Assessing the Effect of Project-Based Learning on Science Learning in Elementary Schools
Joseph Krajcik; Barbara Schneider; Emily Adah Miller; I-Chien Chen; Lydia Bradford; Quinton Baker; Kayla Bartz; Cory Miller; Tingting Li; Susan Codere; Deborah Peek-Brown (2023). American Educational Research Journal, v60 n1 p70-102. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1364916
-
examining2,371Students, grade3
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2026
- Grant Competition (findings for Multiple Literacies in Project Based Learning - Krajcik et al (2023) )
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with low cluster-level attrition and individual-level non-response.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Researcher-developed science assessment |
Multiple Literacies in Project Based Learning - Krajcik et al (2023) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.28 |
0.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Researcher-developed measure of Reflection |
Multiple Literacies in Project Based Learning - Krajcik et al (2023) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.55 |
0.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Researcher-developed measure of Ownership |
Multiple Literacies in Project Based Learning - Krajcik et al (2023) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.44 |
0.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Researcher-developed measure of Collaboration |
Multiple Literacies in Project Based Learning - Krajcik et al (2023) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.42 |
0.00 |
Yes |
|
|
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
12% English language learners -
Female: 48%
Male: 46%
Other or unknown: 6% -
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Michigan
-
Race Asian 3% Black 30% Other or unknown 20% Two or more races 3% White 44% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 12% Not Hispanic or Latino 82% Other or unknown 6% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 60% No FRPL 34% Other or unknown 6%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in third-grade science classrooms in 46 schools located in 4 regions of the state of Michigan.
Study sample
This study is an RCT with school-level assignment that included 2,371 third graders in 46 schools with 91 teachers in 111 classrooms. Schools were randomly assigned to implement the Grade 3 Multiple Literacies in Project-Based Learning (ML-PBL) curriculum in science classrooms or to deliver business-as-usual science instruction. Schools were eligible to participate in the ML-PBL program if they (1) were a public nonspecialized school; (2) had a grade 3 enrollment of more than 25 students; and (3) included racial and ethnic minorities or students receiving free and reduced-price lunch.
Intervention Group
The Multiple Literacies in Project-Based Learning curriculum consists of four units, each framed by a driving question (DQ) and an anchoring phenomenon, and culminating in students developing a product. The four units cover (1) adaptation, (2) forces and motion, (3) biodiversity, and (4) weather and climate. In each unit, the DQ gradually and purposefully involves students in using the three dimensions of scientific knowledge (disciplinary core ideas, crosscutting concepts, and scientific and engineering practices) to explain and predict a phenomenon or develop a solution to a problem. Students received the curriculum over the course of one school year.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition received business-as-usual science instruction. The study verified that students in the comparison classrooms did not receive the ML-PBL curriculum.
Support for implementation
At the beginning of the school year, intervention teachers participated in a 3-day professional learning session about the ML-PBL intervention. Teachers received three additional in-person professional learning sessions during the academic year (one prior to each unit). The professional learning facilitators also held video conferences with groups of teachers approximately every 2 weeks. On average, teachers received approximately 7 days of professional learning during the school year.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).