Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

HOW SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS (STEM) PROJECT-BASED LEARNING (PBL) AFFECTS HIGH, MIDDLE, AND LOW ACHIEVERS DIFFERENTLY: THE IMPACT OF STUDENT FACTORS ON ACHIEVEMENT

  • Published:
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether participating in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) project-based learning (PBL) activities effected students who had varied performance levels and to what extent students’ individual factors influenced their mathematics achievement. STEM PBL has been a critical challenge to be embedded in schools, thus the effect of STEM PBL should to be examined. Teachers in 3 high schools attended sustained professional developments provided by 1 STEM center based in a Southwestern university and were required to implement STEM PBLs once in every 6 weeks for 3 years (2008 through 2010). The participants were 836 high school students in these 3 schools who took the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) test and had scores at least in the initial year. Hierarchical linear modeling was used to analyze the data using student’s mathematics TAKS scores and demographic information for the longitudinal study. STEM PBL instruction influenced student achievement in mathematics by both student demographic backgrounds and performance levels. Low performing students showed statistically significantly higher growth rates on mathematics scores than high and middle performing students over the 3 years. In addition, student’s ethnicity and economic status were good predictors of academic achievement. Results of the present study implied that STEM PBLs in schools benefitted low performing students to a greater extent and decreased the achievement gap.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abraham, R. R., Fisher, M., Kamath, A., Izzati, T. A., Habila, S. & Atikah, N. N. (2011). Exploring first-year undergraduate medical students’ self-directed learning readiness to physiology. Advances in Physiology Education, 35(4), 393–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baran, M. & Maskan, A. (2010). The effect of project-based learning on pre-service physics teachers electrostatic achievements. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 5(4), 243–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barron, B. J. S., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., Bransford, J. D. & The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem- and project-based learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3&4), 271–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benbow, C. P. (2012). Identifying and nurturing future innovators in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: A review of findings from the study of mathematically precocious youth. Peabody Journal of Education, 87(1), 16–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boaler, J. (1997). Experiencing school mathematics: Teaching styles, sex, and settings. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butzin, S. M. (2001). Using instructional technology in transformed learning environments: An evaluation of project CHILD. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(4), 367–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capraro, R. M. (2001). Exploring the influences of geometric spatial visualization, gender, and ethnicity on the acquisition of geometry content knowledge. New Orleans: Paper presented at the annual meeting Southwest Educational Research Association. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED451057.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capraro, R. M. & Slough, S. W. (2008). Why PBL? Why STEM? Why now? An introduction to project-based learning: An integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) approach. In R. M. Capraro & S. W. Slough (Eds.), Project based learning: An integrated science technology engineering and mathematics (STEM) approach (pp. 1–6). Rotterdam: Sense.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capraro, M. M., Capraro, R. M., Yetkiner, Z. E., Rangel-Chavez, A. F. & Lewis, C. W. (2010). Examining Hispanic student mathematics performance on high-stakes tests: An examination of one urban school district in Colorado. Urban Review, 42, 193–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capraro, R. M., Capraro, M. M. & Morgan, J. (Eds.). (2013). Project-based learning: An integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) approach (2nd ed.). Rotterdam: Sense.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, R. W., Lam, S. F. & Chan, J. C. (2008). When high achievers and low achievers work in the same group: The roles of group heterogeneity and processes in project-based learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 205–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, A. C. & Ernst, J. V. (2007). A model for the integration of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. The Technology Teacher, 66(4), 24–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dehejia, R. H. & Wahba, S. (2002). Propensity score-matching methods for nonexperimental causal studies. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 84, 151–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolmans, D., Grave, W. D., Wolfhagen, I. & Vleuten, C. (2005). Problem based learning: Future challenges for educational practice and research. Medical Education, 39, 732–741.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Domínguez, C. & Jaime, A. (2010). Database design learning: A project-based approach organized through a course management system. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1312–1320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Federal Inventory of STEM Education Fast-Track Action Committee & Committee on STEM Education National Science and Technology Council. (2011). The federal science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education portfolio. Retrieved fromhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/costem__federal_stem_education_portfolio_report.pdf.

  • Hansen, K. & Jones, E. M. (2011). Ethnicity and gender gaps in early childhood. British Educational Research Journal, 37(6), 973–991. doi:10.1080/01411926.2010.515018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedges, L. V. (2007). Effect sizes in cluster-randomized designs. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 32, 341–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooper, S. & Hannafin, M. J. (1988). Cooperative CBI: The effects of heterogeneous versus homogeneous grouping on the learning of progressively complex concepts. Journal of Education Computing Research, 4, 413–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horan, C., Lavaroni, C. & Beldon, P. (1996). Observation of the tinker tech program students for critical thinking and social participation behaviors. Novato: Buck Institute for Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hox, J. (2002). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. Mahwah: LEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huck, S. W. (2008). Reading statistics and research. Boston: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. & Holubec, E. (1998). Cooperation in the classroom (6th ed.). Edina: Interaction Book Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kajamies, A., Vauras, M. & Kinnunen, R. (2010). Instructing low-achievers in mathematical word problem solving. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 54(4), 335–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaldi, S., Filippatou, D. & Govaris, C. (2011). Project-based learning in primary schools: Effects on pupils’ learning and attitudes. Education 3–13, 39(1), 35–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilpatrick, W. H. (1918). The project method. Teachers College Record, 19, 319–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Konstantopoulos, S. (2009). Effects of teachers on minority and disadvantaged students’ achievement in the early grades. The Elementary School Journal, 110(1), 92–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lou, S. J., Liu, Y. H., Shih, R. C., Chuang, S. Y., & Tseng, K. H. (2011). Effectiveness of on-line STEM project-based learning for female senior high school students. International Journal of Engineering Education, 27(2), 399–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lubienski, S. T. (2002). A closer look at black-white mathematics gaps: Intersections of race and SES in NAEP achievement and instructional practice data. The Journal of Negro Education, 71(4), 269–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma, X. & Klinger, D. A. (2000). Hierarchical linear modeling of student and school effects on academic achievement. Canadian Journal of Education, 25(1), 41–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matteucci, M. & Mignani, S. (2011). Gender differences in performance in mathematics at the end of lower secondary school in Italy. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(5), 543–548. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2011.03.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKown, C. & Weinstein, R. S. (2008). Teacher expectations, classroom context, and the achievement gap. Journal of School Psychology, 46(3), 235–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Navarro, J. I., Aguilar, M., Marchena, E., Ruiz, G., Menacho, I. & Van Luit, J. E. H. (2012). Longitudinal study of low and high achievers in early mathematics. British Journal of Education Psychology, 82, 28–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Post, T. R., Medhanie, A., Harwell, M., Norman, K. W., Dupuis, D. N., Muchlinski, T., Andersen, E. & Monson, D. (2010). The impact of prior mathematics achievement on the relationship between high school mathematics curricula and postsecondary mathematics performance, course-taking, and persistence. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 42(3), 274–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabe-Hemp, C., Woollen, S. & Humiston, G. (2009). A comparative analysis of student engagement, learning, and satisfaction in lecture hall and online learning settings. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 10(2), 207–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raftery, A. E. (1996). Bayesian model selection in social research. In P. V. Marsden (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 111–163). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raudenbush, S. W. & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, V. & Fallona, C. (2010). Classroom management as method and manner. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33(6), 705–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rivard, L. P. (2004). Are language-based activities in science effective for all students, including low achievers? Science Education, 88(3), 420–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, A. (1990). Cooperation and exploitation? The argument against cooperative learning for talented students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14, 9–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sahin, M. (2009). Correlations of students’ grades, expectations, epistemological beliefs and demographics in a problem-based introductory physics course. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4(2), 169–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shores, M. L., Shannon, D. M. & Smith, T. G. (2010). Individual learner variables and their effect on mathematics achievement as students advance from fifth to sixth grade. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 24(3), 187–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stockdale, S. L. & Williams, R. L. (2004). Cooperative learning groups at the college level: Different effects on high, average, low exam performers. Journal of Behavioral Education, 13(1), 37–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan, C. K. (2012). Effects of the application of graphing calculator on students’ probability achievement. Computers & Education, 58(4), 1117–1126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tate, W. F. (1997). Race-ethnicity, SES, gender, and language proficiency trends in mathematics achievement: An update. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28, 652–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Texas Education Agency. (2008). Chapter 16: Reliability. Retrieved from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=2147494031&libID=2147494028.

  • Texas Education Agency. (2009). Texas assessment of knowledge and skills performance level descriptors. Retrieved from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index3.aspx?id=3222&menu_id=793.

  • Texas Education Agency. (2011). Selected sections from Texas Education Code (TEC) and Texas Administrative Code (TAC). [PDF document]. Retrieved from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=8327&menu_id=2147483659.

  • Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. San Rafael: Autodesk Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiwari, A., Lai, R., So, M. & Yuen, K. (2006). A comparison of the effects of problem-based learning and lecturing on the development of students’ critical thinking. Medical Education, 40, 547–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Rooij, S. W. (2009). Scaffolding project-based learning with the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK®). Computers & Education, 52(1), 210–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veenman, S., Kenter, B. & Post, K. (2000). Cooperative learning in Dutch primary classrooms. Educational Studies, 26(3), 281–302. doi:10.1080/03055690050137114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoon, C. H. (2009). Self-regulated learning and instructional factors in the scientific inquiry of scientifically gifted Korean middle school students. Gifted Child, 53(3), 203–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zady, M. F., Portes, P. R. & Ochs, V. D. (2003). Examining classroom interactions related to difference in students’ science achievement. Science Education, 87(1), 40–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zucker, S. (2003). Fundamentals of standardized testing. San Antonio: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA

    Sunyoung Han

  2. Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA

    Robert Capraro & Mary Margaret Capraro

Authors
  1. Sunyoung Han
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert Capraro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mary Margaret Capraro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sunyoung Han.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOCX 41 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Han, S., Capraro, R. & Capraro, M.M. HOW SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS (STEM) PROJECT-BASED LEARNING (PBL) AFFECTS HIGH, MIDDLE, AND LOW ACHIEVERS DIFFERENTLY: THE IMPACT OF STUDENT FACTORS ON ACHIEVEMENT. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 13, 1089–1113 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9526-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9526-0

KEY WORDS

Search

Navigation