533
Learning Through Projects: Commonalities
Among the Project Method, Project Based
Instruction and the Project Approach
Karen R. Juneau
The University of Southern Mississippi
IntroductIon
Educating through purpose is the foundation of several
methods that use projects to organize instruction. Al-
though these methods are quite similar, there are some
important conceptual differences that are currently at
risk of being overlooked due to similarities in termi-
nology. The project method, project based learning,
and the project approach, are all valid approaches to
instructional delivery. It is unfortunate that the confu-
sion created by the terminology appears to be creating
isolated discussions. The purpose of this article is to
identify some of the similarities and differences among
these methods in the hope of encouraging new develop-
ments in project-related instruction.
background
Philosophically, the modern project method had its gen-
esis in the American school of pragmatism as espoused
by John Dewey, Charles Sanders Peirce, and William
James (James, 1899; Peirce, 1878). The concept that
results are the defining qualities of the solution in pref-
erence to the processes needed to reach those results
would free American educational thought to explore
innovative instructional methods. Dewey proposed
that learning required a purpose and that purpose was
the driving force behind action (Dewey, 1896). He
encouraged the development of educational systems
that allowed students to explore academic subjects
through the use of experiments and applied studies
(Dewey, 1918). His idea of supporting learning through
activity would greatly influence early developments in
engineering education and industrial arts education in
the United States.
At the turn of the 20th Century, several individu-
als were experimenting with variations of the project
method. Rufus Stimson, working in agricultural edu-
Copyright © 2008, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
L
cation, introduced the home project method in 1908
(Moore, 1988). This system assigned extensive projects
such as animal husbandry and agronomy projects for
agricultural students and these projects were assessed
by agricultural instructors who traveled to review these
projects. Projects were often home-based and the proj-
ect was integrated into the life of the family. William
Kirkpatrick would popularize the project method in
1918 in his publication titled “The Project Method”
in Teachers College Record and broaden the methods
appeal to nonagricultural applications (Kirkpatrick,
1918).
An exhibit showcasing the Russian Method at the
1876 Centennial Exhibition in Philadelphia is widely
credited as influencing the development of project
centered instruction in the manual arts (Barlow, 1967;
Bennett, 1926). Under the direction of Victor Della Vos,
this system developed a series of progressive exercises
to develop manual skills. Students created small objects
that showcased their mastery of each set of skills. As
students advanced through the course, the teacher be-
came less involved with instruction so that by the end
of the program, the student had assumed significant
responsibility for their own learning (Bennett, 1937).
John Runkle, president of the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, after viewing this exhibit, became a
strong supporter of an applied approach to engineering
education and was influential in promoting this type
of education in the secondary school system (Runkle,
1876). In turn, Runkle influenced Calvin Woodward
who promoted the importance of an applied element in
education and reformed the St. Louis school system to
put his ideas in to practice (Woodward, 1903, 1906).
Students received instruction in various methods and
processes using short exercises. The project was as-
signed at the conclusion of the instruction and allowed
students to apply the skills that they had mastered in
the project creation or solution. Charles R. Richards
altered this method so that work on the project was fully

integrated into the course. The project was assigned at
the beginning of the instruction and students worked on
short exercises and parts of the project as they proceeded
through the course (Knoll, 1997; Richards, 1900).
The concept that projects could be used both as
formative and summative experiences developed from
these systems. Both forms, Richard’s integrated ap-
proach and Woodward’s capstone project, are still in
use today. Many features of project instruction began
with these two approaches, including the concepts of
student-directed work, exhibitions, the use of criteria
sheets or rubrics as evaluative tools and cooperative
group work.
The project method eventually became the primary
method of instruction used in vocational education. It
was not as widely accepted in other areas of education
possibly due to questions about its usefulness in broad
context areas (Waks, 1997) and a concern that it would
be less effective at preparing students to meet specific
academic goals and college entrance requirements (Tate,
1936; Tyack & Cuban, 1995). In the Soviet Union, the
project method had been initially heavily promoted
by the state and was championed by Lenin’s wife,
Nadezhda Krupskaya (Knoll, 1997). It fell from favor
as the political climate changed and did not regain its
former popularity (Mchitarjan, 2000).
Ironically, although political tides virtually erased
the project method in the Soviet Union, political pres-
sure in the United States would revise it. In the past
20 years, interest in projects has increased due to an
emphasis on authentic experiences in education. In
contrast to its first incarnation, the project approach is
considered an effective instructional method when used
in tandem with other methods rather than as a single
method to support the curriculum (Kratz & Chard,
1989). In the United States, the project method has
been successfully integrated into a variety of areas such
as literature (Miall, 1999), technology based learning
environments (Page, 2006), and elementary education
(Wolk, 1994). As the emphasis on authentic assess-
ment increased, these methods were recommended as
assessment methods. (Bickel, 1994; Ediger, 1999). In
the field of engineering, capstone projects are com-
monly used as a summary assessment experience for
engineering students and these projects integrate all
engineering related subjects into the development of a
prototype or feasibility study (Dutson, Todd, Magleby,
& Sorensen, 1997).
534
Learning Through Projects
Initially, Kilpatrick (1918, p. 320) defined the
project method by the purpose that drove the activity.
In his view any activity that the student committed to
with a “whole-hearted purpose” could be consider a
project. Projects were to be selected and completed by
the student under teacher guidance rather than teacher
direction. John Dewey objected to this emphasis on
student directed instruction because he believed that
the student lacked the maturity and experience to plan
effective projects without the direction of the teacher
(Knoll, 1997). This is still a concern of many instructors
who are uncertain how to develop a student centered
learning environment.
This view of the teacher and student relationship as
a partnership encouraged the development of specific
guidelines for project assignments to clarify the me-
chanics of the method. Kilpatrick described a project
as the embodiment of a plan, a problem solution, the
enjoyment of an aesthetic experience, or the obtain-
ment of a skill (Sexton, 1990). This description was
considered to be so broad that nearly every type of
purposeful activity could be considered a project and
this was a commonly recognized fault in Kilpatrick’s
conception.
As the concept of student directed learning received
serious examination, educators began developing spe-
cific criteria for project based instruction. Hosic (1918)
outlined the basic elements: provide a problem or situ-
ation, develop a purpose to solve the problem with the
end result in view, conceive and execute the plan of
action, and judge the results. Roark (1925) described the
project method as containing five subparts: a problem,
the use of material objects, questioning techniques to
help the project progress, a requirement for student
research, and the final use of the teacher as a resource
if the student encounters a difficulty that he is unable
to solve independently.
It is noteworthy that at this early date, the project
method already had elements of the problem based in-
structional methods that would develop in the late 20th
Century. Project based instruction often has a problem
embedded into the project design but it differs from
problem based learning in that the end result of the proj-
ect is known at the beginning of the project. A project
based problem results in a specific artifact; a problem
based experience may result in a variety of expected
solutions. Consider the following examples:
Learning Through Projects
1. Design a gate latch that can be opened by a see-
ing-eye dog. Develop the drawings needed to
manufacture this object.
2. It is difficult for limited vision individuals to open
most gates. What are some possible solutions to
this problem?
Both of these could be developed into effective
projects but the second example is focused on the
problem and the possibility of many solutions rather
than the application of existing skills to solving a prob-
lem. When beginning the first assignment, the student
already knows that his or her solution will be contained
as a set of mechanical drawings and that the solution
will involve the application of his or her design skills.
The solution to the second example is more open and
could result in a variety of solutions such as a report on
community support services, or a proposal to eliminate
the gate. The project is transitory; it is less important
what the student creates than how the students applied
their knowledge or skill to create it. In contrast, the
result of a problem-based assignment is the heart of
the exercise. Through the solution of the problem, the
student gains the expected knowledge and skills; find-
ing possible solutions teaches the content.
Lilian G. Katz (1994) listed four qualities of the
project approach. Projects provide the opportunity (1) to
apply skill, (2) to develop proficiencies, (3) to awaken
intrinsic motivation, and (4) to develop self-assessment
skills. In contrast, she describes systemic instruction
as helping students learn skills, redress deficiencies,
respond to extrinsic motivation, and receive direction
from their teacher. Katz believes that both systemic
instruction and project work are needed in the cur-
riculum (Katz, 1994). In an extensive examination of
both problem and project based learning, Barron et
al. (1998) found four principles of project design that
help students focus on the knowledge and skill that
the project is intended to develop rather than on the
activity. These principles were:
• Learning goals clarify the relationship between
the project activities and the knowledge that the
project is intending to teach.
• Scaffolds must support learning for the instructor
as well as the student. Problem based learning
and contrasting case studies are effective scaf-
folds, helping students develop insights about
the importance of the project. Scaffolding helps
teachers by providing opportunities for formative
assessment. L
• Multiple opportunities for formative assessment
and revision are created by the scaffolds.
• Students take ownership of their efforts and this
sense of ownership is reinforced by presenting
their efforts to outside groups (Barron et al.,
1998).
project methodoLogIes
the project method
The project method is arguably one of the oldest in-
structional methods in existence. The concept that in-
struction should be organized around a specific purpose
was probably in use in apprenticeships programs long
before it became part of the formal educational system
(Bennett, 1926). After enjoying considerable popularity
in the beginning of the last century, the project method
fell from favor in most academic disciplines except for
career and technical education.
Within the last two decades, interest in this method
has revived and variations have developed that reflect
the strengths of the earlier work while incorporating
new perspectives. From its formal origins during the
industrial revolution, the project method and project
based instruction has expanded into all educational
levels and is widely used in academic and career/tech-
nical areas.
The project method centers instruction around the
creation of an object or portfolio that requires the ap-
plication of specific skills developed during the course
of instruction. There are two major variations in the
project method. In the oldest format, students master
the required competencies though the use of exercises
and the project is assigned at the end of instruction as a
summary exercise. In the second version, the project is
embedded throughout the course of the instruction and
a portion of the project is completed at each stage of
instruction. Although the project method was originally
intended to produce actual objects, current definitions
include a variety of tasks such as portfolios, research
projects, exhibits, performances, and creative writing
assignments. All project assignments share the cen-
tral characteristic of focusing student efforts toward
the application of newly developed skills. Many are
structured as group experiences.
535

project based Instruction
Project based instruction is closely related to the project
method and has many of the same foundational roots
as the project method. Both methods were heavily
influenced by the work of John Dewey and William
Kilpatrick. Project based instruction initially empha-
sized real world applications; however, some present
definitions omit this element (Green, 1998; Simkins,
2001). In both project based instruction and the project
method, projects are expected to be long term experi-
ences that require significant intellectual engagement.
In a successful project, students develop ownership
of a project and the project is guided by the instruc-
tor to ensure that the students master the subject area
competencies through the experiences. Project based
instruction differs from the project method by using
a broader definition of project that includes elements
such as reports and performances which were not
traditionally part of the project method. In contrast to
early project assignments, project based learning works
to develop higher order thinking skills rather than fact
retrieval and provides opportunities for teamwork
(Fleming, 2000). A second difference is that project
based learning often incorporates computer technology
as an integral part of the project and the final project is
often a multimedia product (Penuel, Korbak, Yarnall,
& Pacpaco, 2001; Simkins, Cole, Tavalin, & Means,
2002). Since the project method developed in an earlier
age and was used in laboratory-based subjects, tradi-
tional projects were actual objects rather than virtual
products or reports.
the project approach
Project based instruction was modified by Katz and
Chard (1989) who adapted the term “project approach”
in order to break with the traditional expectation that
the entire content of the course would be structured
in a project format. The project approach encourages
teachers to integrate classroom learning with authen-
tic experiences such as field trips. Projects provide
the structure that channels the interest of the students
through inquiries into the subject. It is a spontaneous
learning format; students may gather the information
that they have learned in a variety of ways, including
writing graphs, charting diagrams, murals, and other
536
Learning Through Projects
constructions (Chard, 2000). These connections are
then organized using a concept map and the findings
are shared with the rest of the group (Kratz, 1994).
Chard (2001) describes this process in stages. In
Phase 1, the opening event engages student interest,
and the ideas generated by this event are collected
in a concept map. The students then collect and list
questions that they have about this event. Phase 2
involves preparing for fieldwork, participating in an
actual field experience, documenting and discussing
the field experience and, if possible, including guest
experts to discuss the students’ findings with them. The
final phase, Phase 3, allows the students to share their
work through the creation of an object, performance,
or presentation. The final element is to allow time for
a reflective exercise such as a journal or scrapbook.
effectiveness
All types of project related instruction have long been
held to be interesting and motivational activities for
learners (Howell & Mordini, 2003; Yun 2000). Grégoire
and Laferrière (1998) examined effective project based
instruction for group Internet activities. Projects were
found effective when topics were related to student
interests, when a variety of educational uses for com-
puter technology were incorporated, and when teacher
guidance was provided only when needed.
Although project based instruction is gaining in
popularity, critics point out several drawbacks to this
method. Helle, Tynjala, Olkinuora, and Lonka (2006)
noted that some students perceive projects as creating
more work than is needed to learn the material. In proj-
ects that are technology based there is evidence that skills
locating resources require more structure than might be
expected. Land and Greene (1999) found in a study of
preservice teachers that prior subject knowledge and
the ability to assess the efficiency of search patterns
were needed skills. Individuals who lack this skill were
likely to mold the project to the found resources rather
than adopt alternate search strategies. Fleming (2000)
notes several additional areas of concern including the
degree of student commitment to the task, the ability
to cover required content in a student directed activity,
student assessment issues, and issues related to project
complexity.
Learning Through Projects
web resources
Like many traditional instructional methods, project
based learning is developing a technology- based
form. Numerous Web resources exist for the educa-
tor interested in exploring problem based instruction.
Tutorials are available at several sites including the
Global Schoolhouse http://www.globalschoolnet.
org/index.html, the Project Approach at http://www.
project-approach.com/examples/previous/projects.
htm, and an online certificate program at http://www.
project-approach.com/certificate/default.htm. Addi-
tional resources include an annual student judged project
based competition called Cyberfair offered through the
Global Schoolhouse http://www.globalschoolnet.org/
index.html. The George Lucas Educational Foundation
maintains an extensive collection of problem based
resources including a collection of videos that illustrate
applications for project based learning at http://www.
edutopia.org/foundation/foundation.php#.
future Issues and
consIderatIons
The use of projects is particularly adaptable to inter-
disciplinary study. In teaching subjects such as multi-
culturalism that have multiple levels of understanding,
Mendelssohn and Baker (2002) promote the project
method as an effective way to scaffold student under-
standing. They describe multicultural education in terms
of factors or levels: individual, domestic, systemic, and
global. Related projects or a long term project can be
developed that require the student to progress through all
or some of these levels. (Mendelsshon & Baker, 2002).
An example would be a series of projects that examine
how good heath habits can benefit the individual, the
family unit, and the local community. This structure
could be modified for projects that foster academic
integrations and multiple levels of abstraction.
The importance of learning as play and recognizing
the role of inquiry in both play and project learning is
beginning to be recognized (Youngquist & Pataray-Ch-
ing, 2004). For young students, inquiry is an important
part of play and well-structured project experiences are
easily accepted by them. Hong and Trepanier-Street
(2004) found that even 6-year-olds quickly adapt to
technology when it is included in a project structured
around play. Since it is well established that adults
also pursue lifelong learning through the use of learn-
ing projects (Tough, 1971), the relationship of project L
learning to lifelong learning seems to be intertwined
with the idea of learning for enjoyment.
concLusIon
Despite the very real differences between these methods,
they are quite similar in purpose and intent. Students
are actively involved in directing their education. Proj-
ects relate to real-world applications as well as subject
area competencies. Problems are not neatly presented
but demand intensive study and inquiry. Teachers
are advisors and coaches rather than directors of the
activity. The most important result is the satisfaction
that a student gains from realizing that his success is
his own, and he or she has the ability to learn through
his own efforts.
Many of these applications blur the traditional dis-
tinction between the project method, project approach,
and problem based learning so that in some cases
these terms are used interchangeably (Kraft, 2000).
As these methods evolve, there is a serious need for
the profession to adopt a common lexicon. This is an
important issue. Nearly century ago, the project method
failed to reach its full potential in part because Dewey,
Kilpatrick, Prosser, and other leaders of that era could
not agree on the purpose and form of project learning
(Gordon, 2002; Knoll, 1997) This lack of definition
made it difficult to defend the method to critics and to
convince the profession that it was valuable. Except
for vocational education, project learning became a
passing fad of another century. It would be unfortunate
if the full promise of project-enhanced education had
to wait yet another generation before becoming widely
accepted.
references
Barlow, M. (1967). History of industrial education in
the United States. Peoria, IL: Chas. A Bennett Co.
Barron, B., Schwartz, D., Vye, N., Moore, A., Petrosino,
A., & Zech, L. et al. (1998). Doing with understanding:
Lessons from research on problem- and project-based
learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3/4),
271-311. Retrieved September 18, 2007, from http://
537
 Learning Through Projects

links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1050-8406%281998%297%3 Grégoire inc, R., & Laferrière, T. (1998). Collabora-

A3%2F4%3C271%3ADWULFR%3E2.0.CO%3B2- tive project-based learning with network computers: A
2 practical guide for teachers doing grassroots projects.
SchoolNet Canada. Retrieved September 18, 2007,
Bennett, C. (1926). History of manual and industrial
from http://www.tact.fse.ulaval.ca/fr/html/sites/guidep.
education up to 1870. Peoria, IL: Chas. A Bennett
html
Co.
Gordon, H. (2002). The history and growth of voca-
Bennett, C. (1937). History of manual and industrial
tional education in America (2nd ed.). Long Grove, IL:
education 1870 to 1917. Peoria, IL: Chas. A Bennett
Waveland Press.
Co.
Green, A. (1998). What is project-based learning?
Bickel, F. (1994). Student assessment: The project
San Antonio, TX: National Institute for Literacy Fel-
method revisited. The Clearing House, 68(1). Re-
lowship Project. Retrieved September 18, 2007, from
trieved September 18, 2007, from http://lynx.lib.usm.
http://members.aol.com/CulebraMom/pblprt.html
edu:2048/login?url=http://search.epnet.com/login.
aspx?direct=true&db=eric&an=EJ494456 Helle, L., Tynjala, P., Olkinuora, E., & Lonka, K.
(2006). Motivation and study processes in project
Chard, S. (2000, November 5-7). The challenges and
studies re-examined. Unpublished manuscript. Re-
the rewards: A study of teachers undertaking their first
trieved September 18, 2007, from http://www.jyu.
projects. In Proceedings of the Lilian Katz Symposium,
fi/ktl/julkaisumyynti/studies.pdf
Champaign, IL. Retrieved September 18, 2007, from
http://ceep.crc.uiuc.edu/pubs/katzsym/chard.pdf Hong, S., & Trepanier-Street, M. (2004). Technol-
ogy: A tool for knowledge construction in a Reggio
Chard, S. (2001). The project approach: Key events.
Emilia inspired teacher education program. Early
Retrieved September 18, 2007, from http://www.proj-
Childhood Education Journal, 32(2), 87-94. Re-
ect-approach.com/strategic/events.htm
trieved September 18, 2007, from http://lynx.lib.usm.
Dewey, J. (1896). The reflex arc concept in psychology. edu:2048/login?url=http://search.epnet.com/login.
(Reprinted from Psychological Review, 3, 357-370). aspx?direct=true&db=aph&an=14841899
Retrieved September 18, 2007, from http://evans-ex-
Hosic, J. (1918). An outline of the problem-project
perientialism.freewebspace.com/dewey03.htm
method. The English Journal, 7(9), 599-603. Re-
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education (chap. trieved September 18, 2007, from http://links.jstor.
15). Retrieved September 18, 2007, from http://www. org/sici?sici=0013-8274%28191811%297%3A9%3
worldwideschool.org/library/books/socl/education/De- C599%3AAOOTPM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-V
mocracyandEducation/chap15.html
Howell, R., & Mordini, R. (2003). The project method
Dutson, A., Todd, R., Magleby, S., & Sorensen, C. increases student learning and interest. Tech Directions,
(1997). A review of literature on teaching engineer- 62(8), 31-34.
ing design through project-oriented capstone courses.
James, W. (1899). Talks to teachers (chap. 10). Re-
Journal of Engineering Education, 86(1), 17-28.
trieved September 18, 2007, from http://www.des.
Ediger, M. (1999). Issues in appraising achieve- emory.edu/mfp/tt10.html
ment. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
Katz, L. (1994). The project approach. Retrieved
ED427089). Retrieved September 18, 2007, from http://
September 18, 2007, from http://ceep.crc.uiuc.edu/
eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_stor-
eecearchive/digests/1994/lk-pro94.html
age_01/0000000b/80/11/4b/73.pdf
Katz, L.G., & Chard, S.C. (1989). Engaging children’s
Fleming, D. (2000). A teacher’s guide to project-based
minds: The project approach. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED469734) Kilpatrick, W. (1918). The project method. Teachers
College Record, 19, 319-334.

538
Learning Through Projects
Knoll, M. (1997). The project method: Its vocational
education origin and international development. Jour-
nal of Industrial Teacher Edcuation, 34(3). Retrieved
September 18, 2007, from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/
ejournals/JITE/v34n3/jite-v34n3.contents.html
Kraft, T. (2000). The benefits of a project approach to
automotive instruction. Tech Directions, 59(6), 24-26.
Retrieved September 18, 2007, from http://lynx.lib.usm.
edu:2048/login?url=http://search.epnet.com/login.
aspx?direct=true&db=aph&an=2753015
Mchitarjan, I. (2000). John Dewey and the development
of education in Russia before 1930: Report on a forgotten
reception. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 19(1),
109-131. Retrieved September 18, 2007, from http://
www.springerlink.com/(xvryvvrkyhtz4si2p15hca45)/
app/home/contribution.asp
Miall, D. (1999). The project method in the literature
classroom. In L. Reid & Golub (Eds), Reflective activi-
ties helping students connect with text (pp. 149-155).
National Council of Teachers of English. Retrieved
September 18, 2007, from http://www.ualberta.
ca/~dmiall/Projects_class.htm
Moore, G. (1988). The forgotten leader in agricultural
education: Rufus W. Stimson. The Journal of the Ameri-
can Association of Teacher Educators in Agriculture,
29(3), 50-58. Retrieved September 18, 2007, from http://
pubs.aged.tamu.edu/jae/pdf/Vol29/29-03-50.pdf
Page, D. (2006). 25 tools, technologies, and best
practices. T.H.E. Journal Technological Horizons in
Education, 3. Retrieved September 18, 2007, from
http://www.thejournal.com/articles/18042/
Peirce, C. (1878). How to make our ideas clear. Re-
trieved September 18, 2007, from http://www.peirce.
org/writings/p119.html
Penuel, B., Korbak, C., Yarnall, L., & Pacpaco, R.
(2001). Silicon Valley challenge 2000: Year five mul-
timedia project report (SRI project 7970). Retrieved
September 18, 2007, from http://pblmm.k12.ca.us/sri/
ReportsPDFFiles/MMPY5rpt.pdf
Richards, C.R. (1900). Hand work in the Horace Mann
school: The function of hand work in the school. Teach-
ers College Record, 1(5), 249-259. Retrieved September
18, 2007, from http://www.tcrecord.org
Roark, M. (1925). Is the project method a contribu-
tion? Peabody Journal of Education, 2(4), 197-204. L
Retrieved September 18, 2007, from http://links.jstor.
org/sici?sici=0161-956X%28192501%292%3A4%3
C197%3AITPMAC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-J
Runkle, J. (1876). The manual element in education.
Forty-first annual report of the board of education,
state of Massachusetts. In C. Bennett (Ed.), History
of manual and industrial education 1870 to 1917 (pp.
340-346). Peoria, IL: Chas. A. Bennett Co.
Simkins, M. (2001). Project based learning with mul-
timedia: An overview. Retrieved September 18, 2007,
from http://pblmm.k12.ca.us/overview/25800/index.
html
Simkins, M., Cole, K., Tavalin, F., & Means, B. (2002).
Increasing student learning through multimedia proj-
ects. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Tate, H. (1936). An evaluation of the project method.
The Elementary School Journal, 37(2), 122-132. Re-
trieved September 18, 2007, from http://links.jstor.
org/sici?sici=0013-5984%28193610%2937%3A2%3
C122%3AAEOTPM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-6
Tough, A. (1971). The adult’s learning projects: A
fresh approach to theory and practice in adult learn-
ing. Retrieved September 18, 2007, from http://ieti.
org/tough/books/alp.htm
Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia:
A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Waks, L. (1997). The project method in postindustrial
education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 29(4), Re-
trieved September 18, 2007, from http://lynx.lib.usm.
edu:2048/login?url=http://search.epnet.com/login.
aspx?direct=true&db=afh&an=7617083
Wolk, S. (1994). Project-based learning: Pursuits with
a purpose. Educational Leadership, 52(3), 42-45. Re-
trieved September 18, 2007, from http://lynx.lib.usm.
edu:2048/login?url=http://search.epnet.com/login.
aspx?direct=true&db=eric&an=EJ492911
Woodward, C. (1903). A new era in the public schools
of St. Louis. The School Review, 11(6), 486-494. Re-
trieved September 18, 2007, from http://links.jstor.
org/sici?sici=0036-6773%28190306%2911%3A6%3
C486%3AANEITP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-G
539

Woodward, C. (1906). Address of the president of the
American association for the advancement of science.
The science of education. Science, 24(626), 833-845.
Retrieved September 18, 2007, from http://links.jstor.
org/sici?sici=0036-8075%2819061228%293%3A24%
3A626%3C833%3AAOTPOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-7
Youngquist, J., & Pataray-Ching, J. (2004). Revisit-
ing play: Analyzing and articulating acts of inquiry.
Early Childhood Education Journal, 31(3), 171-178.
Retrieved September 18, 2007, from http://lynx.lib.usm.
edu:2048/login?url=http://search.epnet.com/login.
aspx?direct=true&db=aph&an=11980134
Yun, E. (2000, November 5-7). The project approach
as a way of making life meaningful in the classroom.
In Proceedings of the Lilian Katz Symposium, Cham-
paign, IL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED470896)
540
Learning Through Projects
key terms
Authentic Assessment: A type of evaluation that
closely mirrors the standards and conditions that will
be encountered when competencies are applied outside
of the formal educational system
Formative Assessment: Evaluative measures col-
lected during an instructional program that allow for
changes to be made in that program prior to the end of
instructional program.
Learning Project: Projects that are begun by adults
in the pursuit of self improvement.
Project Approach: Instruction that is structured
around activities that channels student interest through
field experiences and inquiries into the subject. The
resulting artifacts are collected into a summary prod-
uct. The project is supplemental to the traditional
curriculum.
Project Based Learning: Instruction based on
broadly defined projects that include simulated ex-
periences and scenarios in addition to or in place of
laboratory and field experiences.
Project Method: Instruction centered on a project
that reinforces previously developed subject area com-
petencies and results in a tangible object. The project
may be embedded into the curriculum or assigned as
a summary experience.
Systemic: Affecting all parts of a system.