SCOTT W. SLOUGH AND JOHN O.

MILAM

3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE DESIGN OF STEM

PROJECT-BASED LEARNING

INTRODUCTION
Do you remember learning how to ride a bike? Or do you remember teaching someone to learn how to ride
a bike? Learning to ride a bike or teaching someone to ride a bike is an iterative process where the learner
wants to “experiment” too quickly and the teacher tries to impart his/her wisdom so the learner does not make
the same mistakes that his/her did. In the end, the learner probably had to repeat many of the same mistakes;
and most importantly, no one would have pronounced one of the early experiences as a failure because the
learner was not ready to ride in the Tour de France. Learning to teach Project-Based Learning (PBL)
effectively requires that an individual practice some of the patience and techniques required to teach someone
to ride a bike, patience to allow the learner to take control and become more experienced in the techniques
that build upon the expanding experience and knowledge base as a catalyst for accelerated learning. Just as
learning to ride a bike – or learning to let the learner learn on his/her own – is not an all or nothing process,
learning to learn in a PBL environment and learning to teach in a PBL environment are not all or nothing
propositions.

CHAPTER OUTCOMES
When you complete this chapter you should better understand:
− how implementing PBL in the classroom occurs in stages, over time, and is informed by research on the
design of learning environments and the learning sciences

When you complete this chapter you should be ready to:

− implement PBL components into your teaching
− read the rest of the PBL handbook
− discuss the theoretical underpinnings for PBL with other teachers and administrators

PBL is a special case of inquiry. While the use of inquiry, inquiry-based schooling, and PBL are not new
concepts in science and mathematics per se, PBL’s prominence in the national educational standards
(Bonnstetter, 1998) and the integration of engineering standards in K-12 are more recent emerging trends
(Roehrig, Moore, Wang, & Park, 2012). Additionally the increased emphasis on the E (engineering) in STEM
(Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) naturally supports the project-based design ethos in the
simple definition for STEM PBL “a well-defined outcome with an ill-defined task” (Capraro & Slough, 2006,
p. 3). Complimentary ideas that incorporate design in instruction include learning by design (Kolodner et al.,
2003), design-based science (Fortus, Dershimer, Krajcik, Marx, & Mamlok-Naaman, 2004), or design-based
learning (Apedoe, Reynolds, Ellefson, & Schunn, 2008). The recent emphasis on inquiry-based teaching and
PBL has been informed by research in both the learning sciences (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking 2000;
Donovan & Bransford, 2005; Goldman, Petrosino, & Cognition Group and Technology Group at Vanderbilt
1999) and the design of learning environments (Linn, Davis, & Bell 2004). The design of learning
environments emphasizes 1) making content accessible, 2) making thinking visible, 3) helping students learn
from others, and 4) promoting autonomy and lifelong learning. The learning sciences emphasize the
importance of 1) pre-existing knowledge; 2) feedback, revision, and reflection; 3) teaching for understanding;
and 4) metacognition.

DESIGN OF LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

The following design principles impact the design of PBL:

R.M. Capraro, M.M. Capraro and J. Morgan (eds.), STEM Project-Based Learning: an Integrated Science, Technology, Engineering,
and Mathematics (STEM) Approach, 15–27.
© 2013 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.
SCOTT W. SLOUGH AND JOHN O. MILAM

− making content accessible

− making thinking visible, which includes using visual elements to help the learner and using learner
constructed visual elements to assess learning
− helping students learn from others
− promoting autonomy and lifelong learning

Although these four design principles are presented separately for discussion purposes, they are integrated in
practice.

Design Principle – Making Content Accessible

Content is made accessible by allowing learners to engage in problems, examples, and contexts that connect
new ideas to personally relevant prior knowledge and is grounded in three pragmatic pedagogical dimensions:
building on student ideas, use of personally relevant problems, and scaffolding inquiry (Linn, Eylon, & Davis,
2004). Thus effective instruction should provide opportunities for students to ask their own questions; refine
those questions through the design and conducting of personally relevant investigations; evaluate data and
scientific evidence according to their own personal understanding; verbalize their own theories and
explanations; and participate in active science learning. Scaffolding and feedback are essential supports for
inquiry. Scaffolding allows the learner to “become more like experts in their thinking” (Krajick et al., 1998, p.
5), which allows them to more deeply participate in the inquiry process. Examples of scaffolds include
modeling; coaching; sequencing; interacting with more knowledgeable others; reducing or gradually building
complexity; highlighting critical features; modeling/prompting; and using visual tools (Goldman et al., 1999;
Krajick, Czerniak, & Berger 1999; Kozma, 1999). Timely feedback is essential to help students analyze their
own reasoning, making them less dependent on the teacher to diagnose their problems.

Design Principle – Making Thinking Visible

Making thinking visible is grounded in how ideas are connected (Bransford et al., 2000) and includes three
pragmatic pedagogical dimensions: modeling scientific thinking, scaffolding students to make their thinking
visible, and providing multiple representations (Linn, Davis, & Eylon, 2004). Science is often taught as a
body of knowledge with little understanding of the true nature of science. Students are frequently frustrated
when their designs are unsuccessful. Modeling the scientific process allows students to “distinguish among
their notions, interpret feedback from others, reconsider information in light of experimental findings, and
develop a commitment to the scientific endeavor.” (p. 57). Scaffolding students to make their thinking visible
provides opportunities for students to explicitly monitor their own learning, which encourages reflection and
more accurately models the scientific process (Bell, 2010; Bryan & Slough, 2009). Providing multiple
representations is essential to allow students to actively participate in the interpretive process of science (Linn
et al., 2004). Computer animations, modeling programs, dynamic representations and scientific visualizations
represent the cutting edge of science and make them more accessible to the learner. Recall of one type of
representation can support recall of another type of representation of the same material (Baddeley &
Longman, 1978; Brunner 1994). Making thinking visible makes scientific thinking visible to the learner and
thus more accessible; makes student thinking visible and thus affords opportunities for students to actively
build metacognitive skills and facilitates more effective scaffolds and feedback from the teacher; and makes
use of multiple representations and thus facilitates student interaction between the two worlds of science and
learning.

Design Principle – Helping Students Learn from Others

Helping students learn from others is grounded in social constructivism (Vygotsky, 1978), cooperative
learning (Johnson & Johnson, 1989), and communities of learners (Brown & Campione, 1994; Pea 1987) and
includes four pragmatic pedagogical dimensions: encouraging listening to others, design discussions,
highlighting the cultural norms, and employing multiple social structures (Linn et al., 2004). Students must be
trained to listen to others and to think before responding or acting. Reciprocal teaching (Palinscar & Brown
1984) emphasizes communities of learners observing and learning from role models. Design is often a central
component to PBLs. When students design, they must discuss. In a design discussion, students must have
time to “reflect, incorporate the ideas of others, and compose their contributions carefully rather than
formulating imperfect arguments” (Linn et al., 2004 p. 62). It is especially important that these design

16
 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

discussions overtly establish the cultural norms of science, which requires the inclusion of all ideas –
including ideas that are ultimately rejected, justification for ideas/designs/rejections, and attribution to experts
or evidence. Students must be allowed to establish criteria for scientific explanations, to evaluate their own
progress, to analyze the progress of others, to describe the connections between their ideas and those of
others, and to critique connections proposed by others. These processes are facilitated by the creation of social
interactions and norms that enable learners to hear ideas in the words of peers, experts, and members of
diverse cultural groups.

Design Principle – Promoting Autonomy and Lifelong Learning

Promoting autonomy and lifelong learning is grounded in metacognition and inquiry and includes four
pragmatic pedagogical principles: encouraging monitoring, providing complex projects, revisiting and
generalizing the inquiry processes, and scaffolding critique (Linn et al., 2004). One misconception about
student-centered instruction is that teachers do nothing, when in fact, the teacher is more active than in most
teacher-centered, didactic, presentation-styled instruction. Too little or too much monitoring and feedback
deters student learning (Anderson 1982). “Optimal instruction balances feedback with opportunities for
students to evaluate their own ideas” (p. 66). Complex projects lend themselves specifically to complex
learning and generally to the inquiry process. Through these processes students are enabled to devise personal
goals, seek feedback from others, interpret comments, and adjust behavior accordingly. Students must be
encouraged to organize ideas, construct arguments, add new evidence, and revisit phenomena in new contexts.
Teachers are encouraged to design ways to scaffold students as they devise new explanations and arguments
in the context of inquiry.

Summarizing Foundations for Learning and Design Principles

Changes in conceptual understanding(s) occur as teachers engage and problematize students’ pre-existing
knowledge. Inquiry and project-based learning allows the teacher an opportunity to engage the prior
knowledge, skills, concepts and beliefs students bring with them to the learning environment. In order for
thinking to become visible and therefore shaped, students must be given the opportunity to expose their own
thinking through feedback, revision, and reflection with themselves, teachers and other students. Inquiry and
PBL can be structured in such a way to provide students with these opportunities. Inquiry and PBL also

17
SCOTT W. SLOUGH AND JOHN O. MILAM

promote teaching for understanding by allowing teachers to make available many examples of the same
concept at work in different conditions. Metacognition, the awareness of and reflection upon ones’ own
thinking, is a skill, which allows people to distinguish when they comprehend and when they need more
information. Inquiry and PBL may afford students the opportunity to take control of their own learning by
situating the learning goals and monitoring their progress – both academically and cognitively.
Changes in conceptual understanding(s) are facilitated by overt design decisions that build on the
foundations for learning. Making content accessible is facilitated by building on pre-existing knowledge;
student discourse; and scaffolds feedback by allowing learners to engage in problems, examples, and contexts
that connect new ideas that are personally relevant. Using visual elements in instruction and promoting
student construction of visual elements promote making thinking visual. As students learn from others, they
have the opportunity to learn the cultural norms of science – including the notion that ideas are accepted or
rejected based on evidence – and the attribution to experts or evidence. Promoting autonomy and lifelong
learning occurs as students learn to devise personal goals, seek feedback from others, interpret comments,
adjust behavior accordingly, and evaluate their own ideas.

FOUNDATIONS IN THE LEARNING SCIENCES

The following foundations in the learning sciences impact the design of PBL:

– preexisting knowledge
– feedback, revision, and reflection
– teaching for understanding
– metacognition

Although these foundations in the learning sciences are presented separately for discussion purposes, they are
integrated in practice.

Preexisting Knowledge
Humans are goal-directed arbitrators of information they receive beginning at birth. This information forms a
wide range of knowledge, skills, beliefs, and concepts. This preexisting knowledge influences what they
observe around them and how they organize and make sense of this information. As children are initiated into
the formal learning environment and as they continue throughout their academic career, these prior
understandings will significantly influence how they make sense of what they are taught (Bransford et al.,
2000).

Mrs. Gonzalez’s Ninth Grade Integrated Physics and Chemistry (IPC) Vignette
In a PBL on Non-Newtonian Fluids (see Appendix A) Mrs. Gonzalez introduces the following ill-defined
task while playing with a large ball of silly putty at the front of the class (engagement 5E model):

What effect does %water have on the viscosity of silly putty … and how can the general forms of
functions help us interpret this relationship?

The students are then given time to explore how to make silly putty, what exactly is viscosity, how is it
measured, what is the general form of a function, what do we have at the school that can be used to make
silly putty and measure viscosity, and why is Mrs. G using math terms in a science class? The classroom
becomes a blur of motion and the noise level increases. As an experienced teacher, Mrs. Gonzalez seems
to ignore the noise and student motion; but upon closer inspection shows us that she is moving from group
to group checking progress, providing suggestions – never “the answer” – and keeping students on-task.
After the initial exploration phase (5E model), Mrs. G has the students share ideas with the whole class
before full-scale testing occurs.

Students develop preconceptions about how the world operates through their daily interactions with
people, places, and things. Students develop logical ideas of how and why things operate based upon
these experiences. While prior learning is a powerful support for further learning, it can also lead to
the development of conceptions that can act as barriers to learning (Bransford et al., 2000). A
powerful example of how students’ prior understanding may act as a barrier to future learning in science

18
 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

can be found in the Private Universe research project (Schneps & Sadler 1987). For example, students
know that the closer one stands to a campfire, the hotter he or she feels. Students then use this logic to
impose a new understanding to every situation where they feel warmer – it is hotter because I am closer
to the heat source. This is a logical and acceptable hypothesis. But, a problem arises when the student brings
this naïve conception into a formal school setting where a teacher is attempting to teach the causes of the
seasons – essentially trying to determine why it is hot in the summer and cold in the winter. Logical
interpretations of the students’ lived experience imply that the Earth must be closer to the sun in the summer
and farther away in the winter. The teacher explains it is direct and indirect sunlight, which determine the
Earth’s seasons with distance from the Sun having little or no influence. If students’ preconceptions about
distance from the Sun are not directly addressed by the teacher, students are likely to 1) memorize the
teacher’s explanation of direct and indirect sunlight whenever it is relevant for a test or assessment and revert
back to their initial preconceptions of distance once the student leaves the formal school environment, 2)
develop a theory of the cause of the seasons which blends both the teacher’s explanation and the student’s
lived experiences into one unusual theory, or 3) never be able to grasp the concepts of the teacher’s
explanation.
Student’s preconceptions, the naïve theories they bring with them into the classroom, can impose serious
constraints on understanding formal disciplines. These preconceptions are often difficult for teachers to
change because they generally work well enough for students in their daily real-world contexts. Students’
preconceptions must be directly addressed or they often memorize content for the classroom but still use their
experience-based preconceptions to act in the world (Bransford et al., 2000).

Teaching for Understanding – Factual and Conceptual Knowledge

Similarities and differences between how experts and novices think and how each group approaches problem-
solving have led to a better understanding of the relationships between factual and conceptual knowledge
(Larkin, McDermott, & Simon, 1980; Nathan, Koedinger, & Alibali, 2001). Factual knowledge is a key
component of a person’s ability to plan, observe patterns, connect concepts and ideas from other disciplines,
and to develop and deconstruct points of view, arguments, and explanations. While factual knowledge plays a
vital role in teaching and learning these skills, students with only a large body of disconnected facts is not
sufficient. In order for factual knowledge to become working or usable knowledge, students must be able to
place facts into a conceptual framework (Bransford et al., 2000). In order for students to learn with
understanding, factual knowledge must be balanced within a conceptual framework.

Mrs. Gonzalez’s Ninth Grade Integrated Physics and Chemistry (IPC) Vignette
(continued)
In a PBL on Non-Newtonian Fluids (see Appendix A) Mrs. Gonzalez’s class is now fully engaged in the
exploration phase to answer their the ill-defined task:

What effect does %water have on the viscosity of silly putty … and how can the general forms of
functions help us interpret this relationship?

It is the second day in a multi-day PBL and Mrs. G is still working the room. Students have found various
recipes for making silly putty, GAK, and a host of other substances on the Internet. Mrs. G has provided a
limited set of materials, so the students are forced to chose the recipe that includes glue + borax + water =
silly putty. After all of the groups have experimented with the mixture, Mrs. G again has a whole class
discussion to make sure that all of the students are on-task and to remind them how important taking good
notes and multiple trials will be in the next phase of data collection.

A student learning with understanding is situated within two foundational concepts: (1) understanding
requires that factual knowledge is suspended within a conceptual framework, and (2) concepts are given
meaning by multiple representations that are rich in factual detail (Capraro & Yetkiner, 2008; Muzheve &
Capraro, 2011; Parker et al., 2007). Learning goals, what the student should know and be able to perform at
the end of instruction, are built on neither factual nor conceptual understanding alone. A longstanding debate
in education has been and continues to be whether factual knowledge or conceptual understanding should be
the primary focus of curriculum and instruction. While these two concepts appear to be in conflict with one
another, factual knowledge and conceptual understanding are actually mutually supportive. Conceptual
knowledge is clarified when it is used to organize factual knowledge, and the recall of factual knowledge is

19
SCOTT W. SLOUGH AND JOHN O. MILAM

enhanced by conceptual knowledge. Experts in any STEM discipline work from a set of core concepts, which
organizes factual knowledge and conceptual understanding. Thus, teaching for understanding would overtly
emphasize the organization of these same core concepts to help learners organize factual knowledge and their
individual construction of concepts (Clement & Steinberg, 2002; Gilbert & Boulter 2000; Lehrer & Schauble,
2000; Penner, Giles, Lehrer, & Schauble, 1997).

Metacognition
Metacognition is broadly defined as a person’s knowledge and skills to be aware of and reflect upon one’s
own thinking (Brown, 1978; Flavell, 1979). Progress in the learning sciences emphasizes the importance of
helping people take control of their own learning. Because understanding should be the goal of curriculum
and instruction, people must learn to recognize when they understand and when they need more information
(Koschmann, Kelson, Feltovich, & Barrows, 1996). Teaching and learning which emphasizes the
metacognitive process is proactive. Students do not passively receive information as others make sense of it
for them. Students must proactively engage in the learning process and must determine for themselves how
this new information is connected to current understandings. In order for this to occur, students must be aware
of and able to reflect upon their own thinking.

Mrs. Gonzalez’s Ninth Grade Integrated Physics and Chemistry (IPC) Vignette
(continued)
In a PBL on Non-Newtonian Fluids (see Appendix A) Mrs. Gonzalez’s class is now fully engaged in the
exploration phase to answer their the ill-defined task:

What effect does %water have on the viscosity of silly putty … and how can the general forms of
functions help us interpret this relationship?

It is the third day in a multi-day PBL and the students are wrapping up their explorations and beginning
explanation (5E model). Mrs. G is focused today because she knows how critical today’s transition is …
without good data, the student’s explanations will be weak. She has really taken a risk by requiring that the
students use functions to explain their science, but as she checks the students notes she only needs to make
gentle reminders as the groups have all recorded good data. As the students begin to analyze data,
questions about what type of graph to use, how many points it takes to make a graph and a variety of
questions about functions start to permeate the room. After several small group interventions, Mrs. G
decides to have a short whole class review on functions and graphing. She takes the time to find out where
each group is at and facilitates an exchange that is largely student driven because she knows where the
groups and individuals are in the process. The students return to their groups and work well to complete
their analysis and start with their presentations.

The actual and intended goal(s) of education are often disputed, but most would agree that formal
schooling should produce self-directed lifelong learners capable of making sense of new information even
after their formal education has ended. This includes fostering the development of metacognitive criteria for
knowing when one knows and does not know, the ability to assess what needs to be learned in a particular
problem context, the ability to identify and use resources efficiently to improve the state of one’s knowledge,
and the ability to reflect upon this process to improve its efficiency and effectiveness (Koschmann et al.,
1996, p. 94). To meet the goal of producing self-directed lifelong learners, 1) students must be explicitly
taught metacognitve strategies, 2) reflecting upon one’s own thinking should be modeled by the teacher, and
3) opportunities for students to make their thinking visible need to be incorporated into the learning
environment.
To better understand the metacognitive strategies to be employed in a successful learning environment, it is
useful to narrow the broad definition of metacognition into three classifications: awareness, evaluation, and
regulation. Metacognitive awareness relates to an individual’s understanding of 1) where they are in the
learning process, 2) the factual and conceptual knowledge, 3) personal learning strategies, and 4) what has
been done and still needs to be done to meet the cognitive goals. Metacognitive evaluation refers to judgments
made regarding one’s cognitive capacities and limitations. Metacognitive regulation occurs when individuals
modify their thinking (Schraw & Dennison, 1994). Students must be explicitly made aware of their own
thinking, taught how to evaluate this understanding, and then given the opportunity to regulate or modify
these concepts.

20
 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

As noted by Bransford et al. (2000), students who are more aware of their own metacognitive learning
processes and are provided opportunities to express their own thinking tend to learn better. It is important that
these strategies are embedded throughout the instructional framework rather than taught as isolated skills.
Making discussions of metacognitive processes a part of daily language urges students to more explicitly
attend to their own learning (Pintrich, 2002). Metacognition is often an internal dialogue and students with no
experience making this dialogue external may be unaware of its importance (Vye, Schwartz, Bransford,
Barron, Zech, & Cognition Group and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1998).
Metacognition has been shown to predict learning performance (Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990). Students with
high metacognitive skills outperformed those with lower metacognitive skills in problem-solving tasks,
regardless of their overall aptitude. General aptitude and metacognitive abilities appear to operate
independently (Swanson, 1990). Integrating metacognition into curriculum and instruction is a component of
effective teaching and learning for understanding.

Feedback, Revision, and Reflection

Effective instruction must incorporate opportunities for students to reflect upon their own thinking, to receive
feedback from others about their thinking, and the freedom to revise one’s thinking as a result of this new
information. These metacognitive characteristics are critical to the development of the ability to regulate one’s
own learning (Goldman et al., 1999).

Mrs. Gonzalez’s Ninth Grade Integrated Physics and Chemistry (IPC) Vignette
(continued)
In a PBL on Non-Newtonian Fluids (see Appendix A) Mrs. Gonzalez’s class is now fully engaged in the
exploration phase to answer their the ill-defined task:

What effect does %water have on the viscosity of silly putty … and how can the general forms of
functions help us interpret this relationship?

It is the fourth day in a multi-day PBL and Mrs. G is rewarded by students who come to class and
immediately start on their projects. Most of the students are focused on completing graphs and placing
them in PowerPoint presentations. Mrs. G notices that while the students were able to collect useful data
and were able to determine the equation on their lines, they really had not focused on answering the
question. From experience, she had expected this and had planned some extension activities (5E model)

21
SCOTT W. SLOUGH AND JOHN O. MILAM

that would hopefully prompt the students to think beyond just the graph and to understand how the shape
or form of the line was critical to differentiating between linear and non-linear flow. Examples of
appropriate extensions include: what would the data for a Newtonian fluid look like? Or How do engineers
take advantage of nonlinear flow?

Often “hands-on” activities fail to be “minds-on” because students’ understanding is not engaged.
Criticisms of these activities focus primarily on the lack of opportunities for student reflection. Bettencourt
(1993) argued that, “unless hands-on science is embedded in a structure of questioning, reflecting, and re-
questioning, probably very little will be learned” (p. 46). Typically, in the traditional classroom, these
activities 1) do not allow students the appropriate amount of time to make sense of the new information, 2)
tend to be taught in isolation and unrelated to one another, and 3) focus on the manipulation of objects and
events rather than on the understanding of a phenomenon (Schauble, Glaser, Duschl, Schulze, & John, 1995).
Once a learner has reflected upon his own thinking, the next logical step is to make his internal dialogue
external – to make his thinking visible to others. Whether through group discussions, concept mapping, or
written communication, students need to share their thoughts and understandings with others. This allows the
learner to acquire feedback on their conceptual understanding. This feedback often supports aspects of their
understanding, problematizes other elements, and leads the student to proactively change his own thinking
rather than act as a passive receiver of information. Effective teachers have students revise their own
conceptual understandings, to place factual knowledge within a conceptual framework, rather than passively
memorizing new information.
STEM disciplines are made available to learners by allowing them to connect new thinking to pre-existing
knowledge. Effective instruction should provide opportunities for students to evaluate scientific evidence
according to their own personal understanding, to articulate their own theories and explanations, and to
participate actively in learning. One would expect to see participants in the learning environment given
multiple opportunities to communicate their understanding to others, often engaging to solve problems within
the context of a project or a problem, and readily able to present their understanding in the same manner as a
professional within the discipline.

PROJECT-BASED LEARNING AS AN EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS

The national standards for science and mathematics curriculum and instruction are dynamic. As each
transforms to incorporate more inquiry and PBL, so too does the emphasis on training teachers and students to
define and use these methods appropriately. Bonnstetter (1998) broadly examined inquiry as he opens a
dialogue on how to define inquiry, how to determine specific levels of inquiry based upon student-
centeredness, and its potential for success when used in classrooms by teachers and students. Bonnstetter
described inquiry as an evolutionary process across five levels of inquiry; traditional hands-on, structured,
guided, student directed and student research, with six levels of implementation: topic, question, materials,
procedures/design, results/analysis, and conclusions. A teacher progresses across the inquiry continuum by
facilitating additional student control up the implementation continuum. For instance, the teacher is in control
of everything in a traditional hands-on environment, but in the structured inquiry the student is in control of
the conclusion with the teacher and student sharing control for the results/analysis.
Settlage (2007) argued against this model and other incarnations of open inquiry, stating that open inquiry
should not be promoted because it is not effective in all school settings, it rarely occurs, and the “examples
provided within the National Science Education Standards of inquiry are fictionalized (p. 465).” A common
misconception – or myth – about open inquiry is that as classrooms become more student-centered the teacher
becomes less responsive to student needs. When in fact, just the opposite is true. As a class progresses toward
open inquiry on the Bonnstetter model, the teacher becomes an active facilitator not a bystander. Thus Slough
and Milam (2007) broadened the scope of this discussion on inquiry by proposing a model that extends the
Bonnstetter model (1998) and addresses the Settlage (2007) deficiencies by emphasizing the How People
Learn framework of the novice, informed novice, and expert learners (Bransford et al., 2000); adds a level of
community-centeredness that is warranted by both the foundations for learning and design principles; and
creates a standards-based assessment category along with some minor edits to the implementation continuum
… and recognizes the importance of time (see Table 1)! Finally, Huber and Moore (2010) quote noted
classroom management guru Harry Wong (Wong & Wong, 1998) as urging educators to give permission to
beginning teacher to engage students with traditional hands-on labs and worksheets as they transition to more
pedagogically engaging methodologies.

22
 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Table 1. Project-Based Learning as an Evolutionary Process

Traditional Novice Informed Expert Researcher
Hands-on (Factual Novice (Adapts (Creation of new knowledge
(Verification Knowledge) (Understand conceptual and/or conceptual frameworks)
of Facts) facts/ideas in frameworks
context of through
conceptual transfer)
framework)
Standards- State/ State/ State/ State/ State/
based Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher
Assessment
Topic Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Student/Researcher/Community
Task Teacher Teacher Teacher Student Student/
Community
Resources Teacher Teacher Teacher Student/ Student/
Community Community
Procedures/ Teacher Teacher Teacher/ Student/ Student/
Design Student Community Community
Artifacts/ Teacher Teacher/ Student/ Student/ Student/
Analysis Student Community Community Community
Outcomes Teacher/ Student Student/ Student/ Student/
Student Community Community Community

23
SCOTT W. SLOUGH AND JOHN O. MILAM

PROJECT-BASED LEARNING CONTINUUM

Traditional Hands-on Lab (Verification of Facts)

The emphasis in the traditional hands-on lab is on the verification of facts already presented to the learner.
The teacher controls the assessment, topic, task, resources, procedure/design, artifacts/analysis and often even
the outcomes. This type of experience is often dominated by worksheets and fill-in-the blank forms.

Novice (Factual Knowledge)

The differences between traditional hands-on and novice are subtle. Instead of verifying factual knowledge
previously learned, the student is generating factual knowledge, which is novel to them. Although the lab and
its’ components have been determined by the teacher, this constructivist approach allows the learner to
analyze the data and determine the outcomes. It is important to note that at this novice level, the outcomes and
determinations by the student are only factual in nature. For example, if I drop a ball, it falls to the ground. At
the traditional hands-on level, this lab would verify previous teachings that when a ball is dropped, it falls to
the ground. At this novice level, it is the student who constructs the factual understanding.

Informed Novice (Understand Facts/Ideas in Context of Conceptual Framework)

At the informed novice level, chunks of factual knowledge are connected to build a conceptual understanding.
Students rationalize the relationships and connections between multiple pieces of knowledge. In the previous
example, students determined that when they drop a ball, it falls to the ground. Perhaps in another lab,
students also learned Newton’s Law of Gravity. At the informed novice level, the purpose of the lab is to
connect these two pieces of factual knowledge to form a conceptual understanding. If I drop a ball, it falls to
the ground. Newton’s Law of Gravity states that objects with larger mass attract objects of a smaller mass.
Therefore, the ball drops to the ground because it has a smaller mass than the ground (Earth). Students
analyze relationships between facts to develop more complex conceptual understandings.
At this level, the idea of community becomes vital. Students must be given opportunities for discourse with
each other, with experts, and with the teacher. Opportunities to dialog about ideas and naïve theories with one
another, to determine what information is valid and reliable, and to decide how factual information is
connected to form a conceptual understanding, all of which should be community-centered. The community
of learners ultimately decides which naïve theories become appropriate knowledge and understanding. The
importance of community continues to deepen as the levels of complexity increase.

Expert (Adapts Conceptual Frameworks through Transfer)

In general, experts are capable of applying their knowledge and expertise to novel situations. The ability to
transfer knowledge into new situations successfully is a crucial assessment component when teaching for
understanding. At the expert level, the goal is for the student to be able to transfer his or her understandings of
the material to novel situations. There is usually more than one method for solving problems. The student
and/or the community must be given more freedom of choice when determining 1) how to approach the
problem, 2) what acceptable resources to use, 3) how the data is analyzed, and 4) how the results are
interpreted. The teacher and the student must both have experience and success operating with fewer
constraints. Therefore, the expert level not only requires deep factual knowledge and a solid conceptual
framework, but also the ability to work more independently than in the past.

Researcher (Creation of New Knowledge and/or Conceptual Frameworks)

At the Researcher level, the learner is in control of his or her learning. Students are capable of choosing the
topic of interest and are well equipped to make learning happen. This level requires many years of practice
and the learner must be scaffolded at each step. Reaching the researcher level is analogous to obtaining a
terminal degree – you have been given the tools to learn independently. This should be the goal of education
regardless of subject matter. One cannot expect a student or teacher to effectively operate at this level without
proper training and experience. To expect either to move from any previous level to the researcher level
without this training and experience is irresponsible – movement must be slow and thoughtful.

24
 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

IMPLEMENTATION CONTINUUM
The implementation continuum has one major addition and a couple of minor edits to Bonstetter’s original
continuum (1998) to better match PBL in a standards-based environment. The major addition centers on
standards-based assessment. PBL will never be teaching to the test and it should not be, but it is critical that
PBL address specific assessment standards as mandated by the national, state, or local authorities – well-
defined outcomes. Additionally, conclusions become outcomes to match the definition – ill-defined tasks and
well-defined outcomes (Capraro & Slough, 2008, p. 3). Artifacts replace results to highlight the choices that
students make as they chose how to demonstrate/interpret data, and resources supplant materials to reflect the
incorporation of various digital technologies available in today’s classroom.

Teacher/Student/Community-Centeredness
Perhaps the most important aspect of the new model is the overt design of community. Our definition of
community begins in the classroom and expands to the global community as the learner matures. The teacher,
students, administrators, parents, businesses, neighborhoods and churches are all part of community. But
community also refers to norms of the learning environment. As students interact with the teacher and each
other, are their ideas valued? Do they feel safe to make their thinking visible? Are they properly scaffolded
through the process of inquiry? Providing the learner a community-centered learning environment is a
component of effectively incorporating PBL into the classroom.
Settlage (2007) posited that open inquiry is rare, fictionalized, and apparently unavailable for all learners.
Without a community that has been built to support PBL, he is probably correct. But, with the purposeful
incorporation of community, the teacher can purposively design learning environments that take advantage of
foundational knowledge from the learning sciences and design principles. As the student becomes more
autonomous from the teacher, they require a larger community in which they interact, especially if the
expectation is that all students learn.

TIME
Time is often the forgotten dimension in today’s fast-paced environment, but research has shown that it takes
three to five years for meaningful changes in curriculum and instructional practices following a professional

25
SCOTT W. SLOUGH AND JOHN O. MILAM

development experience (Horsley & Loucks-Horsley, 1998). This time (and the time following the
experience) must be spent consistently advocating for and pursuing significant change in teacher, student, and
community behavior. In short, significant change in teacher, student, and community behavior takes more
than resources; it takes time. This has implications for effective implementation of PBL strategies. If a teacher
enters a professional development seminar at the most teacher-centered level of PBL, this educator should not
be expected to operate at the more sophisticated student-centered levels of PBL immediately. Students, from
kindergarten to post-secondary levels, enter the learning environment at various levels of sophistication and
experience with PBL resulting in an “unresolved tension between the practical doing and the content learning
(Kanter, 2008, p. 527). They too should not be expected to work completely outside of their comfort levels.
Growth towards a more sophisticated level of PBL should be incremental and within the appropriate zone of
proximal development (ZPD) (Vygotsky, 1978) of all participants – teachers, students, and the community. If
teachers and students operate beyond their ZPD, failure is likely. Mistakenly, this failure may be blamed upon
the PBL itself or on the inability of teachers and students to work within the PBL framework. In actuality,
success or failure depends as much on understanding levels of PBL and working within the appropriate ZPD
as it does on the teachers’ actual ability and knowledge to implement this new technique.

ILL-DEFINED TASKS AND WELL-DEFINED OUTCOMES

An engineer always starts with the outcome in mind – build a bridge to span the Golden Gate in the San
Francisco Bay, but is often rewarded for elegance. In this sense of the word, elegance refers more to the
unusually effective and simple design of the Golden Gate Bridge, but it is easy to see the secondary meaning
of elegance as defined grace. Just as engineers design toward a known outcome, teachers’ must design toward
a known outcome. Further just as the engineer is allowed the freedom to purposively design for elegance, the
teacher is allowed to design unusually effective and simple designs of PBL. Thus ill-defined tasks allow the
teacher to take advantage of all of the foundations for learning and design principles while ensuring the well-
defined outcomes mandated in high-stakes accountability standards are addressed.

REFERENCES
Apedoe, X., Reynolds, B., Ellefson, M., & Schunn, C. (2008). Bringing engineering design into high school science classrooms: The
heating/cooling unit. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17, 454-465.
Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89, 369-406.
Baddeley, A. D., & Longman, D. J. (1978). The influence of length and frequency of training session on the rate of learning to type.
Ergonomics, 21, 627–635.
Bettencourt, A. (1993). The construction of knowledge: A radical constructivist view. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in
science education (pp. 39-50). Washington, DC: American Association for Advancement of Science.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
Brunner, D. D. (1994). Inquiry and reflection: Framing narrative practice in education. New York: SUNY Press.
Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The Clearing House, 83, 39-43.
Brown, A. L. (1978). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of metacognition. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in
instructional psychology (vol. 1, pp. 77-165). Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum.
Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons:
Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 229-270). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bryan, J., & Slough, S. W. (2009). Converging lens simulation design and image predictions. Physics Education, 44, 264-275.
Bonnstetter, R. J. (1998). Inquiry: Learning from the past with an eye on the future. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 3(1).
Retrieved from http://wolfweb.unr.edu/homepage/jcannon/ejse/bonnstetter.html.
Capraro, R. M., & Slough, S. W. (Eds.). (2008). Project-based learning: An integrated science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) approach. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense.
Capraro, R. M., & Yetkiner, Z. E. (2008). Teachers’ role in developing representational fluency in middle grades. In G. Kulm (Ed.),
Teacher knowledge and practice in middle grades mathematics (pp. 273-286). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense.
Clement, J. J., & Steinberg, M. S. (2002). Step-wise evolution of mental models of electric circuits: A “learning-aloud” case study. The
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(4), 389-452.
Donovan, S. M., & Bransford, J. D. (2005). How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom. Washington, DC:
National Academies Press.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive developmental inquiry. American Psychologist,
34(10), 906-911.
Fortus, D., Dershimer, R. C., Krajcik, J. S., Marx, R. W., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2004). Design-based science and student learning.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1081-1110.
Gilbert, J. K., & Boulter, C. J. (Eds.). (2000). Developing models in science education. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
Goldman, S. R., Petrosino, A. J., & Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1999). Design principles for instruction in content
domains: lessons from research on expertise and learning. In F. T. Durso, R. S. Nickerson, R. W. Schvaneveldt, S. T. Dumais, D. S.
Lindsay, & M. T. H. Chi (Eds.), Handbook of applied cognition (pp. 595-627). Indianapolis, IN: John Wiley & Sons.
Horsley, D. L., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (1998). CBAM brings order to the tornado of change. Journal of Staff Development, 19(4), 17-20.

26
 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Huber, R. A., & Moore, C. J. (2001). A model for extending hands-on science to be inquiry based. School Science and Mathematics, 101,
32–42.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Kanter, D. E. (2009). Doing project and learning the content: Designing project-based science curricula for meaningful understanding.
Science Education, 94, 525-551.
Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B. B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., Puntambekar, S., & Ryan, M. (2003). Problem-based
learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting learning by design into practice. Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 12(4), 495-547.
Koschmann, T., Kelson, A. C., Feltovich, P. J., & Barrows, H. S. (1996). Computer-supported problem-based learning: A principled
approach to the use of computers in collaborative learning. In T. D. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging
paradigm (pp. 83-124). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kozma, R. B. (1999). The use of multiple representations and the social construction of understanding in chemistry. In M. J. Jacobson &
R. B. Kozma (Eds.), Innovations in science and mathematics education (pp. 11-46). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Krajcik, J. S., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science
classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 313-350.
Krajcik, J. S., Czerniak, M. C., & Berger, C. (1999). Teaching children science: A project-based approach (pp. 5-25). Boston, MA:
McGraw-Hill.
Larkin, J., McDermott, J., Simon, D. P., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems. Science,
208, 1335-1342.
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2000). Modeling in mathematics and science. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. B. (Eds.). (2004). Internet environments for science education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Eylon, B. S. (2004). The scaffolded knowledge integration framework for instruction. In M. C. Linn, E. A.
Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 47-72). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Muzheve, M. T., & Capraro, R. M. (2011). An exploration of the role natural language and idiosyncratic representations in teaching
how to convert among fractions, decimals, and percents. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 31(1), 1-14. doi:
10.1016/j.jmathb.2011.08.002
Nathan, M. J., Koedinger, K. R., & Alibali, M. W. (August, 2001). Expert blind spot: When content knowledge eclipses pedagogical
content knowledge. In L. Chen (Ed.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Cognitive Science (pp. 644-648). Beijing:
University of Science and Technology of China Press.
Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching and comprehension-fostering and comprehension monitoring activities.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 24, 15-32.
Parker, D., Donahue, M., Stillisano, J., Capraro, M. M., Goldsby, D., Yetkiner, Z. E., & Capraro, R. M. (2007, November).
Communication and representations. Paper presented at the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics regional conference.
Houston, TX.
Pea, R. D. (1987). Socializing the knowledge transfer problem. International Journal of Educational Research, 11, 639-663.
Penner, D. E., Giles, N. D., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (1997). Building functional models: Designing an elbow. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 34(2),125-143.
Pintrich, P.R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 219-225.
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 82 (1), 33-40.
Roehrig, G. T., Moore, T. J., Wang, H.-H., & Park, M. S. (2012). Is adding the E enough? Investigating the impact of K-12 engineering
standards on the implementation of STEM integration. School Science and Mathematics, 112, 31-44.
Schauble, L., Glaser, R., Duschl, R. A., Schulze, S., & John, J. (1995). Students’ understanding of the objectives and procedures of
experimentation in the science classroom. Journal of Learning Sciences, 4, 131-166.
Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 460-475.
Settlage, J. (2007). Demythologizing science teacher education: Conquering the false ideal of open inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher
Education, 18, 461-467.
Slough, S. W., & Milam, J. (2007, October). Defending the mythology of open inquiry: A novel conceptual framework. Paper presented at
the Southwest Association of Science Teacher Education Conference 2007, Ft. Worth, TX.
Schneps, M. H., & Sadler, P. M. (1987). Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Science Education Department, Science Media
Group. A Private Universe. Video. Washington, DC: Annenberg/CPB.
Swanson, H. L. (1990). Influence of metacognitive knowledge and aptitude on problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology,
82(2), 306-14.
Vye, N. J., Schwartz, D. L., Bransford, J. D., Barron, B. J., Zech, L., & The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1998).
SMART environments that support monitoring, reflection, and revision. In D. J. Hacker, A. C. Graesser, & J. Dunlosky (Eds.),
Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 305-346). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wong, H. K., & Wong, R.T. (1998). The first days of school: How to be an effective teacher. Mountain View, CA: Wong Publications.

Scott. W. Slough
Department of Teaching, Learning and Culture,
Texas A&M University

John O. Milam
Associate Director of Center for CMSETT
John Carroll University

27