Abstract
To investigate any possible differences in student engagement between project-based learning units and non-project–based learning units, this triangulation design-convergence mixed methods study followed a grade 10 teacher and her students as they completed science units on chemistry, aquaponics, and genetics. Student engagement was measured in multiple ways using observed on-task behaviour, student perception surveys, and student interviews. Results reveal significant differences in observed on-task behaviour between project-based and non-project–based activities. However, student perceptions of engagement did not significantly improve with project-based learning. Instead, student perceptions of civic engagement emerged as a critical point of examination.
Résumé
Afin d’analyser les différences possibles, dans le degré d’engagement des étudiants, entre les unités d’apprentissage par projet et les unités qui ne sont pas fondées sur des projets, cette étude de triangulation des approches (design, convergence, mixte) a suivi une enseignante de 10ième année et ses étudiants qui complétaient des unités d’apprentissage scientifique en chimie, en aquaponie et en génétique. On a mesuré l’engagement des étudiants de multiples façons : observation des comportements pendant les tâches, enquêtes sur la perception des étudiants et entrevues d’étudiants. Les résultats révèlent des différences significatives dans les comportements pendant les tâches entre les activités d’apprentissage par projets et les autres activités. Toutefois, la perception qu’ont les étudiants de leur propre engagement ne présente aucune amélioration significative lors d’activités d’apprentissage par projets, alors que leur perception de l’engagement civique ressort comme point critique d’analyse.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Originally, 12 students were involved; however, 1 student withdrew from the project part way through and all data related to this student were destroyed.
Researching, questioning, critiquing, real-world connections, and collaborating.
Each lesson lasted for approximately 80 min.
Students were given three possible questions for each unit of study during the Science 10 course. They were randomly asked one of the three when they started the interview. These questions were open-ended requiring students to apply knowledge to provide specific recommendations and detailed explanations. Students were given multiple lessons to research and prepare for the questions and they were allowed to bring in their notes to the interview. Throughout the interview, the teacher asked many questions to clarify answers and have students explain their thinking. The teacher commented that it was very easy to identify those students who had done their own preparation and knew the content as they were able to answer her clarifying extension questions. Those that had not were not able to explain their thinking.
References
Al-Balushi, S.M., & Al-Aamri, S.S. (2014). The effect of environmental science projects on students’ environmental knowledge and science attitudes. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 23(3), 213-227.
Allen, C. (2015). PBL planning guide: A planning, resource, and reference companion to the Intro to PBL workshop. Seattle: PBL Consulting, Inc.
Bajko, R., Hodson, J., Seaborn, K., Livingstone, P., & Fels, D. (2016). . Edugamifying Media Studies: Student Engagement, Enjoyment, and Interest in Two Multimedia and Social Media Undergraduate Classrooms. Information Systems Education Journal, 14(6), 55-72.
Beckett, G. H., Hemmings, A., Maltbie, C., Wright, K., Sherman, M., & Sersion, B. (2016). Urban high school student engagement through CincySTEM iTEST projects. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25, 995–1007.
Bernstein, R.J. (1998). Community in the pragmatic tradition. In M. Dickstein’s (Ed.) The revival of pragmatism: New essays on social thought, law, and culture. Duke University Press, Durham, pp 141–156.
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, 369–398.
Boaler, J. (1998). Open and Closed Mathematics: Student Experiences and Understandings. Journal For Research In Mathematics Education, 29(1), 41.
Christenson, S., Reschly, A., & Wylie, C. (2012). Handbook of research on student engagement. New York: Springer.
Coles, P., Cox, T., Mackey, C., & Richardson, S., (2006). The toxic terabyte: How data-dumping threatens business efficiency. IBM Global Technology Services, July 2016. Retrieved June 12, 2018 from http://www-935.ibm.com/services/no/cio/leverage/levinfo_wp_gts_thetoxic.pdf. Accessed July 2017.
Creswell, J.W., & Plano Clark, V.L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed-methods research (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Adamson, F. (2015). Beyond the bubble test: How performance assessments support 21st century learning. Toronto: Jossey-Bass.
Dewey, J. (1916/1966). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: Free Press.
Fischer, C. (2013). Project- Based Learning. Research Starters: Education (Online Edition).
Fensham, P. (2006). Research and boosting science learning: Diagnosis and potential solutions. https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=research_conference_2006. Accessed July 2017.
Fitzgerald A. (2012) Teaching for student engagement in science. In A. Fitzgerald’s (Ed.) Science in primary schools (pp. 34–52). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Fogleman, J., McNeill, K.L., & Krajcik, J. (2011). Examining the effect of teachers’ adaptations of a middle school science inquiry-oriented curriculum unit on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(2), 149–169.
Greene, J.C., Caracelli, V.J., & Graham, W.F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255–274.
Gupta, M., & Pandey, J. (2016). Impact of Student Engagement on Affective Learning: Evidence from a Large Indian University. Current Psychology, 37(1), 414-421.
Halliday, S., Calkins, S., & Leerkes, E. (2018). Measuring preschool learning engagement in the laboratory. Journal Of Experimental Child Psychology, 167, 93-116. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2017.10.006
Hassard, J. (2008). The art of teaching science: Inquiry and innovation in middle school and high school. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hugerat, M. (2016). How teaching science using project-based learning strategies affects the classroom learning environment. Learning Environments Research, 19, 383–395.
Kassab, S., Abu-Hijleh, M., Al-Shboul, Q., & Hamdy, H. (2005). Gender related differences in learning in student-led PBL tutorials. Education for Health, 18, 272-282.
Kilgore, D., Atman, C.J., Yasuhara, K., Barker, T.J., & Morozov, A. (2007). Considering context: A study of first-year engineering students: Research brief. Journal of Engineering Education, 96, 321-334.
Kokotsaki, D., Menzies, V., & Wiggins, A. (2016). Project based learning: A review of the literature. Improving schools, 19, 267-277.
Krajcik, J.S., & Blumenfeld, P. (2006). Project based learning. In R.K. Sawyer’s (Ed.) Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Science (pp. 317–333). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lewis, S., Freed, R., Heller, N., & Birch, G. (2015). Does Student Engagement Affect Learning? An Empirical Investigation of Student Involvement Theory. Academy Of Business Research Journal, 2.
Liu, M. (2004). Examining the performance and attitudes of sixth graders during their use of a problem-based hypermedia learning environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 20, 357–379.
Mark, M.M., & Shotland, R.L. (1987). Alternative models for the use of multiple methods. In M.M. Mark & R.L. Shotland’s (Eds.), Multiple methods in program evaluation: New directions for program evaluation 35 (pp.95-100). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Mathison, S., (1988). Why triangulate? Educational Researcher, 17(2), 13-17.
Mioduser, D., & Betzer, N. (2007). The contribution of project-based-learning to high-achievers’ acquisition of technological knowledge and skills. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 18(1), 59–77.
Moiser, G., Bradley-Levine, J., & Perkins, T. (2016). Student Perceptions of Project Based Learning within the New Tech School Model. International Journal Of Educational Reform, 25(1), 1–14.
Saito, A. (2017). Measurement and Analysis of Student (Dis)engagement in Higher Education: A Preliminary Study. IAFOR Journal Of Education, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.22492/ije.5.2.01.
Sammel, A., Townend, G., & Kanasa, H. (2018). Hidden Expectations Behind the Promise of the Flipped Classroom. College Teaching, 66(2), 49-59.
Tauro, F., Cha, Y., Rahim, F., Rahul, M.S., Osman, K., Halim, L. et al. (2017a). Integrating mechatronics in project-based learning of Malaysian high school students and teachers. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education, 45, 297–320.
Tauro, F., Piscopia, R., & Grimaldi, S. (2017b). Streamflow observations from cameras: Large-scale particle image velocimetry or particle tracking velocimetry? Water Resources Research, 53, 10374–10394.
Taylor, L. & Parsons, J. (2011). Improving Student Engagement. Current Issues in Education, 14(1), 1–18. Retrieved from https://cie.asu.edu/ojs/index.php/cieatasu/article/view/745. Accessed July 2017.
Thijs, J., & Verkuyten, M. (2009). Students’ anticipated situational engagement: The roles of teacher behaviour, personal engagement, and gender. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 170, 268-286.
Vaz, R.F., Quinn, P, Heinricher, A.C., & Rissmiller, K.J. (2013). Gender differences in the long-term impacts of project-based learning (ID#6899). Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Atlanta, GA.
Wang, M., & Degol, J. (2014). Staying Engaged: Knowledge and Research Needs in Student Engagement. Child Development Perspectives, 8(3), 137-143.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic Supplementary Material
ESM 1
(docx 656 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sivia, A., MacMath, S., Novakowski, C. et al. Examining Student Engagement During a Project-Based Unit in Secondary Science. Can. J. Sci. Math. Techn. Educ. 19, 254–269 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42330-019-00053-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42330-019-00053-x