Pair 5 Traditional Teaching 1 3,21 70 0,63 t(69) ¼ 4.57
Traditional Teaching 2 2,71 70 0,77 p ¼ .000
Pair 6 Experiential Learning 1 2,91 70 0,84 t(69) ¼ 73.46 0.42
Experiential Learning 2 3,31 70 0,66 p ¼ .001
Pair 7 Peers from other ethnic 2,47 70 1,05 t(69) ¼ 72.47 0.29
background 1
Peers from other ethnic 2,75 70 0,08 p ¼ .01
background 2

Notes: 1 ¼ Before the implementation of the P-BL; 2 ¼ After the implementation of the P-BL.

nutrition, sea animals of the local area, sea animals threatened by extinction) after
the implementation of the project.
A qualitative analysis of the data from the knowledge tests revealed that there
were prominent differences regarding broad classification categories of sea animals
not known to pupils (e.g. arthropods, echinoids (i.e. sea urchin), cnidarians (i.e.
jellyfish), sea anemones, corals). Well-established knowledge before the project was
not changed, especially for terms and concepts which were widely and correctly
known (i.e. fish, mammals, mallusca, reptiles, vertebrates and invertebrates). Pupils
acquired new knowledge regarding both the terminology and the correct
classification of sea animals into these categories. Important knowledge differences
after the project were also found in terms of sea animals’ reproduction, sea animals
and human nutrition, sea animals’ food chain, sea animals of the local area and sea
animals threatened by extinction. All these topics were explored through hands-on
activities and experiential learning.
Significant changes also appeared after the project regarding attitudes towards
traditional teaching, experiential learning, peers from different ethnic backgrounds
and group work, whereas self-efficacy and task value concerning environmental
studies could not be claimed to show a significant change after the project (see
Table 2) according to the low effect size they have in the statistical analysis. On
average, after the implementation of the project on environmental studies, pupils
believed they could perform better in environmental studies than they did before,
they preferred working in teams rather than doing individual work and they also
found group work more effective in terms of their engagement in the learning
process. Furthermore, they stated that they found experiential learning more
beneficial than traditional teaching and they had developed positive attitudes
towards peers with learning difficulties and peers from different ethnic
backgrounds.
 Education 3–13 43

Qualitative outcomes from the interviews and the observations

In the present study, results from the interviews carried out with the pupils and the
class teachers are presented. The interviews provided complementary information on
pupils’ views about evaluation of the project procedure, the activities and the
experiential learning, group work, engagement in the learning process and teachers’
views about the advantages of and difficulties faced during the project. The
qualitative analysis of the data showed the following.
All pupils evaluated positively the learning procedure and the activities during
the P-BL and felt that they were able to understand better compared to learning only
from their textbooks. They found this procedure amusing and more motivational in
comparison to traditional teaching methods (direct instruction, teacher talk,
studying from their own textbooks). The majority of the pupils interviewed (18
out of 21) explained that experiential learning was very effective and pleasant during
P-BL:

I believe that I have learned better and more things, ’cause when I can see real things
closely, like real fish or other sea animals in the class, touch them and see how they are
inside I learn better than being taught and shown pictures in the book. (Themis)

Concerning peer and group work during P-BL pupils replied positively and
justified their answers by recalling incidents of co-operation and communicative
interactions when the activity or the work undertaken was assigned by the teacher to
be carried out in groups. From the implementation of the project in all classes, when
pupils had to work in groups the assignment or the activity was conducted in co-
operation, therefore the group work was not only a sitting arrangement but also a
collaborative action undertaken by the pupils:

I liked group work ’cause when I did not understand, my class peers helped me or when
they did not understand and I could, I helped them. (Marios)

Pupils stated that group work had further enhanced their engagement during the
activity due to the mutual help and assistance offered amongst the peers. Moreover,
they said that group work had increased the quality of their learning due to the
exchange of ideas and knowledge:

I also learned from my peers things I could not recall, things I could not understand and
my peers explained to me, so I managed to remember afterwards. (Elena)

Pupils stated that they worked well with peers from Albania but found it difficult to
work with some peers who belonged to the Roma population, because they could not
do the task assigned. Structural procedures during group work were recognised in
three parts according to the interview data: (a) peer or teacher support when further
explanations or difficult issues had to be elaborated; (b) individual role during group
work; and (c) teacher role in group work. Concerning the first issue, pupils in most
cases reported that they were first asking peers for further explanations and issues to
be elaborated and when none could help them they then turned to asking their
teacher. It is important to note that many pupils used the term ‘friends’ rather than
‘peers’ when they referred to whom they turned for help and explanations. In the
44 S. Kaldi et al.

second issue, pupils stated that they all worked on the same assignment
collaboratively, discussed the parts of the activity or the assignment and did not
point a group leader:

We all discussed, expressed our views and then decided what to write or do. (Marios)

In the third issue, pupils said that their teacher assessed each learning situation and
provided support in difficult parts of pupils’ assignments whereas in easy parts they
were allowed to use their own initiatives to get to the end:

When it was easy she (the class teacher) allowed us to find an answer or end the work,
when it was difficult she helped us a bit. (Maria)

The data from the teachers’ interviews revealed that P-BL was a valuable
learning experience for primary school pupils in terms of obtaining academic
knowledge and positive attitudes towards learning:

Children acquired academic knowledge which was not drawn together in the pupils’
textbook, became sensitive about sea life threatened by extinction and learnt all this
under a new teaching methodology, i.e. experiential learning, field-based research and
peer or group work investigation. (Litsa, class teacher)

Nevertheless, the project stretched teachers regarding planning and class

organisation and they viewed this learning experience for pupils as important as
long as sources of information are provided in the school.

Discussion and conclusions

The present study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of P-BL on primary school
pupils after the implementation of a project on environmental studies about ‘sea
animals’, in terms of content knowledge and attitudes towards academic self-efficacy
in learning environmental studies, task value for environmental studies, group work,
traditional teaching, experiential learning and peers from different ethnic back-
grounds. Quantitative and qualitative data demonstrated learning benefits concern-
ing the topic studied for primary school pupils. Pupils enriched their knowledge
about sea animals and they valued group work and experiential learning on
environmental studies. They also appeared to have developed positive attitudes
towards self-efficacy, task value concerning environmental studies and attitudes
towards peers from different ethnic backgrounds, but in a moderate degree
according to the effect size.
A closer examination of the findings showed that pupils enriched and expanded
their knowledge on units studied mainly through hands-on, field-based activities and
experiential learning. The above findings agree with those in previous research on
P-BL (Boaler 1998; Barron et al. 1998; Liu and Hsiao 2002).
From the present study it is also evident that pupils after the implementation of
the project on environmental studies valued group work and experiential learning
compared to traditional teaching. They developed positive attitudes towards
experiential and co-operative work and initiated interactions that often led to
clarifications and exchange of ideas with other group members, some of whom came
from a different ethnic background. Pupils in the present study after their
 Education 3–13 45

experiences during P-BL noted the importance of group work in their learning and
we can claim that co-operative learning (a) provided them with a comfortable and
supportive learning environment, and (b) helped them develop positive interdepen-
dence and internalise content knowledge, which is similar to what Cross (1998) has
stated. This finding also concurs with research outcomes reported in the past
(Johnson, Johnson, and Holubec 1992). Linking this finding to Veenman, Kenter,
and Post’s (2000) research outcomes that pupils reported a positive attitude towards
co-operative learning and rated their work in groups effective, we can conclude that
co-operative learning can also be successful in P-BL.
P-BL also changed pupils’ attitudes towards self-efficacy, task value concerning
environmental studies and attitudes towards peers from different ethnic backgrounds
but in a moderate degree according to the effect size. As was presented in the results
section, the majority of pupils interviewed stated that P-BL enhanced their
engagement in the learning process. Nevertheless, we could claim that P-BL partially
enhanced pupils’ positive attitudes towards self-efficacy, task value concerning
environmental studies and peers from a diverse ethnic background. Taking into
consideration that the specific project was implemented for between 8 and 12 weeks
in the classes mentioned above, and that pupils did not have similar learning
experiences (i.e. experiential learning, field-based learning and co-operative work),
we would not expect that the outcomes could be outstanding for the pupils.
However, the fact that pupils welcomed the new (for them) child-centred teaching
approach of P-BL and acquired academic knowledge via experiential, field-based
and investigative learning indicates the importance of including these methods in
daily primary school teaching. Working together with peers from a diverse ethnic
and/or racial background appears to be rather problematic. Even though Greek
primary school classes have been multi-ethnic since the mid-1990s, pupils only
partially accept working together with peers from a different ethnic and/or racial
background. We should note here that the pupils from a different ethnic background
present in the classes of the study were mainly from Albania, one from Romania and
some pupils belonged to the Roma population. Pupils appeared to have accepted
working with peers from a different ethnic background compared to pupils from a
different racial background (in this case it is the Roma children). Roma pupils are
not yet accepted in the class environment by peers and in some cases by the parents’
committee, as is also reported elsewhere in the European context (see Cozma, Cucos,
and Momanu 2000; Posavec and Hrvatic 2000; Exteberria 2002). Roma pupils may
not be cognitively engaged during the project and peers reacted in refusing to help or
work with them. As Linnenbrink and Pintrich (2003) support, pupils should not only
be behaviourally engaged (show effort, persistence and seek help) and motivationally
engaged (show interest, give value and positive affect) in a learning activity but also
be cognitively engaged (use cognitive and metacognitive strategies) in order to
actually learn and highly improve their self-efficacy. Therefore, the present P-BL
educational programme does not appear to have covered co-operative work amongst
all groups of pupils in the class and they need further instruction on how to work and
collaborate together.
Another interesting finding is teachers’ views about P-BL as a new child-centred
teaching approach. They viewed it as positive and they valued its importance to
pupils’ active engagement in learning. Nevertheless, they expressed their concern
about planning and class organisation in a new (for them) child-centred teaching
approach, indicating the need for an in-depth in-set training on these issues
46 S. Kaldi et al.

and support in providing pupils with secondary and first-hand resources of

information.
In conclusion, the findings of the present study support that pupils can gain
benefits through P-BL in academic performance, motivation, co-operative learning
and engagement in the learning process. Moreover, pupils engaged in P-BL need to
have been instructed to work co-operatively because they can then develop an
understanding of the purpose of the group and of the need to help and support each
other’s learning (Sharan and Shaulov 1990), regardless of ethnic or racial origin.

References
Bandura, A. 1986. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Barron, B., D. Schwartz, N. Vye, A. Moore, L. Petrosino, and J. Bransford. 1998. Doing with
understanding: Lessons from research on problem and project-based learning. The Journal
of the Learning Sciences 7, no. 3: 271–311.
Boaler, J. 1998. Open and closed mathematics: Student experiences and understandings.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 29: 41–62.
Chow, A., and N. Law. 2005. Measuring motivation in collaborative inquiry-based learning
contexts. In Proceedings of the 2005 Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative
Learning: Learning 2005. The Next 10 Years, ed. T. Koschmann, D.D. Suthers, and T.-W.
Chan, 68–75. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cohen, L., and L. Manion. 1991. Research methods in education. 3rd ed. London: Routledge.
Cornell, N., and J. Clarke. 1999. The cost of quality: Evaluating a standards-based design
project. National Association for Secondary School Principals Bulletin. http://www.
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3696/is_199901/ai_n8835892.
Cozma, T., C. Cucos, and M. Momanu. 2000. The education of Roma children in Romania:
Descriptions, difficulties, solutions. Intercultural Education 11, no. 3: 281–8.
Cross, P. 1998. Why learning communities? Why now? About Campus 3, no. 3: 4–11.
Curtis, D. 2002. The power of projects. Educational Leadership 60, no. 1: 50–3.
Davies, B. 1993. Tools for teaching. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Eccles, J.S., and A. Wigfield. 1995. In the mind of the actor: The structure of adolescents’
achievement task values and expectancy-related beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin 21: 215–25.
Exteberria, F. 2002. Education and Roma children in the Basque region of Spain. Intercultural
Education 13, no. 3: 291–304.
Finucane, P.M., S.M. Johnson, and D.J. Prideaux. 1998. Problem-based learning: Its rationale
and efficacy. The Medical Journal of Australia 68: 445–8.
Frey, K. 1994. Die Projektmethode. 5th ed. Weinheim: Beltz.
Harris, J. 2002. Activity design assessments: An uncharacteristic consensus. Learning and
Leading with Technology 27, no. 7: 42–50.
Horan, C., C. Lavaroni, and P. Beldon. 1996. Observation of the Tinker Tech Program students
for critical thinking and social participation behaviors. Novato, CA: Buck Institute for
Education.
Jarvis, P., J. Holford, and C. Griffin. 1998. The theory and practice of learning. London: Kogan
Page.
Johnson, D., R. Johnson, and E. Holubec. 1992. Advanced cooperative learning. Edina, MN:
Interaction Book Company.
Katz, L.G., and S.C. Chard. 1999. Engaging children’s minds: The project approach. 2nd ed.
Stamford, CT: Ablex Publishing.
Linnenbrink, E.A., and P.R. Pintrich. 2003. The role of self-efficacy beliefs in student
engagement and learning in the classroom. Reading and Writing Quarterly 19: 119–37.
Liu, M., and Y. Hsiao. 2002. Middle school students as multimedia designers: A project-based
learning approach. Journal of Interactive Learning Research 13, no. 4: 311–37.
McGrath, D. 2002. Getting started with project-based learning. Learning and Leading with
Technology 30, no. 3: 42–50.
 Education 3–13 47

Pedagogical Institute. 2001. Cross-curricular integrated frame of programmes of study. Athens:

Ministry of Education Affairs.
Pintrich, P.R., and E.V. DeGroot. 1990. Motivational and self-regulated learning components
of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology 82: 33–40.
Posavec, K., and N. Hrvatic. 2000. Intercultural education and Roma in Croatia. Intercultural
Education 11, no. 1: 93–105.
Rosenfeld, M., and S. Rosenfeld. 1999. Understanding the ‘surprises’ in PBL: An exploration
into the learning styles of teachers and their students. Paper presented at the European
Association for Research in Learning and Instruction (EARLI), August 24–28, in
Gothenburg, Sweden.
Sharan, S., and A. Shaulov. 1990. Cooperative learning, motivation to learn and academic
achievement. In Cooperative learning theory and research, ed. S. Sharan, 173–202.
New York: Praeger.
Solomon, G. 2003. Project-based learning: A primer. Technology and Learning 23, no. 6:
20–30.
Thomas, J.W. 2000. A review of research on project-based learning. PhD diss., San Rafael
University, California.
Tretten, R., and P. Zachariou. 1997. Learning about project-based learning: Assessment of
project-based learning in Tinkertech schools. San Rafael, CA: The Autodesk Foundation.
Veenman, S., B. Kenter, and K. Post. 2000. Cooperative learning in Dutch primary
classrooms. Educational Studies 26, no. 3: 281–302.
Westwood, P. 2006. Teaching and learning difficulties: Cross-curricular perspectives. Victoria,
Australia: ACER.
Wigfield, A., and J. Eccles. 1992. The development of achievement task values: A theoretical
analysis. Development Review 12: 265–310.
Wurdinger, S., J. Haar, R. Hugg, and J. Bezon. 2007. A qualitative study using project-based
learning in a mainstream middle school. Improving Schools 10, no. 2: 150–61.
Zimmerman, B.J. 2000. Self-efficacy and educational development. In Self-efficacy of youth in
changing societies, ed. A. Bandura, 202–31. New York: Cambridge University Press.