CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 20Problem and Project Based LearningMathematics Education and PedagogyMathematics Education and Teaching Techniques

Effectiveness of project-based mathematics in first-year high school in terms of learning environment and student outcomes

Open access
Rijken, Paul E., Fraser, Barry J.·2024·Learning Environments Research
DOI 10.1007/s10984-023-09477-7
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Abstract This study of first year high-school students in South Australia focussed on the effectiveness of using an innovative project-based mathematics strategy to improve the classroom learning environment and the student outcomes of enjoyment, academic efficacy and achievement. As well, we investigated the differential effectiveness of project-based mathematics for male and female students. A sample of 284 students from a co-educational private secondary school provided quantitative data about classroom learning environment as assessed with seven scales from the What Is Happening In this Class? (WIHIC), together with data about the three student outcomes assessed with one scale each. Our study also included a mixed-method design involving qualitative information collected through classroom observations and interviews with 20 students and 3 teachers to explain patterns emerging from the analysis of quantitative data.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10984-023-09477-7

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Some studies report non-significant effects of PBL on mathematics achievement.

    “However, some studies report non-significant effects of PBL on mathematics achievement (Rijken and Fraser, 2023; Tabuk and Özdemir, 2009).”

    From Can project-based learning improve students’ mathematics learning outcomes: a three-level meta-analysis (2026) · cites this paper as Rijken and Fraser, 2023

    The paper’s ‘Instructional method and gender as determinants of learning environment and outcomes’ section reports that project students had significantly lower mathematics achievement than non-project students. Appendix A, Table 2 marks the achievement difference as significant (F = 11.15, p < 0.01). Its statement that most differences were nonsignificant concerns other measured scales, not achievement. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • In mathematics education, PBL effectively bridges abstract mathematical concepts and real-world applications.

    “In mathematics education, PBL effectively bridges abstract mathematical concepts and real-world applications, enabling learners to deepen their understanding and apply mathematical knowledge while solving authentic problems, thereby avoiding rote memorization and formalistic learning (Rijken and Fraser, 2023).”

    From Can project-based learning improve students’ mathematics learning outcomes: a three-level meta-analysis (2026) · cites this paper as Rijken and Fraser, 2023

    The Project-based learning section describes students applying mathematical concepts to a practical suburb-planning project, supporting the claim that PBL connects mathematics with real-world problems. But the Conclusion and significance section reports lower achievement for project-based students than for traditional-class students and notes that some found mathematical connections difficult. The unqualified claim that PBL does this effectively is therefore stronger than this study supports. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 75

  1. Aditomo, A., & Klieme, E. (2020). Forms of inquiry-based science instruction and their relations with learning outcomes: Evidence from high and low-performing education systems. International Journal of Science Education, 42(4), 504-525.
  2. Albanese, M. A., & Mitchell, S. M. (1993). Problem-based learning: A review of literature on its outcomes and implementation issues. Academic Medicine, 68, 52-81.
  3. Aldridge, J. M., Fraser, B. J., & Huang, I. T. C. (1999). Investigating classroom environments in Taiwan and Australia with multiple research methods. Journal of Educational Research, 93, 48-62.
  4. Aldridge, J. M., Laugksch, R. C., Seopa, M. A., & Fraser, B. J. (2006). Development and validation of an instrument to monitor the implementation of outcomes-based learning environments in science class- rooms in South Africa. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 45-70.
  5. Allport, G. W. (1935). Attitudes. In C. Murchison (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 798-844).
  6. Attard, C. (2013). "If I had to pick any subject, it wouldn't be maths": Foundations for engagement with mathematics during the middle years. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 25(4), 569-587.
  7. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
  8. Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the twenty first century: Skills for the future. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 83(2), 39-43.
  9. Carrabba, C., & Farmer, A. (2018). The impact of project-based learning and direct instruction on the moti- vation and engagement of middle school students. Language Teaching and Educational Research, 1(2), 163-174.
  10. Cerny, C. A., & Kaiser, H. J. (1977). A study of a measure of sampling adequacy in factor-analytic correla- tions matrices. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 12(1), 43-47.
  11. Chen, O., & Kalyuga, S. (2020). Exploring factors influencing the effectiveness of explicit instruction first and problem-solving first approaches. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 35(3), 607-624.
  12. Cheryan, S., Ziegler, S. A., Montoya, A. K., & Jiang, L. (2017). Why are some STEM fields more gender balanced than others? Psychological Bulletin, 143(1), 1-35. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ bul00 000521 · DOI
  13. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  14. Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and quali- tative research (3rd ed.). Pearson.
  15. Danielsson, A., Avraamidou, C., & Gonsalves, A. (2023). Gender matters: Building on the past, recognis- ing the present, and looking toward the future. In N. G. Lederman, D. L. Zeidler, & J. S. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. III, pp. 263-290). Routledge.
  16. Eppley, K., & Dudley-Marling, C. (2019). Does direct instruction work?: A critical assessment of direct instruction research and its theoretical perspective. Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy, 16(1), 35-54.
  17. Erickson, F. (2012). Qualitative research methods in science education. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 1451-1469). Springer.
  18. Fennema, E., & Sherman, J. (1978). Sex-related differences in mathematics achievement and related factors: A further study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 9, 189-220.
  19. Fraser, B. J. (1977). Selection and validation of attitude scales for curriculum evaluation. Science Edu- cation, 61(3), 317-329.
  20. Fraser, B. J., Giddings, G. J., & McRobbie, C. J. (1995). Evolution and validation of a personal form of an instrument for assessing science laboratory classroom environments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 399-422.
  21. Fraser, B. J. (2012). Classroom learning environments: Retrospect, context and prospect. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 1191-1239). Springer.
  22. Fraser, B. J. (2014). Classroom learning environments: Historical and contemporary perspectives. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. II, pp. 104-119). Routledge.
  23. Fraser, B. J., & Aldridge, J. M. (2017). Improving classrooms through through assessments of learning environments. Assessment practices for teachers and student improvement strategies. In J. P. Bak- ken (Ed.), Classrooms (Vol. 1, pp. 91-107). New York: Nova Science Publishers.
  24. Fraser, B. J. (2019). Milestones in the evolution of the learning environments field over the past three decades. In D. B. Zandvliet & B. J. Fraser (Eds.), Thirty years of learning environments: Looking back and looking forward (pp. 1-19). Leiden: Brill Sense.
  25. Fraser, B. J. (2023a). Learning environments. In N. G. Lederman, D. L. Zeidler, & J. S. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 193-217). Routledge.
  26. Fraser, B. J. (2023b). The evolution of the field of learning environments research. Education Sciences, 13(3), 275.
  27. Gallagher, A. M., & Kaufman, J. C. (2005). Gender differences in mathematics: An integrative psycho- logical approach. Cambridge.
  28. Hanke, C. Y., & Fraser, B. J. (2022). A cross-national study of students' affective outcomes among mid- dle-school mathematics students in the USA and Hong Kong. In W. S. Rolph (Ed.), Students' atti- tudes: Towards learning in education (pp. 45-73). Nova.
  29. Hine, G. (2018). Teachers' perceptions on declining student enrolments in Australian senior secondary mathematics courses. Issues in Educational Research, 28(3), 635-654.
  30. Houtz, L. E. (1995). Instructional strategy change and the attitude and achievement of seventh-and eighth-grade science students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(6), 629-648.
  31. Huberty, C. J., & Petroskey, M. D. (2000). Multivariate analysis of variance and covariance. In H. Tins- ley & S. Brown (Eds.), Handbook of applied multivariate statistics and mathematical modelling. Academic Press.
  32. Khine, M. S. (Ed.). (2015). Attitude measurement in science education: Classic and contemporary approaches. Information Age Publishing.
  33. Koul, R. B., McLure, F. I., & Fraser, B. J. (2021). Gender differences in classroom emotional climate and attitudes among students undertaking integrated STEM projects: A Rasch analysis. Research in Science & Technological Education. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 02635 143. 2021. 19818 · DOI
  34. Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2008). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (2nd ed.). Sage.
  35. Lee, H.-H., et al. (2020). High school students' perceptions of science laboratory learning, perceptions of the science laboratory learning environment, and academic self-efficacy in science learning. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18(1), 1-18.
  36. Lewin, K. (1936). Principles topological psychology. McGraw.
  37. Lindsey, J., & Stephanou, A. (2013). PATMaths: Progressive achievement tests in mathematics. ACER Press.
  38. Litchtman, M. (2023). Qualitative research in education: A user's guide (4th ed.). Routledge.
  39. Ma, X., & Cartwright, F. (2003). A longitudinal analysis of gender differences in affective outcomes in mathematics during middle and high school. An International Journal of Research, Policy and Prac- tice, 14, 413-439.
  40. Masters, A. S., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2020). Cultural stereotypes and sense of belonging contribute to gender gaps in STEM. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology, 12(1), 151-198.
  41. Maxwell, N. L., Bellisimo, Y., & Mergendoller, J. R. (2001). Problem-based learning: Modifying the medi- cal school model for teaching high school economics. The Social Studies, 92(2), 73-78.
  42. Maxwell, N. L., Mergendoller, J. R., & Bellisimo, Y. (2005). Problem-based learning and high school mac- roeconomics: A comparative study of instructional methods. The Journal of Economic Education, 36, 315-239.
  43. McLeod, D. (1992). Research on affect in mathematics education: A reconceptualization. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on the psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 575-596). Macmillan.
  44. Mergendoller, J. R., Maxwell, N. L., & Bellisimo, Y. (2000). Comparing problem-based learning and tradi- tional instruction in high school economics. The Journal of Educational Research, 93, 374-382.
  45. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
  46. Mishra, S., & Dey, A. K. (2022). Understanding and identifying 'themes' in qualitative case study research. South East Asian Journal of Business and Management Cases, 11(3), 187-192.
  47. Nardi, E., & Steward, S. (2003). Is mathematics T.I.R.E.D.? A profile of quiet disaffection in the secondary mathematics classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 29, 345-367.
  48. Norton, S. (2017). Mathematics engagement in an Australian lower secondary school. Journal of Curricu- lum Studies, 49(2), 169-190.
  49. Oladayo, O. T., & Oladayo, C. E. (2012). Effects of direct and indirect instructional strategies on students' achievement in mathematics. African Research Review, 6(4), 349-361.
  50. Pelch, M. (2018). Gendered differences in academic emotions and their implications for student success in STEM. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 33.
  51. Pickett, L. H., & Fraser, B. J. (2009). Evaluation of a mentoring program for beginning teachers in terms of the learning environment and student outcomes in participants' school classrooms. In A. Selkirk & M. Tichenor (Eds.), Teacher education: Policy, practice and research (pp. 1-15). Nova Science Publishers.
  52. Reilly, D., Neumann, D. L., & Andrews, G. (2019). Investigating gender differences in mathematics and science: Results from the 2011 trends in mathematics and science survey. Research in Science Educa- tion, 49(1), 25-50.
  53. Riegle-Crumb, C., Morton, K., Nguyen, U., & Dasgupta, N. (2019). Inquiry-based instruction in science and mathematics in middle school classrooms: Examining its association with students' attitudes by gender and race/ethnicity. AERA Open, 5(3), 2332858419867653.
  54. Rijken, P. E. (2017). The effectiveness of project-based mathematics in the first year of high school in terms of learning environment, attitudes, academic efficacy and achievement. Unpublished PhD thesis, Cur- tin University.
  55. Robinson, J. M., & Aldridge, J. M. (2022). Environment-attitude relationships: Girls in inquiry-based mathematics classes in the United Arab Emirates. Learning Environments Research, 25(3), 619-640.
  56. Rogers, J. R., & Fraser, B. J. (2022). Sex and frequency of practical work as determinants of middle- school students' learning environment perceptions and attitudes. Learning Environments Research. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10984-022-09426-w · DOI
  57. Saleh, I. M., & Khine, M. S. (Eds.). (2011). Attitude research in science education: Classic and contem- poary measurements. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
  58. Schwartz, P., Mennin, S., & Webb, G. (Eds.). (2001). Problem-based learning: Case studies, experience and practice. Kogan Page.
  59. Skilling, K., Bobis, J., Martin, A. J., Anderson, J., & Way, J. (2016). What secondary teachers think and do about student engagement in mathematics. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 28(4), 545-566.
  60. Su, R., Rounds, J., & Armstrong, P. I. (2009). Men and things, women and people: A meta-analysis of sex differences in interests. Psychological Bulletin, 135(6), 859-884.
  61. Sweetman, M. M. (2022). The lived experiences of health science graduate students with anxiety and depression. Learning Environments Research. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10984-022-09448-4 · DOI
  62. Tapia, M., & Marsh, G. E. (2004). An instrument to measure mathematics attitudes. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 8, 16-21.
  63. Taylor, P. C., Fraser, B. J., & Fisher, D. L. (1997). Monitoring constructivist classroom learning environ- ments. International Journal of Educational Research, 27, 293-302.
  64. Tobias, S., & Carlson, J. E. (2010). Brief report: Bartlett's test of sphericity and chance findings in factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 4(3), 375-377.
  65. Tobin, K., & Fraser, B. J. (1998). Qualitative and quantitative landscapes of classroom learning environ- ments. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 623-640). Kluwer.
  66. Tytler, R., & Osborne, J. (2012). Student attitudes and aspirations towards science. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 597- 625). Springer.
  67. Velayutham, S., Aldridge, J. M., & Fraser, B. J. (2011). Development and validation of an instrument to measure students' motivation and self-regulation in science learning. International Journal of Sci- ence Education, 33, 2159-2179.
  68. Velayutham, S., Aldridge, J. M., & Fraser, B. J. (2012). Gender differences in student motivation and self-regulation in science learning: A multi-group structural equation modelling analysis. Interna- tional Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10, 1347-1368.
  69. Walberg, H. J., & Anderson, G. J. (1968). Classroom climate and individual learning. Journal of Educa- tional Psychology, 59, 414-419.
  70. Weinburgh, M. (1995). Gender differences in student attitudes toward science: A meta-analysis of the literature from 1970 to 1991. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(4), 387-398.
  71. Welch, W. W., & Walberg, H. J. (1972). A national experiment in curriculum evaluation. American Edu- cational Research Journal, 9, 373-383.
  72. Welch, A. G., Cakir, M., Peterson, C. M., & Ray, C. M. (2014). The relationship between gender and classroom environment in Turkish science classrooms. Educational Research and Reviews, 9(20), 893-903.
  73. Wubbels, T., & Brekelmans, M. (2005). Two decades of research on teacher-student relationships in class. International Journal of Educational Research, 43, 6-24.
  74. Wubbels, Th., & Levy, J. (Eds.). (1993). Do you know what you look like: Interpersonal relationships in education. Falmer Press.
  75. Zaragoza, J. M., & Fraser, B. J. (2017). Field-study classrooms as positive and enjoyable learning environ- ments. Learning Environments Research, 20(1), 1-20.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rijken, P. E., & Fraser, B. J.
Affiliations
  • The University of Adelaide (AU)
  • Curtin University (AU)
Corresponding author
Fraser, Barry J.
ORCID
Fraser, Barry J.
Venue
Learning Environments Research
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2023-08-21
Volume
27
Issue
2
Pages
241-263
ISSN
  • 1387-1579 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-1855
DOI
10.1007/s10984-023-09477-7
OpenAlex
W4386028229
Cited by
20
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6
FWCI
14.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Learning Environments Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Curtin University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Problem and Project Based Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Applied Mathematics › Mathematics Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Education › Mathematics Education and Teaching Techniques
Keywords
project-based learning, mathematics education, first-year high school, classroom climate, student enjoyment, academic self-efficacy, academic performance, gender differences

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review