Is Project-Based Learning Overrated?

Project-based learning grew out of the architectural and engineering education movement that began in Italy during the late 16th century (Knoll, 1997). However, in America, William Heard Kilpatrick is credited with pioneering project-based learning. A protégé of educational theorist John Dewey and a leader in the progressive education movement, he is also credited with popularizing Dewey’s theory.

However, Kilpatrick is best known for popularizing “The Project Method” in a 1918 essay.

Dewey’s theory of experience was the springboard for the theory of “The Project Method”. In “The Project Method”, Kilpatrick explained that the interest of children should be at the center of the project approach. This interest serves as the “unit of study.” By utilizing topics of interest, learning becomes more relevant and meaningful. Solving problems within a meaningful social context is how knowledge is best constructed. “Purposeful” learning, therefore, becomes the motivational factor for children to engage in the project. According to Kilpatrick, there are four phases to a project: “purposing, planning, executing and judging. The student ideally, should initiate all phases, not the teacher (Provenzo).

Knoll (1997) notes that Kilpatrick was actually more influenced by Edward L. Thorndike’s psychology of learning than Dewey’s theory of experience.

According to Thorndike's "laws of learning," an action for which there existed an "inclination" procured "satisfaction" and was more likely to be repeated than an action that "annoyed" and took place under "compulsion." From this, Kilpatrick concluded that the "psychology of the child" was the crucial element in the learning process. Children had to be able to decide freely what they wanted to do; the belief was that their motivation and learning success would increase to the extent to which they pursued their own "purposes" (Knoll, 1997).

Would Kilpatrick be pleased with how project-based learning (PBL) has evolved? He probably would be delighted to see the popularity of PBL. Today PBL is ubiquitous. It is a model for classroom activity that emphasizes student-based education, longer thematic units, interdisciplinary instruction, collaboration, feedback, and is “integrated with real world issues and practices” (San Mateo County Office of Education, 1997). Students are also more engaged and focused when engaged in PBL, because they are provided more choice over what topics to pursue and how to find answers to problems. Since students are allowed to choose their topics, they become more motivated to work hard and strive for the highest quality (Wolk, 1994). PBL users typically use technology to communicate with professionals and experts outside of school and use multimedia for presentations, which, in itself, is an attraction for students. Instead of pouring knowledge into the student, teachers of PBL act as coach, facilitator and co-learner, a collaborator (San Mateo County Office of Education). PBL promotes many types of collaboration.

PBL accommodates and promotes collaboration among students, between students and teacher, and ideally between students and other community members as well. This component is intended to give students opportunities to learn collaborative skills, such as group decision-making, relying on the work of peers, integrating peer and mentor feedback, providing thoughtful feedback to peers, and working with others as student researchers (ibid.).

PBL may connect to real world issues through topics that “are relevant to students’ lives or communities” (ibid.) or connected to actual professions. Other researchers (Ayas and Zeniuk, 2001) propose PBL to enable long-term reasoning, knowledge creation, and sharing beyond the individual. So how might an instructor use PBL?

Basic level projects include a social studies project focusing on a particular state; a science project involving building a bird feeder; and a language arts project in which students interview senior citizens to write a biography. Intermediate level projects are a health/language arts project regarding human anatomy; a science project in which teams design an irrigation device; and a visual/language arts project in which students create a field guide for manufactured objects (Berman, 1997).

A video of young students exploring the world of insects is an example of PBL. After choosing their insect and researching its characteristics, students interacted with professional researchers using an electron microscope. Students showed high interest and worked hard on the project. The amount and level of learning appeared to be high. PBL has been used successfully in many different settings. Outside the mainstream classroom, an instructor can use PBL with adult English language learners of varying levels of English proficiency (Moss and Van Duzer, 1998).

However, not all researchers believe that PBL should be used in education. Many experts criticize PBL and Kilpatrick’s methods and practices. Most notably, E. D. Hirsch in The Schools We Need and Why We Don’t Have Them is highly critical of the progressive approach and Kilpatrick in particular (Provenzo). Hirsch’s criticism of Kilpatrick and his methods can be summarized in the following statements:

There is no substitute for the acquisition of commonly held knowledge, skills, and dispositions. "Natural" child-centered methodologies are patently false and harmful…. Educationally progressive methods actually create, not solve learning problems. Educationally conservative methods offer the best means and widest opportunities for learning for all children and research from fields other than education proves it” (Saxe, 1997).

PBL is a time consuming method of teaching and an inefficient method for teaching large amounts of knowledge in a short time. Simply reading text or listening to lecture is a more efficient use of scarce class time, and that is why teachers still assign so much reading and give lectures. Secondly, if PBL and other progressive methods worked as well as their proponents claimed, the educated of 150 years ago would compare unfavorably with today’s children. The opposite is true. The American high school entrance exams of 1850 would stump a college freshman today. Have PBL and other progressive methods been responsible for this change? The controversy over the efficacy of PBL is far from over.

References

Ayas, K. and Zeniuk, N. (2001). Project-based Learning: Building Communities of Reflective Practitioners. Management Learning, 32 n1, 61-76.

Berman, S. (1997). Project Learning for the Multiple Intelligences Classroom. K-College, SkyLight Training and Publishing, Inc., Arlington Heights, IL.

Knoll, M. (1997). The project method: Its vocational education origin and international development. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 34(3), 59-80.

Moss, D. and Van Duzer, C. (1998).Project-Based Learning for Adult English Language Learners. ERIC Digests (073).

Provenzo, Jr., E. F., Contemporary Educational Thought. Retrieved October 12, 2002 from http://www.education.miami.edu/ep/html/william_heard_kilpatrick.html.

San Mateo County Office of Education, 1997-2001, Why do project-based learning. Retrieved October 11, 2002 from http:pblmm.k12.ca.us/PBLGuide/WhyPBL.html.

Saxe, D W. (1996). The Books We Need. Network News & Views, Retrieved October 13, 2002 from http://www.edexcellence.net/library/saxe.html.

Wolk, Steven (1994). Project-Based Learning; Pursuits with a Purpose. Educational Leadership, v52 n3, 42-445.

The Classicists Versus The Relativists

The Classicists Versus The Relativists: Robert M. Hutchins Versus Antonio Darder

John Dewey

Since the ancient Greeks, men and women of the West have looked at the world through critical eyes. No longer content to rely on Aristotle and the Church for knowledge, since the Renaissance empiricism has held sway. For example, American scientists of the 21st century are not satisfied with a Newtonian view of the physical world. Instead, science has evolved and theories have changed over time. According to Kuhn (1973), science progresses because scientists scrutinize and change their belief systems. A new paradigm replaces an existing paradigm. Einstein has replaced Newton’s paradigm in physics. Likewise, those involved in Western social sciences, working in disciplines such as philosophy, psychology, history, economics, literature, political science, and art, demand fearless scrutiny of reality, both inner and outer. It has been so for thousands of years in the West. To illustrate, let us pick a few great thinkers from the Western tradition. The historian Plutarch, the Stoic philosopher Epictetus, and religious philosopher Maimonides dispassionately investigated their personal feelings, their culture, other cultures, and the concept of truth. Plutarch gave us an unbiased, detailed, anatomized, and synthesized history of Rome. He wrote history so his people, in search of truth, would not repeat mistakes. Epictetus showed how one could choose to react to life’s traumas. One was not a slave to her emotions. Maimonides aligned faith with reason. All these thinkers asked and answered the great questions of life. William Bennett (1992) writes:

The classics of Western philosophy and literature amount to a great debate on the perennial questions. In the end, the study of the seminal works of Western civilization is … a case for philosophy and for thoughtfulness….The West is the most self-critical of cultures. Reason is exalted and reason leads to a look, a second look, and, where necessary, readjustment, redefinition, and change. It is one of the distinguishing features of Western civilization, in fact, that it has engaged in this dialogue, self-examination, and correction over the centuries (pp.173-174).

Robert Hutchins (1953) defends these “seminal works of Western civilization” not simply because these works promote reason and powers of judgement over irrationality and one-sidedness but because studying them makes people morally better. Hutchins states that the “aim of an educational system…is to improve man as man” (P. 11) through the teaching of moral virtues. He does not reveal a Western canon but would probably include The Bible, writings of Greek philosophers such as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, and the later Skeptics, Cynics, Epicureans, and Stoics. The great Jewish, Christian, and Muslim philosophers would also be on the list. He would also include Western economists, psychologists, sociologists, historians, political scientists, writers and artists, too many to catalog here. All of these great thinkers thought logically and critically, basing their ideas on values, on absolute values.

Cultural relativists challenge Hutchins’ aim of an educational system. If values are relative or not important, a good person yesterday may not be a good person today. The relativist does not think that goodness is an absolute but is dependent on culture and the historical situation. Even more extreme, some cultural relativists would ask, “Who cares if someone is good. All that matters is that she is useful to the State.” John Dewey (1938) is more interested in effective classroom technique than debating whether values are absolute. Therefore he would not necessarily be opposed to Hutchins’ views, especially if students were interested in learning about good values. The “static aims and materials” (P.5) that Dewey rails about could apply to the pedantic memorization of Latin grammar or some other ineffective and boring pedagogy. Dewey is not necessarily against the learning of useful classic works simply because the authors died a long time ago. He is against outmoded, traditional pedagogy. Learning must be presented in a palatable fashion, connected to the lives of the students. A student can benefit from improved pedagogy while studying Greek philosophy. Dewey and Hutchins are not opposed to each other’s views.

Antonio Darder (1991), not John Dewey, is a real cultural relativist and true critic of Hutchins and teaching the Western canon. Drawing from the writings of Pablo Freire, Darder states that

since knowledge is socially constructed, culturally mediated, and historically situated, dominant discourses function to determine what is relegated to the arenas of truth and relevancy at any given moment in time. Thus…[critical educators] hold a view of truth as relational, in that statements considered true are seen as arising within a particular context, based on the relations of power operative in a society, discipline, or institution (P.92).

Simply stated, Darder states that there is no absolute truth, and the ruling class defines knowledge in such a way to continue its oppression of the poor, women and minorities. Darder’s arguments in favor of relative truth appear correct at first glance. However, neither the premises of his argument nor the conclusion of his thesis make sense.

Knowledge is not dependent on place, culture, or historical situation. Water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen, whether one is testing the water of the San Francisco Bay or the Red Sea. The laws of chemistry or physics are not dependent on culture. Additionally, knowledge, even of the social sciences, is not “historically situated.” Does anyone believe that the Ten Commandments are no longer valid since they were written 3,000 years ago? Does the Iliad still speak to us, even though we live in a postmodern, urban culture? These books tell us that murder is evil and friendship is virtuous. Heroism is a virtue. The ideas in these books resonate in us because the moral teachings are valuable in our day as well. The ancient Greek virtues are absolute and not dependent on time or place. Darder’s Marxist conclusion, that education merely another type of oppression is also invalid. The educated know how to control their emotions. Only the educated know how to be a good, virtuous, moral person. The educated know the value of freedom. Those who have had a Western education have control over their inner and outer lives.