The

digital revolution has fundamentally altered our relationship with information

and thus changed our economic and social lives. It is the charge of educators and the
educational system as a whole to adopt and implement structures and practices that extol
the skills and cognitive processes necessitated by the 21st century. The abilities to be
flexible critical thinkers and to effectively function in a group to solve problems are skills
paramount for the future success of our students (P21, 2014; Cone, 2001; Waks, 1997). One
remedy, albeit not new, is the adoption of Project-Based Learning, or PBL. This pedagogical
method is characterized by engaging students in a collaborative effort in uncovering
complex real world issues over an extended period of time, while demanding that learners
think critically and communicate effectively to a broadened audience (Lattimer, 2011). Not
without its obstacles, research centered on PBL has shown to increase student engagement,
communication skills, content retention, and cognitive abilities such as evaluation,
synthesis and critical thinking (Blumenfeld, 1991; Cone, 2001; Fernandes, 2013;
Hernandez, 2009; Lattimer, 2011, Moylan, 2008). By leveraging 21st century technologies,
educators are better equipped and responsible for shifting from a teacher-centric model of
knowledge transmission to a more student-driven collaborative process of learning,
Project-Based Learning.
History of Project-Based Learning

Project-Based Learning as a term is relatively new to the educators lexicon, but its
philosophical foundations are not. John Dewey, a progressive reformer of the early 20th
century, pointed to the disconnect between the needs of an industrial society and the skills
taught in the one-room school house, arguing that learning must be an active process
relevant to the world of the learner; he further stipulates that human knowledge

accumulates from an active process and that a students concept of reality comes by way of
individual and social experiences (Ultanir, 2012; Waks, 1997). This revolutionary idea
serves as the anchor for modern-day PBL instruction, which positions the role of the
teacher in the construction, organization, and guidance of pupils through the learning
experience. William H. Kilpatrick, a pupil of Dewey, proposed a curriculum centered on
what he dubbed the project method, stating that learning activities, specific in purpose,
should be started and regulated by the learner within a social context (Waks, 1997). This is
echoed, if not cemented, by the learning theory presented by Jean Piaget, Constructivism.
Constructivism has become a driving educational philosophy in which the individual
constructs their own understanding from new experiences in relation to prior knowledge
and understanding. PBL is, in short, a Constructivist pedagogy (Hernandez, 2009; Moylan,
2008). PBL and Constructivism have only been made more applicable to the learning
environment by the ushering in of the Internet age.
The Internet of Things
The digital age has afforded our young learners with the ability to access
information and have learning experiences, albeit simulated, outside the traditional brick
and mortar school house. The omnipresence of connection may help in blurring the
distinction between informal out-of-school skills and those traditionally fostered within the
school setting. Adolescents are currently engaging in the non-traditional literacies found
throughout Web 2.0, in which youth, are not solely regulated to the role of consumer, but
that of active producers (Morrel, 2002; VanderArk, 2013). Educators can better leverage
the funds of knowledge and skill sets held by their students by designing curriculum that
bridges and transports student engagement, knowledge, and learning between the two

realms (Alvermann, 2010; Ito, 2010). The use of digital tools enables the
decompartmentalization of learning, taking the learning process from being tethered to a
physical location or person towards a broader understanding of when and where learning
can take place.
The freedom and speed of access to information, in addition to perforating the
barriers between in-school and non-school skills and understandings, has also altered the
hierarchical structure of the 20th century classroom. Textbook and teacher are being
displaced as the silos of knowledge, allowing young learners to be active participants in
their own knowledge acquisition and meaning making (Cone, 2001; Jenkins, 2006). It is not
that the occupation of educator is being dismantled, but rather the teachers role in the
classroom is being repositioned; the teacher is transitioning from one being central to the
transmission of knowledge to being a conductor of learning experiences. This shift in
pedagogy, one that values the learning experiences over the outcome and that utilizes 21st
century tools, increase the ability and possibility for young learners to delve into more
meaningful and real world applicable learning (Berger, 2013; Hernandez, 2009; VanderArk,
2013). Additionally, access to the world wide web broadens a pupils peer group, their
exposure to content experts, and the audience with whom they communicate; all of these
are experiences that align themselves with authentic Constructivist theory and the tenants
of PBL.
Positive Outcomes

PBL, one of many responses to the demands of the 21st century education, attempts

to mimic the world students will inhabit, where they must be able to identify and solve real
world problems. There are numerous manifestations of Project-Based Learning some are

individual in focus while others require group participation for completing a larger task.
Projects may also vary in levels of student autonomy, with the overarching goal being for
pupils to take complete control of their own learning by generating student-driven
questions, project design, and culminating artifacts. Depending on student ability,
background knowledge, and prior exposure to PBL, teacher-created projects accompanied
with appropriate scaffolding may be utilized initially to bridge that gap for those students
who are new to PBL (Larmer, 2016). Student engagement, content retention, and the
ability to effectively collaborate are all thought to be areas that benefit from proper PBL
implementation.
Student Engagement
Implementation of PBL has been shown to increase student engagement,
communication skills, and elements of cognition such critical thinking and problem solving,
while affording students with opportunities to practice their metacognitive abilities, like
planning and organization (Blumenfeld, 1991; Cone, 2001; Dole, 2016; Fernandes, 2013;
Hernandez, 2009; Lattimer, 2011; Moylan, 2008). Students engaged in effective PBL are
encouraged to explore their interests and their real world curiosities as an authentic means
of academic engagement. By affording young learners the opportunity to take control of
their own learning, the learners begin to see more value in it and begin to perceive
themselves as professionals in the field of inquiry, as this control directly relates to them
owning their experience (Fernandes, 2013; Moylan, 2008). PBL projects have resulted in an
increase in student motivation and self-efficacy (Chen, 2015). Once students are properly
motivated to engage in rigorous tasks, seeing the process as a benefit to themselves, then
deeper learning may take place.

Knowledge Retention
By creating learning experiences that position the student as an active participant in
their own knowledge creation there is evidence to suggest an increase in content
knowledge and retention (Hernandez, 2009; Karacalli, 2014). The PBL method of
instruction affords young learners with the opportunity to grapple with complex realworld issues over an extended period of time. The flexibility and rigor provided by PBL,
through the lens of Constructivism, immerses the student in a process of adaption where
they are tasked with negotiating their existing knowledge with new stimuli in an attempt to
find equilibrium (McLeod, 2015). It is through this progression of intellectual stages that
students form their own understanding, a process that is aided by peer-to-peer interaction.
Collaboration
In a collaborative setting, students ideally take responsibility, not only of their own
learning, but for the benefit of the group as a whole. Lev Vygotskys Social Constructivist
Theory stipulates that social interaction is paramount in the process of learning, as
individuals whittle and build understanding in relation to the perspectives of others
(Valcke, 2009). In order for the collaborative process to be fruitful, students must acquire
the social skills for navigating a joint task, the basis of which is effective communication.
Collaborative learning experiences encourage students to be active participants in their
own learning and necessitate the ability to effectively communicate (Cone, 2001). This
exchange of understanding is not solely regulated to the presentation of accumulated
knowledge, but throughout the learning process, as meaning is being co-constructed by the
group. When PBL is implemented effectively, students have shown an increased ability to
synthesize, analyze, and interpret content illustrating a deeper mastery of 21st century

skills (Lattimer, 2011; Hernandez, 2009). Collaborative investigations aid the creation of
productive social friction, in which individual understanding is converted into communal
knowledge, demanding cognitive functions beyond rote memorization and recitation of
facts.
Challenges for PBL Implementation

PBL challenges the educational system as a whole to shift in its form and function as

we endeavor to provide students with the skills and knowledge needed in the 21st century.
Such an enterprise is not without impediments; institutions, teachers, and students must
evolve to accommodate the shift from isolated classroom environments, where teachers do
the majority of cognition, to classrooms linked to the outside world by use of digital tools
and students are active agents in their own learning (Boss, 2012; Bagley, 1994; Blumenfeld,
1991; Ertmer, 2009). The roles of both teacher and student are to be altered, a process that
demands a flexibility not always present in the traditional classroom as it relates to
structures of power, assessment, and pacing
Changing Roles

For tech-abled PBL there must be an initial investment in current and relevant

technologic infrastructure. Without teacher training and buy-in, however, the physical
technology alone will not elicit positive academic outcomes for students. It is not the tool
itself that changes the classroom dynamic and function, but rather how educators choose to
embrace and implement the tool that either aids or hinders student engagement and their
opportunities for learning (Boss, 2012; Zhao, 2002). As the roles of teacher and student
shift from a relationship of one-way transmission to one of active guidance and
participation, frustration often occurs as educators and students grow into their new roles

(Blumenfeld, 1991; Ertmer, 2009). In dismantling the lectern as a barrier, educators must
become more comfortable with working alongside students, giving up what might be
perceived control of content distribution (Bagley, 1994; Thomas, 2000; Yeung, 2008). Just
as PBL demands a restructuring of the functions and social hierarchies in the classroom,
there must also be a shift in how teachers and students measure learning.
Learning Focus and Assessment
In the era of high-stakes testing, the measuring of student content gains became the
focus at the expense of authentic experiences that foster deeper learning. Both educator
and student need to move from the industrial focus of task completion towards an
emphasis on the learning process itself (Bagley, 1994; Lattimer, 2011). The learning that
takes place within the PBL framework demands a different, if not more complex, means of
performance assessment, partially due to the freedom afforded to students in how they
make their learning visible (Bagley, 1994; Blumenfeld, 1991; Boss, 2012; Ertmer, 2009;
Piper, 2012; Przybysz-Zaremba, 2015). This increased complexity stems from the need for
educators to fairly ascertain the learning that takes place through a collaborative process,
in addition to evaluating individual students against content standards. Providing
meaningful feedback, while the individual or group negotiate long-term inquiries, is a time
consuming process, which unfortunately does not necessarily align itself with the
mechanical pacing manifested in the current educational system.
Pacing

The pacing required for PBL to flourish is more fluid than the drill and kill model of
instruction, partly due the inability of educators to accurately predict the amount of time
needed for pupils to complete more open-ended collaborative research projects
(Blumenfeld, 1991; Ertmer, 2009). Instructors must be less concerned with rigid pacing so
students can truly own, organize, and carry out their learning, while at the same time
holding students accountable (Yeung, 2008). Students must also learn how to learn
through this more autonomous process, understanding that the resulting artifact is less
important than the practice of creating it (Dole, 2016; Fernandes, 2013). 21st century
digital tools allow for the implementation of authentic Constructivist pedagogies, like
Project-Based Learning, but both learner and teacher must accept and embrace their new
roles for the process to be effective.

References
Alvermann, D. E. (2010). Adolescents' online literacies: Connecting classrooms, digital media,
and popular culture. New York: Peter Lang.
Azzam, A. (2014). Motivated to Learn: A Conversation with Daniel Pink. Educational
Leadership, 72(1), 12-17. Retrieved April 27, 2015, from
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educationalleadership/sept14/vol72/num01/
Motivated-to-Learn@-A-Conversation-with-Daniel-Pink.aspx
Bagley, C. A., & And, O. (1994). The Shared-Ownership Technology Model: Restructuring
the Classroom.
Berger, R.(2013, January 3). Deeper Learning Highlighting Student Work. Retrieved
April 14, 2015 from http://www.edutopia.org/blog/deeper-learning-student-workron-berger
Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991).
Motivating Project-Based Learning: Sustaining the Doing, Supporting the Learning.
Educational Psychologist, 26(3/4), 369.
Boss, S. (2012). The Challenge of Assessing Project-Based Learning. District Administration,
48(9), 46-50,.
Bullock, D. K. (2013). Real world engagement: A case study of a teacher's implementation of
project based learning in social studies (Order No. 3575603). (1459432344).
Retrieved fro http://search.proquest.com/docview/1459432344?accountid=8064
Chen, P., Hernandez, A., & Dong, J. (2015). Impact of Collaborative Project-Based Learning
on Self-Efficacy of Urban Minority Students in Engineering. Journal Of Urban
Learning, Teaching, And Research, 1126-39.

Cone, D. (2001). Active learning: the key to our future. Journal Of Family & Consumer
Sciences, 93(4), 19-21.
Dole, S., Bloom, L., & Kowalske, K. (2016). Transforming Pedagogy: Changing Perspectives
from Teacher-Centered to Learner-Centered. Interdisciplinary Journal Of ProblemBased Learning, 10(1),
Ertmer, P. A., Glazewski, K. D., Jones, D., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Goktas, Y., Collins, K., &
Kocaman, A. (2009). Facilitating Technology-Enhanced Problem-Based Learning
(PBL) in the Middle School Classroom: An Examination of How and Why Teachers
Adapt. Journal Of Interactive Learning Research, 20(1), 35-54.
Fernandes, S., Mesquita, D., Flores, M. A., & Lima, R. M. (2014). Engaging students in
learning: findings from a study of project-led education. European Journal Of
Engineering Education, 39(1), 55-67. doi:10.1080/03043797.2013.833170
Framework for 21st Century Learning - P21. (n.d.). Retrieved June 12, 2016, from
http://www.p21.org/our-work/p21-framework
Hernandez-Ramos, P., & De La Paz, S. (2009). Learning History in Middle School by
Designing Multimedia in a Project-Based Learning Experience. Journal Of Research On
Technology In Education, 42(2), 151-173.
It, M. (2010). Hanging out, messing around, and geeking out: Kids living and learning with
new media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jenkins, H., & John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur, F. (2006). Confronting the Challenges of
Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. An Occasional Paper on
Digital Media and Learning. John D. And Catherine T. Macarthur Foundation,

JACOBS, G. E. (2012). The Proverbial Rock and Hard Place: The Realities and Risks of
Teaching in a World of Multiliteracies, Participatory Culture, and Mandates. Journal
Of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(2), 98-102.
Karaalli, S., & Korur, F. (2014). The Effects of Project-Based Learning on Students'
Academic Achievement, Attitude, and Retention of Knowledge: The Subject of
'Electricity in Our Lives'. School Science & Mathematics, 114(5), 224-235.
doi:10.1111/ssm.12071
Lattimer, H., & Riordan, R. (2011). Project-Based Learning Engages Students in Meaningful
Work. Middle School Journal (J3), 43(2), 18-23.
Larmer, John. (2016, Jan 29). Gold Standard PBL: Scaffold Student Learning [Web log post].
Retrieved from http://bie.org/blog/gold_standard_pbl_scaffold_student_learning
Lee, D., Huh, Y., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2015). Collaboration, Intragroup Conflict, and Social
Skills in Project-Based Learning. Instructional Science: An International Journal Of
The Learning Sciences, 43(5), 561-590.
Losh, E., & Jenkins, H. (2012). CAN PUBLIC EDUCATION COEXIST WITH
PARTICIPATORY CULTURE?. Knowledge Quest, 41(1), 16-21.
McLeod, S. A. (2015). Jean Piaget. Retrieved from www.simplypsychology.org/piaget.html
Mission Statement - Helix Charter High School. (n.d.). Retrieved May 29, 2016, from

http://www.helixcharter.net/about-hchs/mission-statement.

Morrell, E. (2002). Toward a critical pedagogy of popular culture: Literacy development
among urban youth. Journal Of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 46(1), 72.
Moylan, W. A. (2008). Learning by Project: Developing Essential 21st Century Skills Using
Student Team Projects. International Journal Of Learning, 15(9), 287-292.

Piper, K. (2012, September 18). Practical PBL: The Ongoing Challenges of Assessment.
Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/blog/practical-pbl-challenges-ofassessment-katherine-piper
Przybysz-Zaremba, M. m., Rimknien, D. d., Vasilien-Vasiliauskien, V. v., & Butvilas, T. t.
(2015). PROJECT-BASED LEARNING: THE COMPLEXITY, BENEFITS, AND
CHALLENGES WITHIN 21ST CENTURY EDUCATION. Journal Of Educational Review,
8(2), 211-215.
School Accountability Report Card. (n.d.). Retrieved February 15, 2015, from
http://www.sarconline.org/Sarc/About/37681303732732
Thomas, J.W. (2000), A review of research on project- based learning. The Autodesk
Foundation: San Rafael, CA.
ltanir, E. e. (2012). AN EPISTEMOLOGICAL GLANCE AT THE CONSTRUCTIVIST
APPROACH: CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING IN DEWEY, PIAGET, AND MONTESSORI.
International Journal Of Instruction, 5(2), 195-212.
Valcke, M., De Wever, B., Zhu, C., & Deed, C. (2009). Supporting active cognitive
processing in collaborative groups: The potential of Blooms taxonomy as a labeling
tool.Internet and Higher Education, 12, 165-172.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.08.003
VanderArk, T., & Schneider, C. (2013, December 13). How Digital Learning
Contributes to Deeper Learning. Retrieved April 16, 2015, from
http://gettingsmart.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Digital-Learning-
Deeper-Learning-Full-White-Paper.pdf

Waks, L. J. (1997). The project method in postindustrial education. Journal Of Curriculum

Studies, 29(4), 391-406. doi:10.1080/002202797183964
Yeung, B. (2008, September 3rd). Put to the Test: Confronting Concerns about Project
Learning. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/project-learning-implementingchallenges-questions
Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., & Sheldon, S. (2002). Conditions for classroom technology innovations.
Teachers College Record, 104(3), 482-515. doi:10.1111/1467-9620.00170