This study investigates the role of imagination in project-based learning (PBL) and its effects on high school chemistry and physics students across multiple schools. The research utilizes the experience sampling method to measure various aspects of imagination and creativity during PBL activities, finding significant variation in students' responses. Over the course of two years, the study reports effect sizes indicating improvements in imagination and exploration among students engaged in PBL compared to traditional instructional methods.

1. Understanding Imagination in
Project-Based Learning
Claims and Evidence for Scale-
Up
Barbara Schneider
Joseph Krajcik
Christopher Klager
Michigan State University
This study is supported by the National Science Foundation (OISE-1545684; PIs Barbara Schneider & Joe Krajcik) and by the
Academy of Finland (298323; PIs Jari Lavonen & Katariina Salmela-Aro). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or
recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the
National Science Foundation or the Academy of Finland.

2. High School
Chemistry and
Physics Students
PBL
NGSS
Teacher
Professional
Development
CESE
Curriculum
Improved Social
and Emotional
Outcomes
Fidelity of
Implementation
Increased Science
Learning
Target Populations Intervention Proximal Outcomes Distal Outcomes
Figure 1. Model for Science Learning

3. Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
40 Michigan Schools
Genesee ISD ∙ Ingham ISD
Wayne RESA ∙ Kent ISD
40 California Schools
San Diego
&
Oakland
Full Evaluation of Efficacy
Study
Plan with an external evaluator for
an effectiveness trial where we
only offer technical assistance.
20 Treatment 20 Control
1 physics and 1 chemistry teacher per school
ESM in
12 Treatment 12 Control
2 per unit in treatment
Total: 40 treatment teachers
20 Treatment 20 Control
Total: 40 treatment teachers
1 physics and 1 chemistry teacher per school
40 control teachers
40 control teachers from
year 1 receive
PD/curriculum/materials
40 control teachers from
year 2 receive
PD/curriculum/materials
Figure 2. Sample and Evaluation Plan
40 control teachers

4. Project-Based Learning and Creativity
• Key features of PBL
1. Start with a driving question
2. Focus on learning goals
3. Exploration of the driving question through scientific practices
4. Involve collaboration to solve problems
5. Students are scaffolded with learning technologies
6. Students create a tangible product or artifact
(Blumenfeld et al., 1991; Krajcik & Czerniak, 2013; Krajcik & Shin, 2014)
• Project-based learning “allows students to investigate questions, propose
hypotheses and explanations, argue for their ideas, challenge the ideas of
others, and try out new ideas” (Krajcik & Shin, 2014, p. 276)

5. How We Measure Imagination
Experience Sampling Method (ESM) to measure in situ (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975)
PIRE
When working on this activity…I used my imagination.
When working on this activity…I solved problems that had more than one possible solution.
When working on this activity…I explored different points of view on the problem or topic.
When working on this activity…I had to make connections with other school subjects.
OECD
When working on this course...I have to use my imagination.
When working on this course...I have to solve problems that have more than one possible
solution.
When working on this course...I have to explore different points of view on a problem or
topic.
When working on this course...I have to make connections with other school subjects.

6. Correlations
Creativity
Imagination Connect Exploring Solutions
Imagination 1
Connect 0.50 1
Exploring 0.64 0.58 1
Solutions 0.63 0.57 0.77 1
Positive Affect
Imagination
Bored -0.16
Enjoy 0.47
Excited 0.44
Happy 0.46
Proud 0.37
Relevance
Imagination
Importance to Future 0.41
Importance to Self 0.46
Interest 0.44

7. Testing our PBL Intervention
• Establishes each classroom as its own experimental control through
repeated replication of an effect (Horner & Odom, 2014; Kennedy, 2005; Kratochwill,
1978; Kratochwill & Levin, 2014)
• Also known a reversal or ABAB design—A is “business-as-usual”
instruction, B is our PBL units

9. Mean Effects
• 2015-2016: Effect Sizes of .29 for Imagination & .27 for Exploration of
Different Points of View in the US (In Finland, .29 & .36, respectively)
• 2016-2017: Effect Sizes of .25 for Imagination, .13 for Exploration of
Different Points of View, & .22 for Solving Problems with More than
One Possible Solutions in the US (Finnish results forthcoming)

10. What is an effect?
• Intra-class Correlation (ICC) tells what proportion of the variation in
outcomes is between clusters or groups
𝜌 =
𝜏2
𝜎2 + 𝜏2
Where:
ρ is the ICC
σ2 is the variance within (Level 1)
τ2 is the variance between (Level 2)

11. What we see with Imagination
ICCs for Imagination
ICC
Responses within Students 0.48
Responses within Moments 0.08
Student Means within Classrooms 0.09
Moment Means within Classrooms 0.38
Responses within Students (.48) – Imagination is Situational, but there is considerable variation between
students
Responses within Moments (.08) – Most of the variation within moments is between responses meaning
that students respond differently to the same task in terms of imagination use
Student Means within Classrooms (.09) – Most of the variation within classrooms is between students
meaning that teachers tend to face classes where some students use their imaginations a lot and others
don’t