ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which three teachers’ professional experience and existing orientations toward teaching and learning mathematics and science influenced their implementation of a project-based curriculum (i.e. project-based learning (PBL)). Data sources included interviews, videotapes of classroom activity, and a teaching philosophy questionnaire. Data analysis was conducted using an iterative coding technique. We found coherency between the teachers’ perceived orientations and their emergent ideas about PBL, their sense of PBL as being compatible with their goals, and the specific challenges with which they struggled. All the teachers wanted their students to be successful; however, different definitions of success led to quite different approaches toward teaching, and for the most part, these differences appeared to have occurred because of existing orientations the teachers held for teaching their discipline. Implications for professional development taking into account teachers’ orientations and thus their professional experience are discussed, as well as disciplinary challenges to using PBL.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abell, S. K. (2007). Research on science teacher knowledge. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 1105–1149). Oxford, England: Taylor & Francis.
Abell, S. K. & Bryan, L. S. (1997). Reconceptualizing the elementary science methods course using a reflection orientation. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 8, 153–166.
Aikenhead, G. & Ryan, A. (1992). The development of a new instrument: Views on science–technology–society. Science & Education, 76, 477–491.
Ambrose, R. (2004). Initiating change in prospective elementary school teachers’ orientations to mathematics teaching by building on beliefs. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7, 91–119.
Ball, D. L. & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is—or might be—the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6–8. 14.
Ball, D., Lubienski, S. & Mewborn, D. (2001). Research on teaching mathematics: The unsolved problem of teachers’ mathematical knowledge. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 433–456). New York: Macmillan.
Blumenfeld, P., Soloway, C., Marx, R., Krajcik, J., Guzdial, M. & Palinscar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26, 369–398.
Borko, H. & Livingston, C. (1989). Cognition and improvisation: Differences in mathematics instruction by expert and novice teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 473–498.
Borko, H. & Putnam, R. T. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 673–708). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 509–535). London: Sage.
Chazan, D. & Ball, D. L. (1995). Beyond being told not to tell. For the Learning of Mathematics, 19(2), 2–10.
Cooney, T., Shealy, B. & Arvold, B. (1998). Conceptualizing belief structures of preservice secondary mathematics teachers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(3), 306–333.
Friedrichsen, P. J., Abell, S. K., Pareja, E. M., Brown, P. L., Lankford, D. M. & Volkmann, M. J. (2009). Does teaching experience matter? Examining biology teachers’ prior knowledge for teaching in an alternative certification program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 357–383.
Geier, R., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., et al. (2008). Standardized test outcomes for students engaged in inquiry-based science curricula in the context of urban reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 922–939.
Grier, J. M. & Johnston, C. C. (2009). An inquiry into the development of teacher identities in STEM career changers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20, 57–75.
Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Henningsen, M. & Stein, M. K. (1997). Mathematical tasks and student cognition: Classroom-based factors that support and inhibit high-level mathematical thinking and reasoning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(5), 524–549.
Hill, H. C., Ball, D. L., Sleep, L. & Lewis, J. M. (2007). Assessing teachers’ mathematical knowledge: What knowledge matters and what evidence counts? In F. Lester (Ed.), Handbook for research on mathematics education (pp. 111–155). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Hill, H. C., Rowan, B. & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 371–406.
Ineke, H., van Driel, J. & Verloop, N. (2007). Science teachers’ knowledge about teaching models and modeling in the context of a new syllabus on public understanding of science. Research in Science Education, 37, 99–122.
Klymchuk, S., Zverkova, T., Gruenwald, N. & Sauerbier, G. (2008). Increasing engineering students’ awareness to environment through innovative teaching of mathematical modeling. Teaching Mathematics and its Applications: An International Journal of the IMA, 27(3), 123–130.
Krajcik, J. S., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W. & Soloway, E. (1994). A collaborative model for helping middle grade science teachers learn project-based instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 94, 483–497.
Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J. & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 95–132). Boston: Kluwer.
Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Ravitz, J. L., Becker, H. J. & Wong, Y. (2000). Constructivist compatible beliefs and practices among U.S. Teachers. Teaching, learning, and computing: 1998 (National Survey Report #4). Center for Research on Information technology and Organizations. University of California, Irvine and University of Minnesota. Available at http://www.crito.uci.edu/TLC/FINDINGS/REPORT4/startpage.html
Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 102–119). New York: Macmillan.
Rivet, A. E. & Krajcik, J. S. (2004). Achieving standards in urban systemic reform: An example of a sixth grade project-based science curriculum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 669–692.
Rivet, A. E. & Krajcik, J. S. (2008). Contextualizing instruction: Leveraging students’ prior knowledge and experiences to foster understanding in middle school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 79–100.
Rosenfeld, M. & Rosenfeld, S. (2006). Understanding teacher responses to constructivist learning environments: Challenges and resolutions. Science & Education, 90, 385–399.
Rubin, B. C. & Silva, E. M. (Eds.). (2003). Critical voices in school reform: Students living through change. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Schwartz, D. L. & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 475–523.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Shulman, L. (1988). The dangers in dichotomous thinking in education. In P. Grimmet & G. Erickson (Eds.), Reflection in teacher education (pp. 31–39). New York: Teachers College Press.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1999). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In A. Bryman & R. G. Burgess (Eds.), Qualitative research (pp. 129–183). London: Sage.
Volkmann, M. J., Abell, S. K. & Zgagacz, M. (2005). The challenges of teaching physics to preservice elementary teachers: Orientations of the professor, teaching assistant, and students. Science & Education, 89, 847–869.
Whilhelm, J., Sherrod, S. & Walters, K. (2008). Project-based learning environments: Challenging preservice teachers to act in the moment. Journal of Educational Research, 101, 220–233.
Wilson, S., Floden, R. & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2002). Teacher preparation research: An insider’s view from the outside. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 190–204.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rogers, M.A.P., Cross, D.I., Gresalfi, M.S. et al. FIRST YEAR IMPLEMENTATION OF A PROJECT-BASED LEARNING APPROACH: THE NEED FOR ADDRESSING TEACHERS’ ORIENTATIONS IN THE ERA OF REFORM. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 9, 893–917 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9248-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9248-x