The Journal of Educational Research

ISSN: 0022-0671 (Print) 1940-0675 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjer20

Exploring the effects of project-based learning in

secondary mathematics education

Vicki-Lynn Holmes & Yooyeun Hwang

To cite this article: Vicki-Lynn Holmes & Yooyeun Hwang (2016): Exploring the effects of
project-based learning in secondary mathematics education, The Journal of Educational
Research, DOI: 10.1080/00220671.2014.979911

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2014.979911

Published online: 11 May 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjer20

Download by: [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] Date: 14 May 2016, At: 05:21
 THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
2016, VOL. 0, NO. 0, 1–15
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2014.979911

Exploring the effects of project-based learning in secondary mathematics education

Vicki-Lynn Holmesa and Yooyeun Hwangb
a
Department of Mathematics, Hope College, Holland, Michigan, USA; bDepartment of Education, Hope College, Holland, Michigan, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This mixed-method, longitudinal study investigated the benefits of project-based learning (PBL) on Received 3 June 2014
secondary-mathematics students’ academic-skill development and motivated strategies for learning (i.e., Revised 5 September 2014
cognitive, social, and motivational). The focus of this study was academic skill-development (algebra- and Accepted 9 October 2014
geometry-assessment scores) and other factors related to secondary mathematics learning, with KEYWORDS
comparable traditional high schoolers serving as the control group. In addition, the relationship between Mathematics; motivation;
PBL and racially/ethnically and economically diverse secondary students was investigated. Results showed PBL; project based learning;
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 05:21 14 May 2016

that at-risk and minority students benefited greatly from PBL in learning mathematics. The academic secondary; self-efficacy
performance gap was present, but its width diminished significantly. Compared to their public school
counterparts, PBL students were more intrinsically motivated, showed significantly higher critical thinking
skills, and appreciated peer learning. Impact of socioeconomic status on the PBL approach needs further
investigation.

This study is an investigation of the benefit of project-based
learning (PBL) to secondary mathematics students on both aca-
demic skill development and motivated strategies for learning
(i.e., cognitive, social, and motivational). PBL is an instructional
approach significantly different from conventional classroom
teaching, whose positive effects have not been clearly estab-
lished for secondary mathematics (Petrosino, 2004; Strobel &
Barneveld, 2009; Walker & Leary, 2009). PBL’s benefits have
been clearly established in science and elementary-mathematics
teaching and learning. The focus of this study is academic skill-
development (e.g., algebra- and geometry-assessment scores)
and other factors related to secondary mathematics. In addi-
tion, the relationship between PBL and racially or ethnically
and economically diverse secondary students was investigated.
PBL is defined as students working collaboratively to design
solutions for authentic and meaningful questions and problems
in the real world (Gijbels, Dochy, Vanden Bossche, & Segers,
2005; Petrosino, 2004). Additionally, these projects “involve
students in problem-solving, decision-making, and investiga-
tive activities; give students the opportunity to work relatively
autonomously over extended periods of time; and culminate in
realistic products or presentations” (Thomas, 2000, p. 1).
Regarding mathematics learning, research indicates that
PBL, with its unique hands-on (interactive and collaborative),
minds-on (authentic problem solving and critical thinking)
approach to learning, increases deeper understanding of math-
ematical concepts; helps students retain knowledge learned;
and enhances students’ ability to apply knowledge in real-world
scenarios (Gijbels et al., 2005). Advocates claim that students in
a PBL environment tend to be more motivated to learn the nec-
essary information for their projects (Dunlap, 2005; Larmer,
Ross, & Mergendoller, 2009). For example, Myer, Turner, and
Spencer (1997) demonstrated that PBL fostered challenge
seekers instead of challenge avoiders in students’ mathematics
learning.
Research shows that the PBL approach works well with
students who already have a deep conceptual knowledge of the
subject matter but may be detrimental to those with only super-
ficial knowledge of the subject (Dochy, Segers, Vanden Bossche,
& Gijbels, 2003; Vernon & Blake, 1993). Further, the benefits of
PBL for students of varied socio-cultural backgrounds, such as
socio-economic status (SES), are widely debated (Boaler, 2002;
Delpit, 1988; Lubienski, 2000). The issue under discussion is
twofold. PBL is beneficial for low socioeconomic status (SES)
students because the cooperative learning environment tends to
provide cognitive and social support. However, it has an under-
lying premise that all group members have equal opportunity to
express their views: one’s opinions are as valued as others’. In
our society, that is not always true (Tatum, 1997; Timpson,
2003; University of Wisconsin Whitewater, 2005; White, 2011).
As a consequence, it can be argued that low-SES students are at
a disadvantage and would not be willing to speak out against
their middle- or upper-middle-SES peers or their teacher. This
reasoning may hold true for ethnic or racial minority and at-risk
students. As research shows that low-SES and at-risk popula-
tions are highly correlated with low achievement in mathemat-
ics, this is of concern when implementing PBL.
When a pedagogical approach is successful, students under-
stand the information more clearly, remember the information
more accurately, perform in assessments more competently,
and transfer the knowledge and skills to a new context. More
importantly, a good pedagogical approach helps students

CONTACT Vicki-Lynn Holmes holmesv@hope.edu Department of Mathematics, Hope College, P.O. Box 9000, Holland, MI 49422.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/vjer.
© 2016 Taylor & Francis
 2 V.-L. HOLMES AND Y. HWANG

become better learners in the long term. Anderson, Reder, and
Simon (2000) argued that when evaluating a good instructional
program, we should not only evaluate the immediate
learner effects [e.g., standards, test scores, grades], but also retention
of knowledge and skills and transferability of knowledge and skills
to a broader range of tasks than those used in the instruction. To
take an obvious example from mathematics, research on calculus
instruction should be evaluated in large measure (except possibly
for mathematics majors) by assessing the ability and propensity of
students to use calculus successfully when it is relevant in their
work in physics and economics. (p. 20)
Therefore, a comprehensive, well-done pedagogical assess-
ment includes academic achievement, characterized by test
scores, and qualities of a motivated learner, characterized by
expectations about success, self-judgment of ability, effective
learning strategies, and willingness to seek help (Bandura,
1977).
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 05:21 14 May 2016
They include such concepts as self-efficacy, anxiety, and intra-
personal attribution. External regulation and cooperative learn-
ing describes external behaviors and social skills that allow
learners to better regulate and increase the effectiveness of their
learning. It includes concepts such as self-regulation and coop-
erative learning. Alternatively, these three groups of constructs
can be divided into two overarching categories: motivation and
cognitive skills. Motivational factors encompass both internal
motivational beliefs (internal and external goal orientations,
test anxiety, self-efficacy, and control of learning) and external
regulation and cooperative learning skills (time and study envi-
ronment, peer learning, and help seeking). The rationale
behind this division is that cooperative group work is a critical
component of PBL; it warranted a category of its own. Internal
cognitive skills (i.e., learning strategies) cover rehearsal, elabo-
ration, organization, critical thinking, and metacognitive self-
regulation. We did not in any way change the original concep-

tual structure of current research on learning motivation. The

Based on Vanderstoep and Pintrich (2008), qualities of
following table includes the operationally defined motivational
motivated learners can be classified into three categories: inter-
constructs we have adopted based on VanderStoep and Pin-
nal cognitive skills, internal motivational beliefs, and external
trich’s paradigm (see Table 1).
regulation and cooperative learning. These well-established
Research provides evidence of why these constructs are
constructs are validated in motivational research (Cho & Sum-
foundational to understanding effective learning and why they
mers, 2012; Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1993; Stoffa,
can be used in a holistic approach to assess effective pedagogy.
Kush, & Heo, 2010). Internal cognitive skills refer to cognitive
strategies and processes that learners employ to encode or
manipulate given information effectively. They include such
Internal cognitive skills
concepts as metacognitive skills, study strategies, and critical-
thinking skills. Internal motivational beliefs describe learners’ Effective learners tend to employ study strategies such as elab-
views on their ability to complete a task successfully, on values oration and organization (Goldstein, 2008; Ormrod, 2008;
and challenges of a given task, and on why they succeed or fail. Robinson & Kiewra, 1995). Elaboration is “thinking about

Table 1. Cognitive and motivational factor constructs as defined by MSLQ definitions.

Cognitive component Motivational component

Rehearsal measures the cognitive activity of
repeating facts or definitions.
Intrinsic goal orientation measures the extent to Time and study environment measures how well
which you work hard because you enjoy the you manage your time and choose good
challenge of learning new things, are places to study.
genuinely curious about your courses, or
enjoy the feeling that comes from
understanding complex material.

Elaboration measures the ability to build Extrinsic motivation measures the act of doing Effort regulation measures your persistence in
connections between the topics and the well because you appreciate the external the face of difficulty or boredom.
course. rewards that go along with doing well.

Organization measures the tendency to make Task value measures the extent to which the Peer learning measures the ability to pool
charts or outlines of class notes and lecture tasks are interesting, important, and useful. knowledge, talk through difficult material,
materials and to select the most important and explain something effectively to
points from your text book or lecture notes. someone else in a group.

Critical thinking measures the ability to use Control of learning beliefs measures the extent to Help seeking measures how well you use the
knowledge in flexible and meaningful ways. which you believe that hard work will have resources of more competent people
positive results. available to you.

Metacognitive self-regulation measures the Self-efficacy for learning and performance

awareness and control you have over your measures your expectation about success and
own cognition, which is the mental your judgment of your own ability.
operation involved in performing a task.

Test anxiety measures the experience of having

distracting and disruptive thoughts that
interfere with your cognitive activity. It also
measures the experience of having physical
feelings of discomfort and nervousness while
taking a test.

what you are reading [or hearing] and giving it meaning by
relating it to other things that you know” (Goldstein, 2008, p.
187). Organization refers to “creating a framework that helps
relate some information to other information, making the
material more meaningful and therefore strengthening encod-
ing” (Goldstein, 2008, p. 188). Another internal cognitive skill
is critical thinking, which involves students evaluating accu-
racy and reliability, as well as questioning the value and prac-
ticality (or applicability) of what they are learning (Ormrod,
2009). In direct relation to this study, “[m]athematics and
critical thinking cannot be separated from each other if we
seek meaningful learning of mathematics. Critical thinking
and mathematics classes should be for all students. Accord-
ingly, dealing with diverse students is an essential point in
any critical-thinking training program” (Innabi & Sheikh,
2006, p. 67). A third internal cognitive skill is metacognition,
which refers to knowledge of and thoughts about one’s own
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 05:21 14 May 2016
thinking and cognition (or intellect) (Dunlosky & Metcalfe,
2009). Learners with metacognitive skills are able to monitor
their own learning processes, which include reading and lis-
tening comprehension and applying and adjusting effective
learning strategies. In other words, metacognition is an essen-
tial part of self-regulated learning that characterizes most
effective learners. Not everyone is highly metacognitive (But-
ler & Winne, 1995; Stipek, 2002), but students can be taught
the skills (Borkowski, 1992). Another characteristic of self-
regulated learners is effort regulation, which is the knowledge
and ability to control the level of effort put forth to achieve
goals based on an understanding of the demands of a given
task. They understand that certain tasks require a larger
amount of effort or time than some other tasks, and they are
able to persevere even if the task is difficult or uninteresting
(Pintrich, 2000; Wolters, 1998; Zimmerman, 2000).
Internal motivational beliefs and skills
One type of internal motivation is learning motivation, which
includes both intrinsic and extrinsic. “Intrinsic motivation is
defined as the doing of an activity for its inherent satisfaction
rather than for some separable consequence,” whereas “[e]
xtrinsic motivation is a construct that pertains whenever an
activity is done in order to attain a different outcome” (Ryan &
Deci, 2000, p. 60). Several factors contribute to a learner’s moti-
vation, including self-efficacy, intrapersonal attribution, and
anxiety. Self-efficacy refers to a personal belief in “one’s capa-
bilities to organize and execute courses of action to attain desig-
nated goals” (Bandura, 1997; Zimmerman, 2000, p. 144).
Researchers have argued that self-efficacy affects whether stu-
dents choose challenging or easy activities, set higher or lower
goals, exert more or less effort, and persist through obstacles or
give up easily (Ormrod, 2009; Pajares, 2005; Schunk & Pajares,
2005; Zimmerman, 2000). As a result, students with high self-
efficacy tend to learn and achieve more on a given task and are
more motivated and actively engaged in their learning (Stipek,
2001; Zimmerman, 2000). The second internal motivational
belief is intrapersonal attribution, which is an individual’s per-
sonally constructed explanation about the causes of his or her
success and failure on a given task or event. Studies have shown
that these underlying explanations have clear motivational
THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 3
consequences for expecting future success (Weiner, 2000, 2004,
2005; Weiner & Kukla, 1970). The third internal motivational
factor is anxiety. Although individuals experience debilitating
anxiety in many different contexts (e.g., social or classroom),
anxiety in learning is commonly referred to as test anxiety
(Stipek, 2002) and has two elements, cognitive and emotional
(Stipek, 2002; VanderStoep, 2008). In the mathematics context,
the cognitive element includes having negative thoughts or low
expectations for learning mathematics and performing on
exams (Meece, Wigfield, & Eccles, 1990; Wigfield & Meece,
1988). In his meta-analysis, Ma (1999) found that there is a sig-
nificant negative correlation (r D –.27) between mathematics
anxiety and mathematics achievement among secondary stu-
dents regardless of gender and ethnicity. The emotional ele-
ments of anxiety refer to physiological reactions that include
uneasy feelings, sweating, and increased heart rate (Beilock &
Carr, 2005; Kazelskis et al., 2000; Lyons & Beilock, 2012; Stipek,
2002; VanderStoep, 2008).
External regulation and cooperative learning
Learners’ external regulation includes self-regulation and regu-
lation of the physical environment. Self-regulation refers to the
degree to which an individual intentionally controls his or her
own behaviors to achieve goals. Students who are self-regulated
tend to set goals for themselves and monitor their progress and
learning outcomes. They also seek help when needed and select
and adjust their strategies (Butler & Winne, 1995). Similarly,
they regulate their physical environment, such as managing
when and where to study.
Cooperative or peer learning (e.g., small-group work) is
another external learner behavior in this category. Two of its
common characteristics are having a common definitive goal
and having each group member take responsibility for contrib-
uting meaningfully (Abbeduto, 2010). Studies have shown that
students benefit from small-group learning (Slavin, 1996; Wen-
zel, 2000; Williamson & Rowe, 2002). “Students who work in
cooperative groups with other students are more motivated
and successful, especially with regard to reasoning and critical
thinking skills, than those that do not” (Wenzel, 2000, p.
294A). Wenzel also found that the positive attributes of cooper-
ative learning are especially significant in influencing racial and
ethnic minority students to consider careers in science and
mathematics.
Examining these three motivated learning constructs (inter-
nal cognitive skills, internal motivational beliefs, and external
regulation and cooperative learning) is used as a foundation for
evaluating the quality of students’ learning and as a guideline
for assessing the effectiveness of PBL for secondary mathemat-
ics. Specifically, we measured academic achievement and stu-
dent-motivated learning strategies to explore and understand
the effect of PBL in the context of the secondary mathematics
classroom.
In the fall of 2010, a small Midwestern school district
opened a new PBL high school, whose demographics indicated
a high at-risk population; approximately 33% of its eighth- and
ninth-grade students performed below minimum proficiency
(National Center for Education Statistics, 2009, 2010, 2011).
Additionally, approximately 39% were eligible for free and/or
 4 V.-L. HOLMES AND Y. HWANG
reduced lunch, a strong indicator for mathematics under-
achievement (Michigan Department of Education, 2009).
Although the intention of establishing a new PBL school was to
provide academic excellence for college-bound students, the
population attracted was disproportionally lower achieving.
According to the state standardized-assessment scores, the per-
cent of students with less than a 60% mathematics proficiency
level was about 10% lower than at the control school located in
the same district. Both administrators and teachers were disap-
pointed and had to readjust their own expectations of PBL.
They were aware of the research behind PBL and its positive
effects for high-achieving students but were now faced with
implementing it with students who, according to the literature,
were not assured of benefiting.
This was a golden opportunity for us to work with the com-
munity. The school district asked for our involvement in assess-
ing their new high school dedicated solely to a PBL
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 05:21 14 May 2016
environment. We, together with the teachers and administra-
tors, attended several PBL-sponsored training conferences and
workshops prior to beginning the study. This study followed
the initial eighth- and ninth-grade students.
Research questions
The overarching objective of the study was to assess the imple-
mentation process of PBL in a secondary mathematics curricu-
lum. To do this required both quantitative measures, such as
students’ mathematics achievement test scores and student sur-
veys, as well as qualitative measures. Through classroom obser-
vations, interviews with students, and the use of a control
school, we assessed how well secondary mathematics was
taught and learned through PBL. In particular, this study was
designed to investigate three main research questions:
Research Question 1: Is there any relationship between PBL and
secondary students’ academic skill (i.e., mathematics)?
Research Question 2: Would the PBL environment enhance inter-
nal cognitive skills and motivational factors (i.e., internal motiva-
tional belief and external regulation/ cooperative learning)?
Research Question 3: Does the PBL approach affect minority
(Latino American and other) and low-SES students who are known
to be underachieving in mathematics differently than it does the
majority students?
For Research Question 1, please note that this study was not
designed to examine two different pedagogical approaches
(PBL vs. conventional) but to investigate the effects of the PBL
approach while using the conventional approach as a control
condition.
As the PBL school started with a higher percentage of stu-
dents who were lower achieving in mathematics, we were not
clear whether the PBL approach would make any significant
difference. In addition, because the previous research suggested
that PBL may not be an effective pedagogical approach for stu-
dents with superficial understanding of mathematical concepts,
it was difficult to foresee a positive effect.
The teachers recruited for the school were novices to the
PBL pedagogical approach. Therefore, they needed time to
develop sufficient skills to become adept at implementing it. At
the same time, there might have been a halo effect to this
approach that motivated teachers and students new to it. In
other words, the newness itself could have been either positive
or negative for learning and teaching. Hence, it was not clear in
which direction the outcome would go. We, therefore, started
the study from an exploratory framework.
Method
This study was conducted to collect both quantitative and qual-
itative data. For quantitative data, participants’ standardized
test scores and online survey scores were examined; for qualita-
tive data, classroom observations and student interviews were
administered and analyzed for both the PBL and control high
schools. While PBL is an approach that assesses student learn-
ing through peer presentations, the school needed to demon-
strate the effectiveness of the pedagogy through students’
performance on standardized tests. These tests measure student
minimal content gain per grade level. The scores on the stan-
dardized tests allowed us to compare the performance of PBL
students to that of the control students. For the data collection
process, all researchers were trained in observing classes, inter-
viewing students, and coding data. Eighty percent interrater
reliability was maintained for the integrity of the research
methodology.
Participants
The participants of the study were the eighth- and ninth-grade
students of both the PBL and the control high schools. The dis-
trict’s conventional high school was chosen as the control
group. The first year, the total number of students in the study
was 532 (88 PBL and 444 control). In the second year, the total
number of students in the study was 459 (78 PBL and 381 con-
trol). The PBL and control groups shared similar demographics
and geographical proximity.
To adjust for the disproportionate sample size between the
PBL and control high schools, we utilized a stratified random
sample approach to compare mean differences between these
groups. Specifically, out of the total participants, we randomly
chose a representative subsample by gender and race (nPBL D
30; nControl D 30). See Table 2 for the detailed participant
demographics.
The PBL school had heavily recruited students from the
existing high school in the same district. The participants were
students of the PBL school, while the control were students
attending the existing high school. Demographics for the two
groups were comparable except in the area of mathematics
level, in which PBL students were about 10% lower (census).
From the PBL population, all mathematics students partici-
pated in this study. The students who were interviewed were
randomly selected. The control school administrators allowed
us to observe the mathematics classrooms and interview their
mathematics teachers.
Control group’s curriculum
The control group had a conventional mathematics curriculum,
which consisted of the traditional sequencing, delineated in
 THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 5

Table 2. Participant demographics.

Experimental PBL school Control non-PBL school

First year (n D 88) Second year (n D 78) First year (n D 444) Second year (n D 381)
Grade

8 47 (53%) 8 186 (42%)

9 41 (47%) 44 (56%) 9 258 (58%) 205 (54%)
10 34 (44%) 10 176 (46%)
Gender

Male 51 (58%) 47 (60%) Male 198 (45%) 189 (50%)

Female 37 (42%) 31 (40%) Female 244 (55%) 192 (50%)
Ethnicity–race

African-American 11 (13%) 8 (11%) African-American 22 (5%) 13 (8%)

European-American 37 (42%) 33 (43%) European-American 173 (39%) 151 (40%)
Latino(a)-American 26 (30%) 28 (36%) Latino(a)-American 178 (40%) 168 (44%)
Other 14 (16%) 9 (12%) Other 71 (16%) 49 (13%)
Socioeconomic status

48/88 D 55% 226/444 D 52%

Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 05:21 14 May 2016

Randomized sampling demographics by gender and race

Experimental PBL school Control non-PBL school

Gender

Male 16 (53%) Male 16 (53%)

Female 13 (43%) Female 14 (47%)
Note: one PBL person declined gender specification
Ethnicity–race

African-American 3 (10%) African-American 1 (3%)

European-American 12 (40%) European-American 13 (43%)
Latino(a)-American 11(37%) Latino(a)-American 10 (33%)
Other 4 (13%) Other 6 (2%)

Note. Sometimes numbers do not agree, because some students declined to self-report.

Figure 1 below. The sequencing consists of two tracks, college
and career ready and accelerated advanced placement (AP).
Students in Grade 8 usually took general mathematics; how-
ever, accelerated students took prealgebra or algebra 1.
The control group’s curriculum was not mandated to follow
a uniform topical sequence, and the mathematics teachers were
allowed to choose an appropriate pedagogical approach as long
as they met the specified curriculum state standard. This was
true within and between grade levels. The classrooms observed
utilized the traditional classroom pedagogy, which included
many different formats (e.g., small group, paired discussion).
The main pedagogy, however, consisted of more than 70%
lecture.
The PBL school was similar to the control school in that it,
too, needed to meet the same state standards. However, the
teachers were not bound by the same sequence of courses. As

Figure 1. Control curriculum sequencing map, course description catalog.

 6 V.-L. HOLMES AND Y. HWANG
long as students met the same criteria by the end of the year,
the teachers had the freedom to teach courses and course con-
tent in any order. In other words, while all teachers employed
the PBL pedagogical approach, they had the academic freedom
to teach the content as they thought best to meet the state
standard.
Attrition
We did not have any control over the attrition or the selection
of participants. This was because students had the freedom to
choose their high school but not their school district. This
meant there was a lot of student movement among schools
within the district. Fortunately, the PBL attrition rate was 14%,
which was not significantly different than that of the control
school (p D .431).
We were present from the beginning of the PBL school;
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 05:21 14 May 2016
therefore, our presence was regularly and naturally embedded
in the classrooms. As a result, our presence had minimal effect
on attrition.
Teachers
The PBL teachers were recruited from the control high school
because they were highly experienced and reputed to be excel-
lent mathematics teachers. They were trained through a
national PBL organization by observing a well-established PBL
school program and attending meetings several times a year.
The organization not only provided training but also assisted
with curriculum development and implementation.
Analysis
Because of the disparate population size between PBL and the
control groups, a randomized stratified sample by gender and
race was used to analyze between-group differences. Specifi-
cally, the data were stratified by gender and race; then a simple
random sample was conducted by selecting every third person
from the PBL group and every 15th person from the control
group. Therefore, 60 students, 30 from each group, were
included in the analysis for between-group differences. How-
ever, to better understand the full picture, we used the entire
population for within-school differences.
Independent t tests were run to find significance between
PBL and the control group on standardized tests, whereas
paired t tests were conducted to find significance within the
same group among different semesters. An analysis of vari-
ance was also run to determine the effect of the quantified
survey constructs on the two groups. Specifically, the student
responses to the 15 motivational constructs were analyzed.
Descriptive (percentage and proportions) data was provided
to give a general overview of all the survey data (i.e., 15
components of the survey and demographics). We used
nonparametric statistics for the survey data. A chi-square
test was run to find significance in the magnitude of the per-
cent of change. Effect sizes of each motivational construct
were reported for both between- and within-group
differences.
All stipulations were met for these tests. Interrater reliability
(80%) was assessed for researchers’ qualitative data.
Power
The study design had ample power to detect significance; the
student sample size was large enough, see Table 2. It may
appear that we were comparing two different pedagogies (PBL
vs. control), when, in fact, we were examining the PBL
approach at the student level; assessing a cooperative learning
pedagogy requires focusing on the motivational and academic
performance of individual students. Additionally, when the
data were classified by stratification, gender, race–ethnicity,
and SES, each group had adequate numbers to detect signifi-
cance in both the PBL and control populations. Power was
determined initially by using the standard rule of thumb for
each test of significance for 80% power (Tintle et al., 2014; Wil-
son-VanVoorhis & Morgan, 2007). A priori, each test of signifi-
cance conducted confirmed that we had ample power to detect
significance.
Missing data
Fortunately, missing data was not an issue.
Materials
Overall mathematics scores on the state standardized tests and
the Plan Explorer (PLAN) test (i.e., commercial tests) for both
the PBL and control schools were contrasted (i.e., descriptive
statistics, and chi-square and t tests). Instead of imposing an
additional assessment, we chose to analyze the existing tools
used by both participating schools. Since these tools were cho-
sen by the school district for their construct validity based on
curriculum standards, we felt that they were an appropriate
choice.
In the spring of each year, both PBL and control students’
state standardized mathematics scores were given to us by the
school district. The state standardized tests were administered
to eighth- and 11th-grade students. They are ACT-based and
test algebra, geometry, and statistics. Overall Cronbach’s alpha
for reliability for the state standardized tests ranged from .87 to
.88 (Michigan Department of Education, 2012). Grade-appro-
priate general topics addressed in the exam included mathe-
matics reasoning, logic and proof, algebraic expressions,
equations and functions, relationships, properties and geomet-
ric transformations of figures, and statistical univariate and
bivariate data (Michigan Department of Education, 2010).
The PLAN, which is also an ACT-based assessment, was
given to all grade levels (Grades 8–12) at both schools. Accord-
ing to one of the administrators, the PLAN test is closely corre-
lated to the state standardized test success, which was why it
was adopted for district-wide implementation. At time of study,
there were no reliability coefficients available to report.
To determine the achievement level of the PBL and control
students prior to the PBL experience, we compared fall 2010
mathematics standardized scores for both groups. We found that
the PBL students’ scores were lower (by 10%) than the control
students; however, the difference was not significant (p D .065).
Student surveys
These surveys assessed students’ degree of motivated learning
strategies. All students were given an online adaptive version of
 THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 7

the VanderStoep and Pintrich (2008) Motivated Strategies for interviews were conducted at the school, taped, and
Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) Learning Inventory survey for transcribed for analysis. A number of colleagues from the
three consecutive semesters in their own classrooms by their Education Department and other disciplines reviewed the
mathematics teachers. The MSLQ is a well-established survey questions prior to our conducting the study.
that has been validated by the professional community (Artino,
2005; Cred
e & Phillips, 2011). The survey comprises 16 subca-
tegories, including demographics. As explained previously, Classroom observations
these 16 subcategories are classified into three groups: internal
Each semester, trained researchers observed the teachers’ dis-
cognitive skills, internal motivational beliefs, and external regu-
course to assess depth of knowledge displayed, using Univer-
lation and cooperative learning. Internal cognitive skills include
sity of Louisville’s Mathematical Knowledge in the
rehearsal (four items), elaboration (six items), organization
Classroom Discourse rubric and scoring sheet (see Appendix
(three items), critical thinking (five items), and metacognitive
B). The instrument measures three aspects of a teacher’s
self-regulation (12 items). Internal motivational beliefs include
mathematics knowledge: instructional learning (i.e., vocabu-
intrinsic goal orientation (four items), extrinsic goal orientation
lary, schemas provided, depth of questions asked), curricu-
(four items), test anxiety (five items), task value (six items), self-
lum (i.e., appropriate use of materials and technology), and
efficacy (four items), and effort-regulation (four items). Exter-
student learning (i.e., interpreting and assessing students’
nal regulation and cooperative learning include time and study
mathematical learning and assisting in abstracting the con-
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 05:21 14 May 2016

environment (eight items), peer learning (three items), and

help seeking (four items).
We edited the original survey questions to align with a
Grade 8 reading level without compromising integrity, for
which we received author’s permission. In addition, there were
precedents set for administering the MSLQ survey for K–12
students in mathematics and science (Doll, Zucker, & Brehm,
2004; Feiz, Hooman, & Kooshki, 2013; Karadeniz,
B€uy€uk€
ozt€urk, Akg€un, Çakmak, & Demirel, 2008; Milner, 2011).
Reliability of the adopted survey was determined after the
results; the survey was reliable (Cronbach’s aPBS D .96; Cron-
bach’s acontrol D .94).
Focus group/student interviews
Twice a year, semiclinical student interviews were conducted
to glean additional information not garnered from the stu-
dent surveys, although results from the surveys helped drive
the interviews. A list of standardized questions was devel-
oped, and each interviewer began with the same questions
(see Appendix A for sample questions). The interviewee’s
responses, however, guided further questions. Fifteen stu-
dents (nine girls, six boys) were randomly selected to partici-
pate in the interviews, and none declined to participate. All
cepts taught). The observations were summarized by us. The
teachers were observed twice per semester for 50 min each
(i.e., an entire class time) by four researchers. This is where
we were able to observe first-hand actual PBL projects being
carried out and student interactions.
To validate the data, we used several student factors, which
included surveys, interviews, observations, and achievement
scores. To answer our research questions, the students’ factors,
both quantitative and qualitative, are reported in this article.
Results
The purpose of this study was not to compare the PBL and
conventional approaches to teaching mathematics, nor was
it designed to parse out a cause–effect relationship between
types of pedagogical approaches and learning outcomes.
This study was an investigation of the impact of PBL on
secondary mathematics learners, both academically and
motivationally. The results include both academic skill devel-
opment and motivational factors. In addition, this study
further disaggregated the findings by demographic factors,
such as race–ethnicity and SES in secondary mathematics
learning.

Figure 2. PBL and control schools’ disaggregated standardized mathematics test scores.
 8 V.-L. HOLMES AND Y. HWANG
Academic achievement
The following results were analyzed from the state-adopted
PLAN standardized mathematics test scores for Grades 9 and
10 for both the PBL and control schools. The overall scores
used were the mathematics raw scores for algebra and geome-
try. The highest possible score was 32.
PBL and control school results
The results showed that students in both schools mastered
about half of the requisite mathematics content, scoring 48% at
the PBL school and 56% at the control school. There was no
overall statistical difference between the two schools in mathe-
matics skill development (p > .05). The control school (m D
17.88, SD D 5.01) scored approximately 2 points higher than
the PBL school (m D 15.52, SD D 2.46). This means that, when
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 05:21 14 May 2016
measured by the standardized test, both schools’ secondary stu-
dents’ overall mathematics achievement was similar. The math-
ematics content learning in the two environments did not seem
to make a difference until we disaggregated the data. Then sig-
nificant differences emerged.
Further analysis showed that there were statistically signifi-
cant differences in the data disaggregated by SES factors (i.e.,
free and reduced lunch) and by race–ethnicity. See Figure 2 for
a breakdown of the disaggregated mathematics scores. First,
the achievement gap between students from low-SES and mid-
dle/upper middle-SES backgrounds in the PBL school (1.75
points, which was statistically significant [p < .05]) was smaller
than the gap in the control school (3.02 points, which was sta-
tistically significant [p < .05]). This means that, within the PBL
school, SES (i.e., free and reduced lunch) is still a factor in
mathematics achievement, even though a diminished one. Sec-
ond, in the PBL school, the difference between the racial–ethnic
minority students and the majority White students was nine
tenths of a point, which was not statistically significant. The
same academic score difference in the control school was 4.13
points, which was statistically significant (p < .05). This means
that while race was a factor in mathematics achievement in the
control school, it was not in the PBL environment.
Examining individual scores of racial–ethnic minority stu-
dents and White majority students (i.e., Latino vs. White and
other minority vs. White) in the PBL school, we found that
race was not a factor in performance differences. However, in
the control school, whites outperformed all other racial groups.
Specifically, the difference between the White and other racial
groups was approximately 4 points, and these differences were
statistically significant (White vs. Latino, 4.13; White vs. other,
3.94; p < .05).
White students’ performances played a major role in under-
standing the relationship between the two schools’ overall
scores and their disaggregated performances. In particular,
there were only two statistically different achievement scores
between the schools as a whole, and both score groups had
majority White participants: they were between Whites (PBL D
16.11, SD D 2.09; control D 20.61, SD D 4.90, p < .05) and
those who were not eligible for free and reduced lunch (PBL D
16.64, SD D 2.66; control D 19.64, SD D 5.15; p < .05). In this
population, students who are not eligible for free and reduced
lunch were primarily White students (not eligible: 72% of
White students, 24% of the Latino students, and 33% of other
minority students; these proportions were significantly differ-
ent). Because these two factors are often confounding, they
may have made stronger the impact of the White students’ per-
formance on the overall scores. The White students in the con-
trol school outperformed the White students in the PBL school
by about 5 points.
When examining the achievement gap between White
students and other racial groups of students, race was not a
determining factor in PBL school’s performance. However,
poverty level was. Students who were not eligible for free and
reduced lunch scored approximately 2 points higher than those
who were. This difference was statistically significant (PBLeligible
D 14.90, SD D 2.16; PBLnot eligible D 16.64, SD D 2.66; p < .05).
Another important fact regarding students’ mathematics
learning in the PBL school versus the control school was that
the PBL students have smaller variance. Because the standard
deviation shows how students’ scores deviated from the aver-
age, a small standard deviation means that their scores were
clustered closely around the mean. The average S standard
deviation of the PBL school was 2 points, while the control
school averaged 5 points. This suggests that the PBL students
were brought along together in their learning regardless of race;
their scores seem to support this conjecture, in that their stan-
dard deviations were half those of the control school students.
The PBL students were progressing together, which may
explain why there were no statistical differences among their
subgroups within the school.
Scores indicated that both the PBL and control students
were weak in mathematics content knowledge—having mas-
tered only half. The interview results corroborated these find-
ings. In the beginning, the PBL students did not understand the
mathematics behind a given project. On the surface, they could
present an exemplary product (i.e., presentation) with their
mathematics assignments completed. However, upon question-
ing, they did not have a rudimentary knowledge of why the
algorithms were used, nor were they able to utilize common
mathematics vocabulary. For example, when working on a cul-
minating project for an equation of line/regression, students
had to predict the number of rubber bands needed to form a
bungee cord that would prevent a Barbie doll from crashing
into the ground. The students modeled the simulation beau-
tifully. Using technology, they graphed the number of trials in
a scatter plot and presented their findings in an elaborate
PowerPoint presentation. However, when asked two basic
questions about how they had found the slope and what the
equation represented, none of the five groups could answer
either one. Further, two of the groups had the ordered pairs
labeled backwards (y, x), and none of the groups had used the
equation to find the slope. In the beginning, these were not
atypical phenomena.
Even though these students did not demonstrate standard
mathematics, they showed signs of thinking and actively con-
structing mathematics knowledge. We observed that, in fact,
they were using the mathematics and constructing their own
understanding of prediction by the trial-and-error method.
Specifically, students simply averaged the number of rubber
bands they used in each successful trial. While it was a more

primitive method, it still brought out the students’ own authen-
tic understanding. This ownership of knowledge was a bench-
mark in having the students come to value mathematics, which
seem to lead to their better understanding of it. The following
remarks represented how students felt about their PBL mathe-
matics learning experience:
@I’m retaining it well. In high school [I] struggled with
math and I forgot a lot of the math even between class
periods. I sucked at math and now I’ve improved. I feel
more at ease with math, and I remember the concepts.
@I am more interested in PBL because I get it.
Although some may be concerned that students did not
master the acceptable mathematics standards, these students
actually took the first step in understanding that mathematics
is a way of explaining the concrete world around them. As time
went on, more substantive concepts were learned. Hence, while
not learning grade-level mathematics content, the PBL students
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 05:21 14 May 2016
became more mathematics literate by using mathematics in
real-life situations.
Summary of academic achievement
This exploratory study showed some promising effects for stu-
dents who struggled with mathematics. Some results were also
grounds for concern. Standardized mathematics test scores
showed that, though the academic performance gap was still
present, the width of the gap had diminished significantly. The
fact that White-majority mathematics students performed
Figure 3. PBL students.
THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 9
significantly better outside of the PBL environment needs fur-
ther investigation.
In addition to the standardized test, we administered bian-
nual surveys to investigate cognitive and motivational factors
associated with PBL pedagogy and mathematics learning. The
following were the main findings in each area.
Motivational factors measured by surveys
Because surveys were administered each semester, we were able
to see the evolution in students’ responses longitudinally. The
following reports the differences between the PBL group and
the control group and then the changes within the individual
schools over time in internal cognitive skills, internal motiva-
tional beliefs, and external regulation and cooperative learning.
Throughout this report, students’ comments from interviews
are used to highlight the main survey findings, as their com-
ments brought depth of understanding.
Internal cognitive skills
When examining the change of PBL students’ internal cogni-
tive skills, we found that students in the PBL school used
organization strategies more frequently for studying mathe-
matics (see Figure 3). Moreover, because simply repeating
given information to study mathematics (rehearsal) is less
effective than adding prior knowledge to new information,
students in the PBL setting were not only increasing
 10 V.-L. HOLMES AND Y. HWANG
frequency of using strategies (i.e., organization) but increas-
ing the quality of their strategies. In the beginning of the
study, the PBL students began with minimal organization
skills; however, within one year, the PBL students increased
their usage to 33% and advanced to approximately 67% by
the end of this study. The following responses reflect the
PBL students’ internal cognitive skills:
@I do homework and wait for the next day’s class where the
teacher will go over the concept. I’ll try and go step by
step from his notes to the homework and try and con-
nect it [i.e., elaboration].
@I look back at old assignments that I didn’t get done and
go over those. Try to get homework done on time or
make plans after school to study with the teacher [i.e.,
elaborative rehearsal and strong sign of self-regulation].
@I like to rewrite things, so I rewrite all my notes in the
homework. The more I see it the more I know it [i.e.,
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 05:21 14 May 2016
reviewing and rehearsal].
@I go over what’s learned and make a few practice problems
[i.e., elaboration and testing].
Internal motivational beliefs and external regulation and
cooperative learning
The results showed that PBL students’ responses increased in
four of six subcategories in internal motivational beliefs. The
PBL students became more intrinsically motivated (from 25%
to 67%); showed they believed more that they were in control
of their own learning (from 75% 98%); showed an increased
appreciation for peer learning (from 33% to 67%); and learned
to regulate their study time and study environment more (from
75% to 88%). Critical thinking (from 40% to near 0%) was one
main factor that changed negatively. It is also important to
note that while not statistically significant, metacognitive self-
regulation also decreased. It first spiked (from 25% to 46%) but
then returned to its original state (see Figure 3).
The interview results showed that group work dynamics in
PBL classrooms brought out various social behaviors among
these PBL students, and some students needed an adjustment
period in order to become self-disciplined learners. Unlike stu-
dents in traditional classrooms in which the teacher manages
and controls the class, the PBL students had to work autono-
mously on their projects as a group. In the beginning some stu-
dents were distracted or off task. However, they became more
focused, skilled in working with others, and appreciative of
their peers’ different strengths. The following student responses
clearly demonstrated the aforementioned qualities:
@Group work depends upon work ethic compatibility. If
they [other students in the group] do not have a work
ethic like yours it ends badly.
@Some people have more expertise than in other areas.
@Projects show which students have which strengths, so
they’re a useful tool for picking out groups in the future.
@This year everybody knows each other and their qualities
that they bring to the table for projects.
@Everybody’s got a different creativity. It’s not just me. It’s
not just one person. It’s a collective.
@The project’s not [about] getting the project done all by
yourself; it’s about working together. I realize that it’s
choosing to take the time to work with people instead
of just completing the project. If somebody is lagging
and if you try and keep that person who’s lagging with
you, you can benefit from it. I try to be patient and not
fire people immediately.
These comments clearly show that the students had devel-
oped richer cooperative-learning skills and an understanding of
the benefits of working with others. These group-work experi-
ences also affected students’ learning motivation in several
ways. For example, students showed strong help-seeking behav-
iors. The following comments showed how students initiated
these behaviors. Concept descriptors appear in brackets:
@I ask questions first [of] student[s], then the teacher [i.e.,
peer learning].
@I want to learn [pause] [I] pick others who can be helpful
[i.e., help seeking].
@I look over my notes, watch videos, get private lessons
[from the teacher]. I guess we just have a lot of resour-
ces available [i.e., help-seeking].
@I ask a smart student in class, and then teacher [i.e., peer
learning and help-seeking].
These comments showed that the students realized their
peers could be helpful resources, and even low academic level
students were motivated enough to intentionally seek help. In
other words, students began to show different characteristics of
self-regulation, such as setting goals for themselves, looking for
resources, seeking help, and using better learning strategies that
would help them succeed.
In addition, group work affected how PBL students valued
their mathematics learning (i.e., task value). We gathered from
indirect comments and behavior changes that students came to
appreciate mathematics as a useful cognitive tool. For example,
during an interview, one student shared that when she went to
the store, she actually thought about unit prices and cost com-
parisons. She realized that her mathematics knowledge was use-
ful. Another example is a comment by a student working on a
project designing a pancake mix box. It dawned on him that
mathematics (i.e., geometry) and economics integrate when
designing a package with an optimal ratio of small pancake vol-
ume and large pancake aesthetics. In other words, he was calcu-
lating the dimensions of a feasible package that would be both
attractive and cost-effective by containing the smallest volume
of pancake mix. Although it was a greed motivation, it was also
a realization of the value of mathematics. These were just a cou-
ple of examples among many comments that underscored the
students’ appreciation of mathematics as practical.
Another qualitative change that the PBL students exhibited
was in their management of study time and environments.
Their responses indicated signs of increased study time and the
implementation of effective study strategies. Additionally, they
expressed a desire to earn higher grades and understand the
materials.
The PBL students seemed to be motivated to use more effec-
tive study strategies voluntarily, although the approach itself
does not directly require them. Research has shown that study
strategies such as elaboration, testing, and organization are
very effective in understanding and remembering given infor-
mation (Goldstein, 2011). It can hardly be refuted that students
who autonomously employ these effective strategies are self-
regulated and intrinsically motivated.

Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 05:21 14 May 2016
Figure 4. Control students.
Moreover, the PBL students of all academic achievement
levels (from superficial to deeper conceptual understanding)
responded that they wanted to be successful and master the
content. At first, it may have seemed that students were
expressing performance goals, which usually stem from extrin-
sic motivations, but their initial comments compared to their
later ones make the qualitative changes obvious. Initially, when
asked their mathematics goals, they responded that they simply
wanted to pass. Gradually students began aiming for higher
grades (A or B) and mastering the material. In general, students
who believe they are good or poor at mathematics because of
Figure 5. PBL versus control.
THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 11
their natural ability, do not usually invest time and effort in
studying (Dweck, 2009). These PBL students from all academic
levels did invest greater amounts of time and effort, which sug-
gested a shift in their paradigm. Initially, it seemed that many
attributed their success or failure in mathematics achievement
to innate ability. That could be why they said they merely
wanted to pass, assuming they were not talented enough in
mathematics to do better. Through PBL experiences, these stu-
dents not only maintained high mathematics self-efficacy but
also the belief that effort begets higher grades. They were
expressing mastery or learning goals, which originated from
 12 V.-L. HOLMES AND Y. HWANG
intrinsic motivations, and demonstrating that they could con-
trol their own learning. In the beginning of the study, both the
PBL and control students exhibited high mathematics self-effi-
cacy. As the students increased grade levels, however, the con-
trol students showed significantly lower self-efficacy (12%, p <
.05). Because our study began with eighth-grade students, tradi-
tionally middle school, this confirms the findings that self-effi-
cacy in mathematics tends to be more differentiated in high
school than middle school (Bong, 2001; Wigfield & Meece,
1988). Hence, the normality of control group change adds
weight to the effect of the PBL approach, as the PBL students
continued at the same level. At this juncture, however, the
higher self-efficacy of the PBL students cannot be attributed
solely to their PBL experiences. Further research needs to be
conducted to ascertain if and why the usual downward trend
continues for most high school students.
The control students showed one notable decrease in self-
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 05:21 14 May 2016
efficacy (from 99% to 88%) and increase in test anxiety (from
20% to 60%) during this study (see Figure 4). These may have
indicated that, while the students wanted to achieve their study
goal, this caused higher anxiety and made them lose a measure
of their initial confidence to achieve the tasks.
When the responses of the PBL and control groups are com-
pared to each other, it is evident that their experiences in learn-
ing mathematics were qualitatively different. For example, the
results of the surveys (see Figure 5) showed that the responses
of the PBL students regarding internal cognitive skills were
higher in critical thinking (13% more; F D 3.89, p D .05). Com-
paring internal motivational beliefs, the PBL students were
more intrinsically goal oriented (about 12%; F D 4.87, p D .03).
At the same time, the results showed that both the control and
PBL students were highly extrinsically motivated (78% and
79%, respectively). Most students want to earn high grades.
Additionally, PBL students appreciated working with peers
(14% more; F D 5.19, p D .03). As evidenced by the comparison
graph in Figure 5, it is noteworthy that PBL students scored
higher than the control group in all motivational constructs
examined.
Discussion
This study was an investigation of both the academic and moti-
vational factors associated with secondary mathematics PBL
learners. Although PBL cannot claim to have significantly facil-
itated mathematics content acquisition among all learners, it
did decrease the achievement gap among different demo-
graphic groups and mathematics achievement levels. Unlike in
previous studies, which suggested that only students with in-
depth knowledge benefit from learning through PBL, our study
showed the PBL approach was equally effective for students
with various depths of mathematics knowledge. Moreover,
implementation of the PBL approach increased learning moti-
vation within racial–ethnic and SES subgroups.
Academic achievement
Although the results from our data seemed to indicate that
there were no significant differences in the pedagogical
approach in terms of mathematics content acquisition, this was
not so. Racial minorities and low SES students seemed to fair
well under the PBL environment. Hence, the results of this
study appear to be incongruous with the claim that PBL is det-
rimental to at-risk students and those with only superficial
knowledge of mathematics. In fact, lower achieving students in
our study profited from PBL.
Both schools had similar ratios of racial–ethnic and SES
diversity. For the racial/ethnic diversity among the PBL stu-
dents, the differences among groups were minimal. As we pre-
viously mentioned, while the standard deviations in the PBL
school remained close together, those of the control school
were spread further apart among the groups (White vs. Latino
and White vs. other minority groups). This means that racial
groups within the PBL school were learning at a similar pace
and level, thus reducing the achievement gap among racial
groups. Using an analogy, it is like starting a semester with two
teachers, each having high-, middle-, and low-achieving stu-
dents but then ending the semester with one teacher (the PBL)
having all students in a similar level achievement range and the
other teacher (the control) having the same large differences
among high, middle and low groups. In sum, the sizes of the
variations among the PBL students’ scores were significantly
smaller than those of the control students. Hence, the results
seemed to indicate that the PBL approach may have reduced
the racial–ethnic achievement gap.
We speculated that because the PBL approach by definition
employs small-group work, the format itself contributed to this
positive outcome of a smaller achievement gap. Students were
constantly being randomly assigned to group to complete proj-
ects of varying lengths. Hence, they were required to meet and
work with a variety of racially and ethnically diverse students.
An outgrowth of PBL was the camaraderie of group participa-
tion, which may have facilitated the increase in their perfor-
mance together as a group.
The fact that the PBL environment resulted in the small
standard deviation among this demographic brought about
another benefit, the potential to qualify schools under the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (2002). Many schools fail to
meet school-proficiency standards because of high standard
deviation among their racial/ethnic demographic (achievement
gap). The PBL approach may be one factor that mitigates this
phenomenon.
Latinos and other minority students in the PBL school did
not score significantly differently than did their control school
counterparts, meaning they were mathematically on par. How-
ever, the concern was that the White PBL students scored sig-
nificantly lower (i.e., 4.5 points) than did the White control
school students. This does not mean that the PBL approach is
not beneficial for White students and only beneficial for
minority students. We interpreted this result to be partly due
to SES. For within SES diversity, there are still many unan-
swered questions with the current data. A higher percentage
of White PBL students were from low SES compared to in the
control school, and SES seemed to be a stronger contributing
factor in achievement than race–ethnicity. However, further
investigation and analysis need to be conducted to support
this hypothesis.
The only trend in which the PBL and control schools
were similar was in SES (i.e., identified by free and reduced

lunch). Within each school, those from middle- or upper
middle-SES backgrounds scored significantly higher than
their lower SES counterparts. Results showed that, regardless
of the pedagogical approach, SES plays a major intervening
factor in students’ mathematics achievement. It is important
to note that, in the PBL environment, SES seemed to be a
stronger predictor of mathematics success than were racial/
ethnic factors.
Learning motivations
Other factors that may contribute to mathematics success are
learning motivations. Specifically, students’ internal cognitive
skills, internal motivation beliefs, external self-regulation, and
cooperative learning are also associated with their success in
learning mathematics. If students believe they can understand
mathematics and become competent at it, they will be more
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 05:21 14 May 2016
motivated. Hence, if students autonomously set appropriate
goals for themselves, employ effective learning strategies, create
a conducive learning environment, and pursue help from peers
and teachers, they will facilitate their own learning processes in
the short and long term. Mathematics educators hope that stu-
dents appreciate the usefulness of mathematics and develop the
confidence that they can learn. The results showed that PBL
students have higher critical thinking, intrinsic motivation, and
peer learning compared to that of the control students. As pre-
viously stated, PBL should not be considered the sole contribu-
tor to these differences, but PBL did appear to be a
contributory factor.
A core part of PBL is teamwork as students work together
to solve real-world mathematics problems. This allows them
to see that mathematics not only has practical value, but also
affords them the opportunity to value working relationships
with peers. This collaborative relationship includes intellec-
tual resources and social support. Rather than working alone,
PBL students find merit in working collaboratively and using
group members as a resource. This classroom environment
seemed to foster students taking ownership of their effort,
progress, and product, and they began to regulate their time
and improve their study habits, including where and how
they studied (strategies). As a result, students may have felt
that they had control of their own learning process. Since
working in the PBL environment required more active
involvement (i.e., hands on projects and cooperative learn-
ing), it was positively correlated with students’ intrinsic
motivation, which promotes learning. Specifically, PBL stu-
dents believed that they could study the right way and learn
the material (i.e., control of learning), and became confident
that they could do well. That PBL students were more intrin-
sically motivated than the control students seems to be a sig-
nificant advantage of the PBL approach.
The minority students may have benefitted additionally
from group work. Often times, these students in conventional
classrooms tend to be isolated and stay within their own social
structure (Tatum, 1997). Because the PBL group work was
inclusive rather than exclusive, it may have promoted learning
motivations for minority students. For example, within the
group, all members were assigned roles, which gave them per-
mission to speak within protected guidelines. According to
THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 13
student interviews, this structure made them feel accepted and
comfortable in their designated roles, which may have encour-
aged more dialogue among diverse group members. This group
dynamic in turn may have allowed students to provide each
other with cognitive scaffolding. While students used positive
words such as easy, accepting, and feeling comfortable or good
to describe their group experiences and their willingness to
speak more, we ascribed this observation to a safe environment
where they did not have to worry about being judged. In other
words, the PBL instructional setup might have allowed students
to speak or articulate their views safely while also hearing the
views of their peers.
As Piagetian (i.e., cognitive), Vygotskian (i.e., social), or
other constructivist (e.g., communal) educators might suggest,
the entire dialogue process of participating in the sharing and
defending of ideas seemed to facilitate the construction of all
students’ more solid mathematical knowledge. By being
involved in authentic projects, students could show not only
the product but also the process of mathematics learning. The
benefits extended beyond minority students to everyone in the
PBL classrooms.
It may not be surprising that compared to the control group,
PBL students evidenced greater critical thinking skills. What is
surprising, however, is the poor level of critical thinking mani-
fested within both groups. Why this was so requires additional
study. One paradox is that, although students’ critical thinking
skills were minimal, they were able to successfully complete the
standardized mathematics assessment. The implication of this
paradox is something mathematics educators should ponder
and will be a part of our future study.
In summation, the results showed that at-risk and minority
students benefited from PBL in learning mathematics. The aca-
demic performance gap was present, but its width diminished
significantly. However, the impact of SES on the PBL approach
needs further investigation. Compared to their control group
counterparts, PBL students were more intrinsically motivated,
showed significantly higher critical thinking skills, and appreci-
ated peer learning.
Limitations and future study
Because this is an exploratory, empirical research study, the
generalizability of the results is limited. Thus, future studies on
the topic are warranted, and additional PBL schools should be
examined to authenticate the findings.
In future studies, additional factors associated with PBL
should be investigated. Parallel to racial–ethnic and SES diver-
sity, gender should be explored. Also, given the constructivist
nature of the PBL classroom, the developmental differences in
students’ epistemological beliefs may reveal additional benefits
of PBL. Specifically, students with long-term PBL experience
compared to students in conventional mathematics classrooms
may exhibit more mature epistemological beliefs in mathemati-
cal knowledge.
Funding
This work was supported by the NSF REU (grant number 28071) and the
Carl Frost Social Science Research Center (grant number 25708).
 14 V.-L. HOLMES AND Y. HWANG
References
Abbeduto, L. (2010). Taking sides: Clashing views in educational psychol-
ogy. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (2000). Applications and
misapplications of cognitive psychology to mathematics education.
Texas Educational Review, 1(2), 29–49.
Artino, A. (2005). Review of the motivated strategies for learning question-
naire. University of Connecticut. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.
gov/fulltext/ED499083.pdf.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior
change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY:
Freeman.
Beilock, S., & Carr, T. (2005). When high-powered people fail working
memory and “choking under pressure” in math. Psychological Science,
16, 101–105.
Boaler, J. (2002). Learning from teaching: Exploring the relationship
between reform curriculum and equity. Journal of Research in Mathe-
matics Education, 33, 239–258.
Bong, M. (2001). Between- and within-domain relations of academic moti-
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 05:21 14 May 2016
vation among middle and high school students: Self-efficacy, task value,
and achievement goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 23–34.
Borkowski, J. G. (1992). Metacognitive theory: A framework for teaching
literacy, writing, and math skills. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25,
253–257.
Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning:
A theoretical synthesis, Review of Educational Research, 65, 245–281.
Cho, M. H., & Summers, J. (2012). Factor validity of the Motivated Strate-
gies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) in Asynchronous Online
Learning Environments (AOLE). Journal of Interactive Learning
Research, 23, 5–28.
Crede, M., & Phillips, L. (2011). A meta-analytic review of the motivated
strategies for learning questionnaire. Learning and Individual Differen-
ces, 21, 337–346.
Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating
other people’s children. Harvard Educational Review, 58, 280–298.
Dochy, F., Segers, M., Vanden Bossche, P., & Gijbels, D. (2003). Effects of
problem-based learning: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 13,
533–568.
Doll, B., Zucker, S., & Brehm, K. (2004). Resilient classrooms: Creating
healthy environments for learning. New York, NY: Guilford.
Dunlap, J. (2005). Changes in students’ use of life long learning skills dur-
ing problem based learning project. Performance Improvement Quar-
terly, 18, 5–33.
Dunlosky, J., & Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognition: A textbook for cognitive,
educational, life span & applied psychology (1st ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Dweck, C. S. (2009). Mindset, the new psychology of success. New York, NY:
Ballantine Books.
Feiz, P., Hooman, H. A., & Kooshki, S. (2013). Assessing the Motivated
Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) in Iranian students:
Construct validity and reliability. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 84,
1820–1825.
Gijbels, D., Dochy, F., Vanden Bossche, P., & Segers, N. (2005). Effect of
problem based learning: A meta-analysis from the angle of assessment.
Review of Educational Research, 75, 27–61.
Goldstein, E. B. (2008). Cognitive psychology: Connecting mind, research,
and everyday experience. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Innabi, H., & Sheik, O. (2006). The change in mathematics teachers’ per-
ceptions of critical thinking after 15 years of educational reform in Jor-
dan. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 64, 45–68.
Karadeniz, S., B€uy€ uk€ozt€
urk, S., Akg€
un, O. E., Çakmak, E. K., & Demirel, F.
(2008). The Turkish adaptation study of Motivated Strategies for Learn-
ing Questionnaire (MSLQ) for 12–18 year old children: Results of confir-
matory factor analysis 1. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational
Technology, 7(4). Retrieved from www.tojet.net/articles/v7i4/7412.pdf
Kazelskis, R., Reeves, C., Kersh, M. E., Bailey, G., Cole, K., Larmon, M., …
Halliday, D. C. (2000). Mathematics anxiety and test anxiety: Separate
construct. The Journal of Experimental Education, 68, 137–146.
Larmer, J., Ross, D., & Mergendoller, J. (2009). PBL starter kit: To-the-point
advice, tools, and tips for your first project in middle or high school. San
Rafael, CA: Unicorn Printing Specialists.
Lyons, I. M., & Beilock, S. L. I. (2012). When math hurts: Math anxiety
predicts pain network activation in anticipation of doing math. PLoS
One, 7(10), e48076. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0048076.
Lubienski, S. (2000). Problem solving as a means towards mathematics for
all: An exploratory look through the class lens. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 31, 454–482.
Ma, X. (1999). A meta-analysis of the relationship between anxiety toward
mathematics and achievement in mathematics. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 30, 520–540.
Meece, J. L., Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1990). Predictors of math anxiety
and its influence on young acolescents’ course enrollment and inten-
tion and performance in mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy, 82, 60–70.
Meyer, D. K., Turner, J. C., & Spencer, C A. (1997). Challenge in a mathe-
matics classroom: Students’ motivation and strategies in project based
learning. The Elementary School Journal, 97, 501–521.
Michigan Department of Education. (2009). Retrieved from http://www.
michigan.gov/mde/0,4615,7-140-6530_6598_36168-188305–,00.html
Michigan Department of Education. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.
michigan.gov/documents/mde/b1014_13final_454424_7.pdf
Michigan Department of Education. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.
michigan.gov/documents/mde/b1014_13final_454424_7.pdf
Milner, A. R. (2011). The effects of constructivist classroom contextual fac-
tors in a life science laboratory and a traditional science classroom on
elementary students’ motivation and learning strategies. Ann Arbor,
MI: ProQuest.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). The Nation’s Report Card:
Mathematics 2009: National Assessment of Educational Progress Grade
8 National (NCES 2010-451). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/
nationsreportcard/pdf/main2009/2010451.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Retrieved from https://
nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=514.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). Nation’s Report Card:
Mathematics 2011: National Assessment of Educational Progress Grade
8 National (NCES 2012-458). Retrieved from http://nationsreportcard.
gov/math_2011/gr8_national.asp
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Public Law No. 107–110, 115 Stat. 1425,
2002.
Ormrod, J. E. (2008). Educational psychology, developing learners (7th ed.).
Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Ormrod, J. E. (2009). Essentials of educational psychology (2nd ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Pajares, F. (2005). Gender differences in mathematics self-efficacy beliefs.
In A. M. Gallagher & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Gender differences in math-
ematics: An integrative psychological approach (pp. 294–315). New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Petrosino, A. (2004). Integrating curriculum instruction and assessment in
project based instruction: A case study of an experienced teacher. Jour-
nal of Science Education and Technology, 13, 447–460.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated
learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.),
Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451–502). San Diego, CA: Aca-
demic Press.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reli-
ability and predictive validity of the motivated strategies for learning
questionnaire (mslq). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53,
811–813.
PLAN Test. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.studypoint.com/ed/plan-
test/
Robinson, D. H., & Kiewra, K. A. (1995). Visual argument: Graphic organ-
izers are superior to outlines in improving learning from text. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 87, 455–467.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facili-
tation of intrinsic motivation, social development and well-being.
American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.
Slavin, R. E. (1996). Neverstreaming: Preventing learning disabilities. Edu-
cational Leadership, 53(5), 4–7.

Stipek, D. (2001). Classroom context effects on young children’s motiva-
tion. In F. Salili, C. Y. Chiu, & Y. Y. Hong (Eds.), Student motivation:
The culture and context of learning (pp. 273–292). New York, NY:
Springer.
Stipek, D. (2002). Motivation to learn: Integrating theory and practice (4th
ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Stoffa, R., Kush, J. C., & Heo, M. (2010). Using the motivated strategies for
learning questionnaire and the strategy inventory for language learning
in assessing motivation and learning strategies of generation 1.5
Korean immigrant students. Education Research International, 2011,
Article ID 491276.
Strobel, J., & Barneveld, A. (2009). When is PBL more effective? A meta-
synthesis of meta-analyses comparing PBL to conventional classrooms.
The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem Based Learning, 3, 44–58.
Tatum, B. (1997). “Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the caf-
eteria?”: And other conversations about race. New York, NY: Basic
Books.
Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. San
Rafael, CA: Autodesk Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.
k12reform.org/foundation/pbl/research/summary.pdf
Timpson, W. (2003). Teaching diversity: Challenges and complexities, iden-
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 05:21 14 May 2016
tities and integrity. Madison, WI: Atwood Press.
Tintle, N., Chance, B., Cobb, G., Rossman, A., Roy, S., Swanson, T., & Van-
derstoep, J. (2014). Introduction to statistical investigations, preliminary
edition (rev. ed.). Indianapolis, IN: Wiley.
University of Wisconsin Whitewater. (2005). Reluctance and conflict in the
classroom. Retrieved from https://www.uww.edu/learn/improving/
aboutdiversity/approachdiversity/reluctanceconflict.
VanderStoep, S., & Pintrich, R. (2008). Learning to learn: The skill and will
of college success (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice
Hall.
Vernon, D. T., & Blake, R. L. (1993). Does problem-based learning work? A
Meta-analysis of evaluative research. Academic Medicine, 68, 550–563.
Walker, A., & Leary, H. (2009). A problem based learning meta-analysis:
Differences across problem types, implementation types, disciplines,
and assessment levels. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem Based
Learning, 3, 12–43.
Weiner, B. (2000). Intrapersonal and interpersonal theories of motivation
from an attributional perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 12,
1–14.
Weiner, B. (2004). Attribution theory revisited: Transforming cultural
plurality into theoretical unity. In D. M. McInerney & S. Van Etten
(Eds.), Big theories revisited (pp. 13–29). Grenwich, Ct.: Information
Age.
Weiner, B. (2005). Motivation from an attribution perspective and the
social psychology of perceived competence. In A. J. Elliot & C. S.
Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 73–84).
New York, NY: Guilford.
Weiner, B., & Kukla, A. (1970). An attributional analysis of achievement
motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 15, 1–20.
THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 15
Wenzel, T. (2000). Cooperative student activities as learning devices. Ana-
lytical Chemistry, 72, 293–296.
White, J. W. (2011). Resistance to classroom participation: Minority stu-
dents, academic discourse, cultural conflicts, and issues of representa-
tion in whole class discussions. Journal of Language, Identity, and
Education, 10, 250–265.
Wigfield, A., & Meece, J. L. (1988). Math anxiety in elementary and sec-
ondary school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 210–216.
Williamson, V. M., & Rowe, M. W. (2002). Group problem-solving versus
lecture in college level quantitative analysis: The good, the bad, and the
ugly. Journal of Chemical Education, 79, 1131–1134.
Wilson-VanVoorhis, C., & Morgan, B. (2007). Understanding power and
rules of thumb for determining sample sizes. Tutorials in Quantitative
Methods for Psychology, 3, 43–50.
Wolters, C. (1998). Self-regulated learning and college students’ regulation
of motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 224–235.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attainment of self-regulation: A social cognitive
perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.),
Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Appendix A. Interview questions
1. Describe the class to me. How is it different from other math
classes you have had?
2. How well are you learning the material presented in class?
3. Are you more interested in math now than you were prior to
taking this class?
4. When you first started at HNT, how well did you do in
math?
5. Do you feel more confident in your math ability now?
6. Do you have goals for yourself in your math class? If so, what
kinds of goals have you set?
7. How do you study for your math exams?
8. What kind of study strategies do you use?
9. What do you like/not like about your math class?
10. In looking back at your previous school, do you prefer
group work, lecture, etc.?
11. How well does your group work together? (good teamwork,
conflicts?)
12. What do you like best about your math class? …. PBL?
13. If there was one thing you would change in your math
class, what would it be?
Note: Bolded and italicized questions were added after initial
interviews