The Effects of Project-Based Learning on Students’ Academic

Achievement, Attitude, and Retention of Knowledge:

The Subject of “Electricity in Our Lives”1
Saide Karaçalli Fikret Korur
Dağlıca Şehit Hakan Çil Prımary School Mehmet Akif Ersoy University

The aim of this study is to analyze the effects of project-based learning on students’ academic achievement, attitude,
and retention of knowledge in relation to the subject of “Electricity in Our Lives” in a fourth-grade science course. The
study was conducted in a quasi-experimental design as a “pre-test, post-test with control group.” In the experimental
group, the unit was taught through the project-based learning method. The measuring tools were administered to both
groups before and after the applications. To perfectly analyze the “process” of the method, seven different learning
assessment “forms” were administered to the students. The findings of the forms indicated that the students learn to
construct their own learning and to evaluate changes in their own behavior through the application of the method.
The application of different methods between both groups had a statistically significant effect in terms of academic
achievement, ( F(1,112) = 46.78, p = .000) and of retention of knowledge ( F(1,112) = 35.24, p = .000). However, there
were no statistically significant effects from being in different groups for the attitudes of students ( F(1,112) = .99,
p = .321). For the students, being in the project-based learning groups resulted in better academic achievement and
retention of knowledge than being in the traditional teaching group.

Project-based learning is a systematic teaching method these are the basic features of the method in this particular
that has its main emphasis on learning through projects study.
(Thomas, 2000). Students’ activity is important in con- Students who become a part of a scientific activity or
structing their knowledge through this process, since it is a experiment and who find time to interact with classmates
kind of dynamic adaption period toward experience (von to develop models or to do projects find it easy to develop
Glasersfeld, 1995). The project-based learning method is their conceptual understanding (Edelson, Gordin, & Pea,
an interdisciplinary method to analyze real-life problems 1999; Singer, Tal, & Wu, 2003). The project-based learn-
within their natural settings and students have the oppor- ing method focuses on student skills in science teaching
tunity to design their own products in the classroom such as asking questions, solving problems, formulating
(Blumenfeld et al., 1991; Erdem, 2002; Helle, Tynjälä, & problems, developing solutions, peer assessment, collect-
Olkinuora, 2006; Korkmaz & Kaptan, 2002; Krajcik, ing data according to assessment results, analyzing them,
Blumenfeld, Marx, Bass, & Fredricks, 1998; Krajcik, and reaching results (Krajcik et al., 1999; Moje, Collazo,
Czerniak, & Berger, 1999; Schneider, Krajcik, Marx, & Carrillo, & Marx, 2001; Wolf & Fraser, 2008). Teachers
Soloway, 2002; Solomon, 2003). Students are faced with also measure students’ performance via rubrics, and stu-
problems derived from real life, so they can focus on the dents also evaluate their own projects and their group-
lessons better and they gain self-confidence and responsi- mates throughout the process (Bell, 2010). Teachers guide
bility (Muniandy, 2000; Osborn & Freyberg, 1985; the students throughout the process. Bell (2010) identified
Villeneuve, 2000). Project-based learning (or project- the acquisitions gained from project-based learning and
based science as defined by Krajcik et al., 1999) has stated that the process is very valuable for the students, so
several features. The principal values in project-based the product is inestimable. Students work collectively and
learning are “constructing knowledge through trial and they never let group-mates stay passive. In this context, the
error,” “learning by doing,” and “applying new knowledge process is controlled with various forms, such as “project
to new circumstances” (Colley, 2008; Singer, Marx, description,” “project application,” “weekly progress
Krajcik, & Clay-Chambers, 2000; von Glasersfeld, 1995). report,” and “peer evaluation” forms, in order to reflect
Colley (2008) divided project-based learning into four and to evaluate the process and analyze the progress in the
main subsections, namely problem-solving projects, students’ knowledge construction (Altun Yalçın, Turgut, &
process-skill projects, design and engineering projects, Büyükkasap, 2009; Davis, 2003; Gültekin, 2009; İmer,
and content and subject matter projects. The first two of 2008; Seloni, 2005; Serttürk, 2008). This strength of the
224 Volume 114 (5)
 The Effects of Project-Based Learning

method could also be turned into its weakness if the ment and retention of science knowledge, mostly measur-
process is not guided well since the students could have ing knowledge retention by the same posttest again,
low motivation and a low level of personal initiative (Bell, administered usually at least three weeks later (Özden &
2010). Therefore, to increase the scientific conception of Gültekin, 2008; Park, Khan, & Petrina, 2009). In most of
the students, teachers should guide and control the col- the experimental studies comparing two instructional
laboration and development of students through the methods, where one is the project-based learning, the
process of project-based learning by using forms and retention of knowledge was not analyzed thoroughly, due
rubrics (Bell, 2010; Schneider et al., 2002). To date, to the fact that time is needed after the applications.
experimental studies in the related literature have usually The effects of the project-based learning method on
included three or four forms to control the process, but in students’ achievement and attitudes have been studied in
this particular study, the project-based learning method is detail for most of the concepts in science and grade level
controlled by one of the researchers with seven different of students in the related literature, but these were not
forms. analyzed for fourth graders’ “Electricity in Our Lives”
Learning should be activity based and students should unit. Furthermore, in this particular study, retention of
combine it with their natural environment (Rennie, knowledge was measured by the posttest, which aimed to
Goodrum, & Hackling, 2001). Attitude, which is mainly evaluate pupils’ level of achievement one month later than
defined as “someone’s tendency to consider an object, a the first application of the posttest. In the current study, the
case, and a person in a positive or negative manner,” treatments in the experimental group was a project-based
mostly shapes the behaviors of the students (Weissman & learning method controlled by seven different forms,
Beck, 1978). Students’ attitudes affect both their critical namely the “Project Team and Cooperation Form,”
thinking in science and their level of collaboration “Project Description Form,” “Weekly Project Progress
in science classes (Harlen, 1998; Hofman, Dijkstra, & Form,” “Peer Evaluation Form,” “Self-Evaluation Forms,”
Hofman, 2009; Murphy, 2004; Osborne, Simon, & “Project Evaluation Form,” and “What We Learned Form.”
Collins, 2003). Students’ achievement increases by They were used to control and organize both students’
increasing their desire to learn science, that is their attitude progress in knowledge construction and the process of the
toward science, with the change in their behaviors at the method. In the related literature, the studies have not
end of project-based learning process (Mioduser & Betzer, implemented this number of forms to organize the process.
2007; Osborne et al., 2003; Toolin, 2004; Tseng, Chang, Therefore, this study aimed to answer the main question of
Lou, & Chen, 2013). Altun Yalçın et al. (2009), in a quasi- “What are the effects of the project-based learning method
experimental study with 90 undergraduate science teacher controlled by seven forms on 4th grade students’ ‘Elec-
training students, found that there were statistically sig- tricity in Our Lives Achievement Post Test Scores’
nificant differences in the project-based learning applied (ACHEL), ‘Electricity in Our Life Attitude Post Test
group with respect to the traditional instruction applied Scores’ (ATTEL), and ‘Electricity in Our Lives Retention
group in electricity concepts. There are similar studies of Knowledge Scores’ (KNOWEL) collectively in the
analyzing the effects of project-based learning method in science course, when students’ gender, age, achievement
science by including both achievement and attitude vari- pre-test scores (PRACH), attitude pre-test scores
ables together and they have concluded that method was (PRATT), and students’ grades in science courses in the
highly effective in comparison with traditional instruction previous semester (PSG) are controlled.”
(Mioduser & Betzer, 2007; Seloni, 2005; Serttürk, 2008).
It is known that with project-based learning studies, the Hypothesis of the Study
knowledge gained by the students due to learning by The main hypothesis of the study was as follows.
seeing, hearing, analyzing, writing, participating, and When students’ gender, age, achievement pre-test
sharing increases students’ achievement (Gültekin, 2009; scores (PRACH), attitude pre-test scores (PRATT), and
Korkmaz & Kaptan, 2002; Solomon, 2003; Wolf & Fraser, students’ grades in science courses in the previous semes-
2008). ter (PSG) are controlled, there are no significant effects of
Retention of knowledge is defined as learning and the “project-based learning” method controlled by seven
remembering knowledge by associating it with consistent forms on collected dependent variables of students’
schemes in students’ cognitive structure that lasts for a ACHEL, ATTEL, and KNOWEL, for the unit of “Electric-
long time (Benjamin, Lavi, McKeachie, & Lin, 1997). ity in our Life” in the science course. The KNOWEL is the
There are studies explaining the relation between achieve- students’ retention scores obtained from the application of
School Science and Mathematics 225
 The Effects of Project-Based Learning

the same posttest one month later. The subhypothesis bution of students in the groups was almost the same
derived in order to analyze this main hypothesis in depth (nexperimental/ncontrol <1.5). With respect to other demographic
was as follows: variables, the ages of students ranged from 9 to 11 with the
1. There are no significant effects of the project-based average of 10.3 in the experimental group, and 10.2 in the
learning method on the ACHEL of students, when stu- control group. The students’ grades in science courses in
dents’ age, gender, achievement pre-test scores, attitude the previous semester (PSG) are also 79.5 for control and
pre-test scores, and PSG are controlled. 80.2 for experimental group, which is “good” (medium for
2. There are no significant effects of the project-based 55–70, good for 70–85 and very good for 85–100). Chi-
learning method on the ATTEL of students, when stu- squared analysis indicated that there is no significant dif-
dents’ age, gender, achievement pre-test scores, attitude ferences between the two groups on categorical variables
pre-test scores, and PSG are controlled. of gender and PSG [χ2(1, N = 143) = 1.123, p = .312 for
3. There are no significant effects of the project-based gender and χ2(1, N = 143) = 2.484, p = .289].
learning method on the KNOWEL of students, when stu- Research Design
dents’ age, gender, achievement pre-test scores, attitude The research design used in this study is “pre-test-
pre-test scores, and PSG are controlled. post test, with control group” quasi experimental 2
The applications of this study are limited to fourth (groups) × 2 (time) factorial design. A factorial design was
graders of four different classrooms from two different used since it aimed to analyze the relative effectiveness of
public elementary schools in Antalya, Turkey. The appli- the methods. We had two control groups, with two classes
cations were carried out in the spring semester of the of fourth graders in each school, and two experimental
2009–2010 academic year. In both the experimental and groups in each school, with both groups and teachers
the control groups, students and teachers voluntarily par- appointed randomly. The experimental method used in this
ticipated in the applications. study is shown in Table 1.
Materials for the Process of the Method
Method The principal materials to reveal the progress in stu-
Population and Sample dents’ learning through the project-based learning process
The population of the research covered all primary are the forms used in the experimental group of this study.
school students studying in the fourth grade in the In this study, there are seven original forms that have been
Konyaaltı district of the province of Antalya, which gathered from the Karaçallı (2011). As the project-based
amounted to approximately 1,300 students in 18 elemen- learning method was used in the study, process is the
tary schools. In total, 143 students were selected from paramount element. Therefore, the aim, application time,
the fourth grade and the sample represented 11% of the and sample questions of the forms used in this study have
population. Since it was not possible to select students been briefly presented in this section.
individually from the population, stratified cluster Project Description Form. The form was completed
random sampling was used to obtain a representative by every student in experimental group. It was applied
sample. The strata are the schools and the clusters were once in the first week. It aimed to collect and identify the
the classes in the schools. Two of the three most crowded information gathered by the students about the project and
public schools were selected in the Konyaaltı district at what materials they required for this project. Students
first. Then, two classes were randomly selected from wrote the details of the project such as “name of the
each schools. project,” “purpose,” “required materials,” “phases of the
The sample included 70 students (49%) in the control project,” and “implications.”
group (32 female and 38 male) and 73 students (51%) in Project Team and Cooperation Form. The form was
the experimental group (27 female, 46 male) so the distri- filled in by one of the group members (chairman) in each

Table 1
Experimental Method

Groups Pre-Test Pre-Test Methods Time Period Achievement Attitude Retention of

Attitude Achievement Knowledge Test
Experimental ELATT ELACH “Project-Based Learning Method” Four Weeks ELACH ELATT ELACH (2nd time)
Control ELATT ELACH “Traditional Instruction” Four Weeks ELACH ELATT ELACH (2nd time)

226 Volume 114 (5)

 The Effects of Project-Based Learning

group. It was completed once in the first week of the Research Instruments
applications. It aimed to ensure a well-defined task distri- The measuring tools of this study were (a) “Electricity
bution in the group to make the group members work in Our Life Achievement Test” as both Achievement Test
collaboratively during the process. The chairman wrote the and Retention of Knowledge Test and (b) “Science and
names of the group members, their tasks, and the order of Technology Course Attitude Scale” about electricity. Both
the tasks in this form. tests were administered to all study groups as a pre- and
Weekly Project Progress Form. The form was applied posttest before and after the applications. Furthermore, to
at the end of the last lesson every week. It aimed to evaluate students’ conceptual progress, seven detailed
determine what students had done, what they had learned forms were administered during the applications in the
in the week, and what they would do in the following week experimental group.
with regard to their project. Every student filled in the Electricity in Our Life Achievement Test
form individually. There were “What did you do this week (ELACH). The ELACH was compiled from the related
related to your project?” “What did you learn?” and “What literature by one of the researchers by paying attention to
do you plan to do next week?” types of questions on this the questions covering the acquisitions of fourth-grade
form. level included in the unit of “Electricity in Our Life.”
Self-Evaluation Form. The form was in the Likert- Basically, 25 questions were adapted from the literature
type scale, and every student in each group put a check (Ayas Kör, 2006) related to “Electricity in Our Life” unit
mark next to the expressions such as “I listened to what my acquisitions. Some necessary changes were made both on
group mates explained and offered,” “I followed instruc- choices and on roots (texts) of some of the questions to
tions,” “I encouraged my group mates to work,” and “I realize the acquisitions and provide test unity. In addition
completed my work on time.” The form was filled in once to these, five more questions were added by researchers
at the end of the applications, and it aimed to evaluate each through analyzing questions from Level Placement Tests
student’s own behavior during the process. (SBS) of previous years and from different textbooks.
Peer Evaluation Form. The form was administered During this process, in order to ensure the face validity of
once to evaluate how the students followed each other in the newly prepared thirty questions, the achievement test
groups during the application process. It was filled in by was analyzed by two science teachers, three classroom
every student at the end of the applications. It was again in teachers, one Turkish Language teacher, one research
the Likert-type scale format, and students had the chance assistant, and two academicians who are field experts.
to evaluate up to seven group-mates. The scale included They evaluated the appropriateness of the questions in the
statements such as “Voluntarily participated in the activi- final form of the ELACH in terms of acquisitions, shapes,
ties,” “Completed tasks on time,” and “Respectful to the roots of the questions, and proper grammar usage. Then,
opinions of friends.” content validity was analyzed to evaluate whether the
Project Evaluation Form. The form was applied once content area was within the scope of the measuring tool,
each week. It aimed to evaluate students’ work and prog- and it was concluded that acquisitions in the table of speci-
ress periodically during the process. There are 29 expres- fications conform to items that have been taken from the
sions in the five-point Likert type scale format in the literature. By using the current form of the test in order to
categories “Planning Period,” “Information Gathering,” evaluate the construct validity, the test was applied to 70
“Organizing Knowledge,” “Writing Report,” and “Pre- fourth- and fifth-grade students as a pilot study. “Reliabil-
senting the Results.” One of the researchers observed the ity if item deleted values,” “item point-biser” values, and
students continuously in each group and gave scores out of “item discrimination index” were determined. Five of the
145 for each of them. questions were dropped from the ELACH with respect to
What We Learned Form. The form was applied once ITEMAN and reliability analysis. It was determined that
in the second week. It aimed to determine the progress of the questions were easily followed and understood by the
the students by establishing whether they had gained the elementary school students. The reliability coefficient of
required acquisitions. It included open-ended short answer ELACH was calculated after deleting five items and it was
questions related to the “Electricity in Our Life” unit such found as α = .85.
as “How does the brightness of the bulb change by chang- In Figure 1, one of the questions that have been used in
ing the number of cells in the circuit?” and “Draw a figure the achievement test is given. This question relates to the
of a closed circuit with three bulbs, a switch and two acquisition of “He/she knows the basic components of a
cells.” simple electric circuit (battery, lamp, lamp socket, switch,
School Science and Mathematics 227
 The Effects of Project-Based Learning

scores with respect to items for each student. Since there

are totally 25 items in the ELATT, the scores ranged
between 25 (minimum) and 125 (maximum).
For the face validity of the ELATT, two educational field
experts, two classroom teachers working in primary
schools, and a science teacher analyzed the scale. To
analyze the construct validity of the scale, the ELATT was
- 1.5V + administered together with the ELACH to the same stu-
dents as a pilot study. To determine the construct validity of
Which one of the following correctly identifies the circuit elements the ELATT, factor analysis was carried out by principal
component analysis as the extraction method and varimax
given in the above figure?
with Kaiser normalization as the rotation method. To deter-
A) Lamp socket-Switch-Battery-Dynamo
mine the adequacy of the data obtained from the ELATT,
B) Battery-Switch-Cable-Lamp Socket-Dynamo which was compiled from the literature, the Kaiser-Meyer-
C) Battery-Cable-Lamp- Switch-Lamp Socket Olkin (KMO) test was performed. The KMO value was
D) Lamp-Dynamo-Accumulator-Lamp Socket-Cable [Answer: C] found to be .80 which is accepted as “very good” in order to
extract factors from the collected data (Büyüköztürk,
Figure 1. Sample problem from the ELACH.
2010). In other words, the data obtained from the ELATT
are suitable to be applied to factor analysis.
There were five factors with Eigenvalues of 1.0 or
higher extracted by the SPSS. In total, 66.84% of the
Strongly Disagree
Strongly Agree

Item variance was accounted for by those factors. This variance

value is accepted as “high” by Büyüköztürk (2010). Vari-
Disagree
Neutral
Agree

ance accounting for the factors indicates how well the

1) By doing projects in Science Course, I understand the items or the structure were measured by those factors.
subjects that I hadn’t comprehended easily before. Therefore, there are five factors related to the items in the
ELATT, as their loadings changed between .498 and .859,
Figure 2. A Sample question from the ELATT. which is above the critical limit (Tavşancıl, 2006). After
rotated varimax was applied, the common variance values
were found to be between .329 and .844. In general, higher
cable, battery socket)” in the unit of “Electricity in Our common variance values indicate that the items more sig-
Life.” The question measures whether the students recog- nificantly represent the factors they load. The factors
nize the elements of a simple electric circuit and if they formed were grouped and later they were named by using
know where to use them. the category names from literature, and they are presented
Science Course Attitude Scale (ELATT). Attitude in Table 2.
scales for science courses have been developed by various In the first factor, the name of the category, which was
researchers (Demirci, 2003; Nuhoğlu, 2008). In this study, given as positive and negative items together, was written
the ELATT was compiled from these instruments by ana- as to be expressed in two meanings. However, other atti-
lyzing them in terms of rules of scale development. The tude items were loaded as positive and negative items in
attitude items were gathered from different scales since, in various factors, so their categories were named separately.
this study, rather than attitudes toward science, it is crucial After these applications, no item was removed from the
to measure attitudes toward project-based learning in scale. The reliability coefficient for the ELATT was found
science. In Figure 2, a sample item from the ELATT is to be α = .89.
presented. Applications in the Experimental and Control Group
The attitude scale includes 10 positive and 15 negative The schools having the highest number of students at
items. For positive items, “strongly agree” is coded to 5, fourth-grade level were differentiated from the others, and
“agree” to 4, “neutral” to 3, “disagree” to 2, and “strongly two schools from three that met these criteria were
disagree” to 1, with negative items being coded in the selected. After determining the schools, the study group
reverse order. The same scoring was used during the analy- was identified from the classes of volunteer teachers
sis, and a total attitude score was obtained by adding and students. It was also guaranteed that in the course
228 Volume 114 (5)
 The Effects of Project-Based Learning

Table 2
Items in Attitude Scale and Their Categories

Attitudes Factors Attitude Item Number Attitude Category

Electricity in Our Life-Science 1. Factor 2-13-16-17-22-23-24-25 Being disposed/being reluctant for ELATT
Attitude (ELATT) 2. Factor 1-4-11-14-20 Loving ELATT
3. Factor 3-5-6-8-10 Thinking ELATT as boring
4. Factor 9-12-15-21 Thinking it necessary to be active in course of ELATT
5. Factor 7-18-19 Loving to be active in course of ELATT

schedules, the science lessons were in different time undertake projects related to “simple electric circuits”
periods for both classes. By considering these criteria, from the unit. The students were asked to bring simple
from both two schools, two classes were chosen for the electrical circuit elements, pictures about them and mate-
experimental group and two classes were chosen for the rials, and whatever they could find for the following class
control group. At the third stage, the achievement pre-test hour.
and attitude pre-test were administered to both groups. In a regular class hour, the students mostly worked
Treatment applications in the experimental collaboratively in the experimental group. One of the
group. In the first two weeks, students in the experimental researchers mainly observed and very occasionally helped
group were informed about project-based learning by one with necessary/complex conditions. For example, in some
of the researchers. Students carried out studies related to groups, it was seen that although the circuit was complete,
their routine curriculum (unit and experiments) and the bulb did not light. The researcher reminded students of
searched for a project subject that they would develop by concepts considered in the “Let’s Learn Batteries” subject
using simple electric circuit elements. Before starting the in a previous lesson. Students then realized that they had
application, 73 students from two experimental groups in placed the battery into the socket in the wrong way. They
two different schools, along with their classroom teacher concluded that “If the batteries are not connected properly
and one of the researchers, were grouped into 13 hetero- it is not possible to light a bulb.”
geneous groups in terms of achievement, sociability, and As a result of these activities and experiments, the fea-
self-confidence characteristics, each with five or six tures of the battery or power supply and bulb were
members. Groups were asked to choose a head of the explored by the students. In the last 10 minutes of the
group and a spokesman with respect to the “Project Team period, one of the researchers distributed the “What We
and Cooperation Form.” Heads of the groups were told Learned Form” to all of the students in the classroom.
that they were responsible for gathering the necessary This form contained several short answer and fill-in-the-
materials related to the activities in their project. They blanks type of questions to assess their level of under-
were also responsible for distributing work productively standing of the concepts that they had covered in the
and participation among group members during the lesson. All of the forms were evaluated immediately after
experiments and activities. the lesson in order to identify any lack of knowledge.
The students had been studying the “Electricity in Our The students’ knowledge and their activities at the end
Life” unit as part of their routine curriculum, but stu- of each week were collected by the “Weekly Project Prog-
dents were encouraged to research from different ress Form,” together with what they planned to do next
sources, and were asked to choose the subject of projects week. At the end of the third week, group members evalu-
instead of being givensome compulsory subjects. This ated each other by using the “Peer Evaluation Form,” with
was the starting phase of knowledge construction, since respect to teammates’ taking responsibility and their level
students gathered information related to all the processes of cooperation. Every student filled in the “Self Evaluation
of the project by using the “Project Description Form.” Form” at the end of all applications, in order to evaluate
During the starting phase of the process, information was their contributions to the project. Throughout the project
shared with students about the “Electricity in Our Life” process, one of the researchers filled in the “Project Evalu-
unit and their knowledge about the unit was checked. ation Form” consisting of “five independent parts.” All of
One of the researchers explained and gave additional the students were informed about their evaluation process
examples of the subjects being discussed through the use and they learned their marks at the end. The students
of a projector and computer. The students decided to prepared presentations on computers and they presented
School Science and Mathematics 229
 The Effects of Project-Based Learning

their projects including all parts and photos. The project- The skewness and kurtosis of both groups for all dependent
based learning period lasted for four weeks. variables were in the acceptable range for a normal distri-
Applications in the control group. There were 70 stu- bution. In the experimental group, the mean PRACH scores
dents in the control group. In this group, the “Electricity in were found to be X = 41.09 , which is very close to that
Our Life” unit was delivered through traditional methods. of the control group X = 38.97 . After applications, the
In the discussed unit, questions about the content of every difference between the groups in ACHEL scores was
subject were directed to the classroom. Students wrote the X difference = 27.17 . When both groups were compared, there
answers in their notebooks. The same presentation mate- was a remarkable difference in the experimental group’s
rials on computer and similar explanations were also achievement scores, but there were only minor differences
included in the control group applications. At the end of between the achievement scores of the control group.
each lesson, students were asked to give examples and ask There are also remarkable differences among groups
their friends questions about the discussed subject. Prepar- with respect to KNOWEL scores ( X experimental = 82.24;
ing the questions that they would ask to their friends was X control = 49.20 ) . The huge difference between the scores
given as homework after every lesson. The answers to the of retention of knowledge (KNOWEL) implied that the
questions were used as links between the subjects of the project-based learning method used in the experimental
unit “Electricity in Our Life,” so the teacher managed to group increased students’ retention of knowledge scores.
teach new subjects easily. Discussion, in general, started There is a drastic change between the ACHEL and the
with the questions asked by one of the researchers or the KNOWEL mean scores for the control group. Before
teacher, and during discussion students recovered their applications, the attitude scores of the experimental group
lack of knowledge. This traditional teaching period lasted were X = 80.45 and for the control group X = 81.22,
for four weeks for the control group. which is very close. In Table 3, after the applications,
At the end of four weeks, the ELACH and ELATT were the difference between both scores is again close
applied to both groups to determine posttest scores. One (X difference = .42).
month later, the same posttest (ELACH) was also admin- In terms of inferential statistics in this study, to test the
istered to both groups as a knowledge retention test. main hypothesis, multivariate analysis of covariance
(MANCOVA) was conducted since it can equate groups
Results on one or more independent variables, which are students’
The distribution of mean scores, standard deviation, gender, age, PSG, PRACH, and PRATT, and be used for
skewness, and kurtosis values of student scores, and the more than one dependent variable, which are ACHEL,
PRACH, ACHEL, KNOWEL, PRATT, and ATTEL related ATTEL, and KNOWEL. In order to check whether the
to the fourth-grade science lesson “Electricity in Our Life” assumptions of MANCOVA were met, preliminary
unit are given in Table 3. assumption testing for “normality,” “homogeneity of
The maximum possible total mean score is 100 for each regression,” “linearity,” “sphericity,” “equality of vari-
dependent variable. The skewness and kurtosis values given ance,” “multicollinearity,” and “independency of observa-
in Table 3 were used to check the assumption of normality. tions” were conducted, and it was found that there were no

Table 3
Descriptive Statistics Related to Scores Gathered From the ELACH and ELATT in Both Groups

Experimental Group Control Group

Scores PRACH ACHEL KNOWEL PRACH ACHEL KNOWEL
N 73 73 73 70 70 70
Mean 41.09 83.39 82.24 38.97 56.22 49.20
Standard Deviation 14.44 9.13 14.42 13.96 18.39 19.80
Skewness .61 −.12 −1.64 .57 .56 .07
Kurtosis .20 −.25 4.23 −.02 .67 −1.07
Attitude Scores PRATT ATTEL PRATT ATTEL
Mean 80.45 80.13 81.22 79.71
Std. Dev. 3.97 2.09 3.67 2.85
Skewnes .78 −.78 .25 −1.67
Kurtosis 3.28 1.90 .59 5.51

230 Volume 114 (5)

 The Effects of Project-Based Learning

significant violations in terms of these assumptions. Fur- The effect of the method on academic achievement was
thermore, the Chi-squared test was applied to both groups large (η2 = .30). In other words the project-based learning
with PRACH and PRATT to determine the students in method had 30% effect on the science achievement of
experimental and control groups that had attained almost students. The effect of the method on retention of knowl-
equal conditions. Through this stage, the probability of edge was also large (η2 = .24). However, the effect of the
making a type I error (the probability of rejecting the true method was small for the students’ attitudes (η2 = .01).
null hypothesis) was set to .05, in the same way as most of From Table 5, it can be summarized that there are sta-
the educational studies. Likewise, the probability of tistically significant effects of the project-based learning
making a type II error (the probability of failing to reject method on the ACHEL (F(1.112) = 46.78; p = .000) and
the false null hypothesis) was set to 1–.99 that is .01; so, the KNOWEL (F(1.112) = 35.238; p = .000) when
the power of this study was set to .99. The significance PRACH and PRATT are controlled. On the other hand,
level was analyzed and interpreted with the MANCOVA at there are no significant effects of the method on the
.05 levels. The effect size was set to be medium (η2 = .09) ATTEL (F(1.112) = .994; p = .321). There are no signifi-
as defined by Tabachnick and Fidell (2007). During the cant effects of the applied method on students’ attitudes
analysis “Observed Power” was determined in order to be toward project-based learning, since the attitudes of stu-
confident whether sufficient power was reached to detect dents cannot increase in a short period of time in experi-
any effects (Field, 2005). In order to determine the effects mental studies (Gültekin, 2009; Toprak, 2006).
of both methods, a pre-test and posttest, and one month The students’ efforts during the process (four weeks)
later a retention of knowledge test, were administered to was quite applaudable and their efforts were photo-
both groups. The results of the MANCOVA are presented graphed. Their products at the end of the projects and their
in Table 4. efforts are presented in Figure 3a,b.
There are significant effects of the method on the col- The night light given in Figure 3a was constructed by
lective dependent variables, Wilks’ Lambda = .655, the “Electric Masters.” They started the projects in the
F(1,112) = 19.27, p = .000. It can be seen in Table 4 that second week of April in the experimental group and they
34% of the variances of the dependent variables are presented the final format at the end of the first week of
explained by the method. Then, as post hoc tests of the May. It was the group members’ own decision to make the
MANCOVA, the analysis of covariance was conducted to night light.
test the effects of each independent variable on ACHEL, In one class of the experimental group, another group
ATTEL, and KNOWEL when the PRACH and PRATT called themselves “Alarmatik” and they constructed the
were controlled. The results are given in Table 5. “Door with Burglar Alarm” shown in Figure 4a. In
The effect size of the independent variables on the Figure 4b, the details like cables, bulb, battery, and bell are
dependent variables of the ACHEL, ATTEL, and presented. The seven forms were completed by all groups,
KNOWEL were also analyzed as considered in the hypoth- and they are useful in constructing knowledge for deter-
esis. In order to test the effect size of the independent mining the lack of knowledge in the “simple electric cir-
variable, on three dependent variables, the eta squared cuits” subject and identifying cooperation among students
values were calculated and they are presented in Table 5. throughout the project-based learning method.

Table 4
Analysis Results of the MANCOVA

Source of Variance Wilks’ sd1 sd2 F Eta Sig. (p) Observed

Lambda Squared Power
Intercept .397 3.00 110.00 55.75 .03 .000 1.00
Method .655 3.00 110.00 19.27 .34 .000 1.00
Gender .995 3.00 110.00 .17 .00 .911 .24
Age .937 9.00 267,86 .80 .02 .615 .26
Grade Point Average .934 6.00 220.00 1.27 .03 .269 .86
PRACH .652 3.00 110.00 19.54 .34 .000 1.00
PRATT .788 3.00 110.00 9.87 .21 .000 .46

*p < .05.
School Science and Mathematics 231
 The Effects of Project-Based Learning

Table 5
The results of ANCOVA

Source Dependent Sum of SD F Eta p Observed

Variable Squares Square (η2) Power
Method ACHEL 7,032.870 1 46.78 .30 .000 1.00
ATTEL 40.933 1 .994 .01 .321 .167
KNOWEL 8,397.058 1 35.238 .24 .000 1.00
Gender ACHEL .859 1 .006 .00 .940 .051
ATTEL .029 1 .001 .00 .979 .050
KNOWEL 115.960 1 .487 .00 .487 .106
Age ACHEL 524.599 3 1.163 .03 .327 .306
ATTEL 44.356 3 .359 .01 .783 .119
KNOWEL 492.689 3 .689 .02 .560 .153
GPA ACHEL 673.357 2 2.24 .11 .038 .448
ATTEL 64.699 2 .786 .46 .014 .181
KNOWEL 309.069 2 .649 .53 .110 .156
PRACH ACHEL 7,037.534 1 46.813 .00 .295 1.00
ATTEL 13.364 1 .325 .57 .003 .087
KNOWEL 8,643.985 1 36.275 .00 .245 1.00
PRATT ACHEL 34.528 1 1.120 .63 .002 .076
ATTEL 943.098 1 4.004 .00 .170 .997
KNOWEL 1,074.779 1 .817 .04 .039 .558
Error ACHEL 16,837.297 112
ATTEL 4,610.749 112
KNOWEL 26,688.869 112

(a) (b)

Figure 3. (a) Project of night-light (product). (b) “Electric Masters” in group work.

Discussions and Conclusions (2005) also found comparable results in terms of the
In this study, the project-based learning method applied effects of project-based learning on students’ academic
in the experimental group made the students active, so the achievement. According to Hofman et al. (2009), self-
students constructed their own knowledge and learned by evaluation for student’s learning increased their achieve-
themselves throughout the process. This situation is sus- ment. By doing experiments, writing reports, and making
tained by the results showing that there were statistically presentations during the project-based learning method,
significant effects of the project-based learning method on they construct their own conceptions by learning simple
academic achievement and retention of knowledge. concepts such as battery, bulb, switch, poles of the battery,
In this study, the project-based learning method had a and so on. They produced their own products and presen-
statistically significant effect on students’ academic tations at the end of the applications. Therefore, students’
achievement, which suggests that the method was crucial retention of knowledge score in the experimental group
in supporting the construction of knowledge at elementary did not decrease as drastically as in the control group. In
school level. Korkmaz and Kaptan (2002), and Seloni this study, there are significant effects of the applied
232 Volume 114 (5)
 The Effects of Project-Based Learning

(a) (b)

Lamb

Bell

When the
wires were
contacted,
the bell
rings and
the lamp
shines

Figure 4. (a) Door with burglar alarm (product). (b) Door with burglar alarm (detailed).

method on students’ retention of knowledge toward both related to what they have learned before (bridging
project-based learning method, since the knowledge was new knowledge with previous scheme) and what they
constructed by the students in the experimental group. have not learned before (Philips, 1995; Schunk, 1991).
This finding is comparable with those of other studies in The process of project-based learning was very effective
related literature (Özden & Gültekin, 2008; Solomon, in terms of teaching the “Electricity in Our Lives” unit in
2003; Wolf & Fraser, 2008). On the other hand, Kayıran fourth grade. Teachers could organize their future appli-
(2009) states that when the traditional method includes cations of the method by keeping records of the process
activities, there would not be huge difference between the through use of the forms. In this particular study, the
traditional and project-based learning methods in terms of seven forms made the process precise for the students and
retention of knowledge. However, in this study, the stu- they constructed new knowledge since they were aware of
dents’ retention of knowledge was higher in the experi- every step within the process of undertaking the projects.
mental group than in the traditional group. Therefore, it is clear that students’ progress was followed
There are no significant effects of the applied method on by the forms parallel to the project-based learning
students’ attitudes toward the applied method, since the method and there are very few experimental studies in
attitudes of students cannot increase in a short period of which the method was organized and controlled by seven
time in experimental studies. The applications and activi- forms.
ties took more of the students’ time than they were accus- The observed power calculated for the method for both
tomed to; the researcher and the class teacher applied the achievement and retention of knowledge was 1.0. The
project-based method seriously for the first time. As dis- applicability of the project-based learning method with
cussed in this study, Gültekin (2009), Osborne et al. seven forms was enhanced by following the steps and
(2003), and Toprak (2006) stated that in these kinds of procedures for the fourth grade level and the unit (Elec-
experimental studies, sufficient time and materials should tricity in Our Life) in this study. Thus, the project-based
be provided to the students in order to increase the atti- learning method with the explained application steps and
tudes of students. For this reason, there are no significant applied forms increased students’ academic achievement,
effects of the applied method on students’ attitudes toward and it helped keep knowledge permanent for fourth
“Electricity in Our Life.” On the other hand, Serttürk 2008, graders in two different public elementary schools.
Seloni (2005), Singer et al. (2003), and Murphy (2004) Elementary school teachers may use the forms pre-
implied that project-based applications in science and sented in this study like a rubric to control and organize the
technology courses increased students’ attitudes toward process of the project-based learning method. Elementary
science, since students have fun in science and thus look school teachers should apply the project-based learning
forward to learning it. method once or twice in an academic year for fourth
Throughout the process of the method applied in the graders in order to increase the academic achievement of
experimental group, students learn concepts and subjects students and their knowledge retention. Moreover, the
School Science and Mathematics 233
 The Effects of Project-Based Learning

Ministry of National Education could prepare various Kayıran, T. (2009). Çoklu zekâ kuramı destekli proje tabanlı öğrenme
yönteminin sosyal bilgiler dersinde akademik başarı, tutum ve kalıcılığa
standard forms for elementary school teachers that reflect
etkisi. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Adana: Çukurova Üniversitesi,
the characteristics of the project-based science teaching. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
Korkmaz, H., & Kaptan, F. (2002). Fen eğitiminde proje tabanlı öğrenme
References yaklaşımının ilköğretim öğrencilerinin akademik başarı, akademik benlik
Altun Yalçın, S., Turgut, Ü., & Büyükkasap, E. (2009). The effect of project kavramı ve çalışma sürelerine etkisi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim
based learning on science undergraduates’ learning of electricity, attitude Fakültesi Dergisi, 22, 91–97.
towards physics and scientific process skills. International Online Journal Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, W. R., Bass, M. K., & Fredricks, J.
of Educational Sciences, 1(1), 81–105. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by
Ayas Kör, S. (2006). İlköğretim 5. sınıf öğrencilerinde “yaşamımızdaki middle school students. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3–4), 313–
elektrik” ünitesinde görülen kavram yanılgılarının giderilmesinde 350.
bütünleştirici öğrenme kuramına dayalı geliştirilen materyallerin etkisi. Krajcik, J. S., Czerniak, C. M., & Berger, C. (1999). Teaching children
Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Trabzon: Karadeniz Teknik science: A project-based approach. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü. Mioduser, D., & Betzer, N. (2007). The contribution of project-based-learning
Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the to high-achievers’ acquisition of technological knowledge and skills.
future. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 18, 59–
and Ideas, 83(2), 39–43. 77.
Benjamin, M. N., Lavi, H., McKeachie, A., & Lin, Y. (1997). Individual Moje, E. B., Collazo, T., Carrillo, R., & Marx, R. W. (2001). “Maestro, what
differences in students retention of knowledge and conceptual structures is ‘quality’?”: Language, literacy, and discourse in project-based science.
Learned in university and high school courses: The case of test anxiety. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(4), 469–498.
Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5(11), 507–526. Muniandy, B. (2000). An investigation of the use of consructivism of technol-
Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & ogy in project-based learning. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi. USA: Oregon
Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the Üniversitesi.
doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3–4), 369– Murphy, C. (2004). Students as “catalysts” in the classroom: The impact of
398. co-teaching between science student teachers and primary classroom
Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. (11. Basım). teachers on children’s enjoyment and learning of science. International
Ankara: PegemA Yayıncılık. Journal of Science Education, 26(8), 1023–1035.
Colley, K. E. (2008). Project-based science instruction: A primer. The Science Nuhoğlu, H. (2008). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji dersine yönelik bir tutum
Teacher, 75(8), 23–28. ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi. Elementary Education Online, 7(3), 627–639.
Davis, E. A. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive Osborn, R., & Freyberg, P. (1985). Learning in science. Auckland, New
reflection: Generic and directed prompts. Journal of the Learning Sciences, Zealand: Heinemann.
12(1), 91–142. Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A
Demirci, C. (2003). Fen bilgisi öğretiminde etkin öğrenme yaklaşımının erişi, review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of
tutum ve kalıcılığa etkisi. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi: Ankara: Hacettepe Science Education, 25(9), 1049–1079.
Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü. Özden, M., & Gültekin, M. (2008). The effects of brain-based learning on
Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1999). Addressing the challenges academic achievement and retention of knowledge in science course. Elec-
of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. tronic Journal of Science Education, 12(1), 1–17.
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3–4), 391–450. Park, H., Khan, S., & Petrina, S. (2009). ICT in science education: A quasi-
Erdem, M. (2002). Proje tabanlı öğrenme. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim experimental study of achievement, attitudes toward science, and career
Fakültesi Dergisi, 22, 172–179. aspirations of Korean middle school students. International Journal of
Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). London: Sage Science Education, 31(8), 993–1012.
Publications. Philips, D. C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of
Gültekin, Z. (2009). Fen eğitiminde proje tabanlı öğrenme uygulamalarının constructivism. Educational Researcher, 24(7), 5–12.
öğrencilerin bilimin doğasıyla ilgili görüşlerine, bilimsel süreç Rennie, L. J., Goodrum, D., & Hackling, M. (2001). Science teaching and
becerilerine ve tutumlarına etkisi. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. learning in Australian schools: Results of a national study. Research in
İstanbul: Marmara Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü. Science Education, 31, 455–498.
Harlen, W. (1998). The teaching of science in primary schools. London: Schneider, R. M., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (2002). Perfor-
Routledge. mance of students in project-based science classrooms on a national
Helle, L., Tynjälä, P., & Olkinuora, E. (2006). Project-based learning in measure of science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
post-secondary education—Theory, practice and rubber sling shots. 39(5), 410–422.
Higher Education, 51, 287–314. Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational
Hofman, R. H., Dijkstra, N. J., & Hofman, W. H. A. (2009). School self- Psychologist, 26, 207–231.
evaluation and student achievement. School Effectiveness and School Seloni, Ş. (2005). Fen bilgisi öğretiminde oluşan kavram yanılgılarının proje
Improvement, 20(1), 47–68. tabanlı öğrenme ile giderilmesi. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi.
İmer, N. (2008). İlköğretim Fen ve Teknoloji Öğretiminde Proje Tabanlı İstanbul: Marmara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
Öğrenme Yaklaşımının Öğrencilerin Akademik Başarı ve Tutumuna Serttürk, M. (2008). Fen öğretiminde proje tabanlı öğrenme yaklaşımının
Etkisinin Araştırılması. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Ankara: Gazi ilköğretim 7. Sınıf öğrencilerinin fen başarısı ve tutumuna etkisi.
Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Sakarya: Sakarya Üniversitesi.
Karaçallı, S., (2011), İlköğretim 4. Sınıf Fen ve Teknoloji Dersinde Proje Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
Tabanlı Öğrenme Yönteminin Akademik Başarıya, Tutuma ve Kalıcılığa Singer, J., Marx, R., Krajcik, J., & Clay-Chambers, J. (2000). Constructing
Etkisi. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Burdur: Mehmet Akif Ersoy extended inquiry projects: Curriculum materials for science education
Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü. reform. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 165–178.
234 Volume 114 (5)
 The Effects of Project-Based Learning

Singer, J. E., Tal, R., & Wu, H.-K. (2003). Students’ understanding of the
particulate nature of matter. School Science and Mathematics, 103(1),
28–44.
Solomon, G. (2003). Project-based learning: A primer. Technology and
Learning, 23(6), 20–30.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th
ed., pp. 54–55). Boston: Pearson Education.
Tavşancıl, E. (2006). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPPS ile veri analizi (3. Basım).
Ankara: Nobel Yayınları.
Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on PBL. Retrieved from
www.bobpearlman.org/BestPractices/PBL_Research.pdf
Toolin, R. E. (2004). Striking a balance between innovation and standards: A
study of teachers implementing project-based approaches to teaching
science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(2), 179–187.
Toprak, E. (2006). Proje tabanlı öğrenme metodunun ilköğretim 5. sınıf
öğrencilerinin fen ve teknoloji dersindeki akademik başarısına etkisi.
Yüksek Lisans Tezi. İstanbul: Marmara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri
Enstitüsü.
Tseng, K. H., Chang, C. C., Lou, S., & Chen, W. (2013). Attitudes towards
science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) in a project-
based learning (PjBL) environment. International Journal of Technology
and Design Education, 23(1), 87–102.
Villeneuve, J. C. (2000). Composing a life: community college students
Project-based learning in a multimedia program. Unpublished Doctorate
Dissertation, School of Education, California University, Berkeley.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and
learning. London: Palmer Press.
Weissman, A. N., & Beck, A. (1978). Development And Validation Of the
Dysfunctıonal. Attitude Scale: A Preliminary Investigation. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED167619.Pdf
Wolf, S. J., & Fraser, B. J. (2008). Learning environment, attitudes and
achievement among middle-school science students using inquiry-based
laboratory activities. Research in Science Education, 38, 321–341.

Authors’ Note
1
This study is part of the master’s thesis written by
Saide KARAÇALLI advised by Assistant Professor Dr.
Fikret KORUR from the Social Sciences Institute of
Mehmet Akif University.
Keywords: achievement, attitude, retention of knowl-
edge, Electricity in our Life, project-based learning.
School Science and Mathematics 235