Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp 447–460 | Cite as

Integrating Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment in Project-Based Instruction: A Case Study of an Experienced Teacher

  • Anthony J. PetrosinoEmail author


This case study of a teacher who engaged his students in inquiry within a technologically rich classroom was conducted over 5 weeks, including 15 regularly scheduled classes. Data include extensive teacher interviews, e-mail, and artifacts such as class notes, curriculum guides, and handouts. A retrospective analysis methodology was utilized to address what Barron et al. (1998), called the “major hurdles” in implementing project-based curricula: the simultaneous changes in curriculum, instruction, and assessment practices. In addition, a framework developed by the National Research Council’s “How People Learn” was employed to provide detail on the nature of knowledge, learner, assessment, and community centeredness of the project-based unit. Finally, the classroom environment created during a unit of astronomy was analyzed and five principles emerged: the sense of a project, the development of independent individuals, creation of a global community of learners, a cyclic nature of instruction emphasizing conceptual and procedural understanding, and the utilization of distributedexpertise.

project-based science astronomy inquiry retrospective analysis 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for All Americans: A Project 2061 Report on Literacy Goals in Science, Mathematics, and Technology, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  2. Ausubel, D. P. (1963, June). Some psychological and educational limitations of learning by discovery. New York State Mathematics Teacher Journal 13: 90–108.Google Scholar
  3. Bailey, K. M. (1998). Approaches to empirical research in instructional language settings. In Byrnes, H. (Ed.), Learning Foreign and Second Languages: Perspectives in Research on Scholarship, Modern Language Association of America, New York, pp. 75–104.Google Scholar
  4. Barab, S., MacKinster, J. G., Moore, J., Cunningham, D., . (2001). Designing and building an online community: The struggle to support sociability in the Inquiry Learning Forum. Educational Technology Research and Development 49: 71–96.and the ILF Design TeamGoogle Scholar
  5. Barron, B. J., Schwartz, D. J., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A. J., Zech, L., Bransford, J. D., and CTGV. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem and project-based learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 7: 271–311.Google Scholar
  6. Black, P., and Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education 5: 7–74.Google Scholar
  7. Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., and Palincsar, A. S. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist 26: 369–398.Google Scholar
  8. Bransford, J., Brown, A., and Cocking, R. (Eds.). (1999). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  9. Bredderman, T. (1983). Effects of activity-based elementary science on student outcomes: A quantitative synthesis. Review of Educational Research 53: 499–518.Google Scholar
  10. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences 2: 141–178.Google Scholar
  11. Brown, A. L., Ash, D., Rutherford, M., Nakagawa, K., Gordon, A., and Campione, J. C. (1993). Distributed expertise in the classroom. In Salomon, G. (Ed.), Distributed Cognition, Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 188–228.Google Scholar
  12. Brown, A. L., and Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In McGilly, K. (Ed.), Classroom Lessons: Integrating Cognitive Theory and Classroom Practice, MIT Press/Bradford Books, Cambridge, MA, pp. 229–270.Google Scholar
  13. Brown, A. L., and Campione, J. C. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. In Schauble, L., and Glaser, R. (Eds.), Contributions of Instructional Innovation to Understanding Learning, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.Google Scholar
  14. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., and Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher 18: 32–42.Google Scholar
  15. Bruer, J. (1993). Schools for Thought: A Science of Learning in the Classroom, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  16. Bruer, J. (1994). Classroom problems, school culture, and cognitive research. In McGilly, K. (Ed.), Classroom Lessons, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  17. Cobb, P., and Whitenack, J. (1996). A method for conducting longitudinal analysis of classroom videorecording and transcripts. Educational Studies in Mathematics 30: 213–228.Google Scholar
  18. diSessa, A. A., and Minstrell, J. (1998). Cultivating conceptual change via benchmark lessons. In Greeno, J., and Goldman, S. (Eds.), Thinking Practices, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  19. Donovan, M. S., Bransford, J. D., and Pellegrino, J. W. (Eds.). (2000). How People Learn: Bridging Research and Practice, National Academy Press, National Research Council, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  20. Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring Science Education: The Importance of Theories and Their Development, Teachers College Press, New York.Google Scholar
  21. Glaser, B., and Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Aldine, Chicago.Google Scholar
  22. Goldstein, L. S. (1999). The relational zone: The role of caring relationships in the co-construction of mind. American Educational Research Journal 36: 647–673.Google Scholar
  23. Hawkins, D. (1974). Messing about in science. In Hawkins, D. (Ed.), The Informed Vision: Essays on Learning and Human Nature, Agathon Press, New York, pp. 63–75.Google Scholar
  24. Johnson, B., and Christensen, L. (2000). Educational Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  25. Klopfer, L. E. (1990). Learning scientific inquiry in the school laboratory. In Hegarty-Hazel, E. (Ed.), The Student Laboratory and the Science Curriculum, Rutledge, London, pp. 95–118.Google Scholar
  26. Kolodner, J. (1993). Case-Based Reasoning, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA.Google Scholar
  27. Krajcik, J. S., Blumenfeld, P., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., and Soloway, E. (1998). Middle school students’ initial attempts at inquiry in project-based science classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences 7: 313–350.Google Scholar
  28. Krajcik, J. S., Czerniak, C., and Berger, C. (2002). Teaching Science in Elementary and Middle School Classrooms: A Project-Based Approach (2nd ed.), McGraw-Hill, Boston.Google Scholar
  29. Lamon, M., Secules, T., Petrosino, A. J., Hackett, R., Bransford, J. D., and Goldman, S. R. (1996). Schools for thought: Overview of the international project and lessons learned from one of the sites. In Schauble, L., and Glaser, R. (Eds.), Contributions of Instructional Innovation to Understanding Learning, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  30. Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in Practice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  31. Linn, M. C., and Hsi, S. (1999). Computers, Teachers, and Peers: Science Learning Partners, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  32. Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case Study Research in Education: A Qualitative Approach, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  33. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, VA.Google Scholar
  34. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standard, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  35. Noddings, N. (1984). Caring, University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  36. Pea, R. D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In Salomon, G. (Ed.), Distributed Cognitions, Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 47–87.Google Scholar
  37. Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., and Glaser, R. (Eds.). (2001). Knowing What Students Know: The Science and Design of Educational Assessment, Board on Testing and Assessment, Center for Education, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  38. Polman, J. L. (2000). Designing Project-Based Science: Connecting Learners Through Guided Inquiry, Teachers College Press, New York.Google Scholar
  39. Roth, W., and Bowen, G. (1995). Knowing and interacting: A study of culture, practice, and resources in grade 8 open-inquiry science classroom guided by a cognitive apprenticeship metaphor. Cognition and Instruction 13: 73–128.Google Scholar
  40. Roth, W., and Roychoudhury, A. (1993). The development of science process skills in authentic contexts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 30: 127–152.Google Scholar
  41. Schauble, L., Glaser, R., Duschl, R. A., Schulze, S., and John, J. (1995). Students’ understanding of the objectives and procedures of experimentation in the science classroom. Journal of The Learning Sciences 4: 131–166.Google Scholar
  42. Schwartz, D. L., and Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition and Instruction 16: 475–522.Google Scholar
  43. Songer, N. B., Lee, H. S., and Kam, R. (2002). Technology-rich inquiry science in urban classrooms: What are the barriers to inquiry pedagogy? Journal of Research in Science Teaching 39: 128–150.Google Scholar
  44. Stohr-Hunt, P. M. (1996). An analysis of frequency of hands-on experience and science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 33: 101–109.Google Scholar
  45. Willig, C. (2001). Introducing Qualitative Research in Psychology: Adventures in Theory and Method, Open University Press, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of TexasAustin

Personalised recommendations