Learning is varied and so are learning outcomes, some deliberate and some accidental. There are various ways of classifying and conceptualising learning approaches and outcomes: surface and deep (Entwistle & Waterston, 1988); convergent and divergent (Torrance & Pryor, 1998); acquisition and participation (Sfard, 1998); from knowledge through creative to belonging (James & Brown, 2005). Most educational systems focus on knowledge and understanding, partly because they are easy to measure and enforce accountability for public funds. However, they also give some attention to qualities and skills prized in employment especially in the later years (Mourshed et al. 2015). However, there is increasing concern for less predictable and diffuse outcomes from educational environments – such as lack of engagement (Lawson & Lawson, 2013), social vulnerability and exclusion, poverty and relative failure in educational assessments (DfE, 2019). Mental health is of particular concern, given that there is a steady rise in the number of young people being referred to mental health services in England.

PBL belongs to family of pedagogical approaches. Barron & Darling-Hammond (2010, p.201) argue that inquiry-based approaches ‘includes project-based learning, design-based learning and problem-based learning’. Thomas (2000, p1) concludes ‘projects are complex tasks, based on challenging questions or problems, that involve students in design, problem-solving, decision making, or investigative activities; give students the opportunity to work relatively autonomously over extended periods of time; and culminate in realistic products or presentations’. Leat & Whelan (2023) characterise such pedagogical approaches as having divergent outcomes, in that some learning is not readily predicted and furthermore much learning in PBL is very personal and thus varied between individuals.

For teachers managing PBL (or indeed inquiry) is a considerable challenge in a system which demands that outcomes are stated in advance and assessed to measure progress. This can be understood as when to lead and/or instruct and when to allow students to take control and responsibility. Teachers need to lead or instruct both to guide students but also to provide subject knowledge that will inform understanding and decisions. Such subject knowledge may be detailed declarative knowledge and/or related to recurring patterns or concepts or indeed the epistemological foundations of the subject. This has led to the elaboration of the concept of orchestration of inquiry (ref) which gives some sense of the subtlety required.

In this paper we use evidence from a variety of PBL projects, including its use in alternative provision sites (for students not in mainstream education for whatever reason) to investigate what is or indeed might being learned in PBL (what is going on?). Our objectives are to use this evidence to discuss a generalised Theory of Change (Laing & Todd, 2015) in PBL classrooms, whilst recognising that classroom context does matter and that there will be a need for contingent variation in applying such a theory. We are also interested in the markers of the development of appropriate learning environments in order to inform practice, where the educational potential is high but the impediments to success are considerable (Menzies et al. 2016). Our research questions derived from these objectives are:

1. What is the theory of change for outcomes in good PBL practice – what is going on and why?

2.  What are the pedagogical markers for practitioners aiming to take advantage of the potential learning benefits of PBL?

At the large scale, and over a number of years, this is a reflective inquiry (Lyons et al., 2013) comparable to action research methodology (Carr & Kemmis, 2003) in that the authors have been involved in a series of projects that have built over time with a cumulative process of reading and listening to other informants, gathering evidence from teachers and students, constructing new elements to existing protocols and scaffolds and intermittently critically theorising about ‘what is going on’ in PBL. This larger scale reflective endeavour draws evidence from a number of research projects, following a generally similar case study pattern (Yin, 2009) in which contextual detail has been collected from support/dissemination/training sessions and documents, supplemented by some classroom observation and importantly interviews with teachers and students. The most recent case study and evaluation was of a project run by the Northumbria Police Violence Reduction Unit (VRU), whose education staff introduced PBL into Alternative Provision settings focusing on issues such as knife crime and exploitation and relationships. The VRU staff visited on a regular basis to lead sessions and organised visitors such as paramedics and the relatives of crime victims. In the interviews with adults semi-structured questions focused on the value and challenge of the PBL approach; curriculum content and connection; pastoral benefits; working with external partners and logistical problems. For pupils, the questions explored the experience of PBL particularly in comparison to everyday schooling. Other data comes from projects such as Climate Change, local Cholera outbreaks in the C19th, and the Suffragette movement in the Newcastle area (Guide ref). Thematic analysis (Clarke et al. 2015) was employed to analyse interview data and extract key themes. This reflects being informed by other studies, existing concepts debated in relation to PBL and the desire to inform practice. In the VRU project the themes included curriculum/project knowledge acquisition, whole person/pastoral benefits and the value of working with external partners. With pupils the analytical themes included teamwork, engagement, confidence and self-esteem. However, in our reflective meta-view we have been alert to nuances in the interviews, not least in terms of suggestions of causal relationships and thresholds where learning environments begin to take on new features. The question of ‘what is going on?’ is never far away, which is both an imperative and a caution for the need to remain critical.

Ongoing analysis of student and teacher response provides a number of categories reflecting the varied impact of the experience of PBL, when practised well. Perhaps reassuringly content/subject knowledge features very strongly. There are recurring comments about learning to work with other people but also getting to know other students who were not part of usual networks or friendship groups. There are also reflections on self and the meaning of these developing ideas on the place of that individual in the world. This is indicative of ‘self work’, as the PBL provides raw material through which young people begin to construct new versions of themselves. There is some alignment here with the work of Ziehe (2009) who explains the importance of young people experimenting with elements of identity. This leads us to theorise a theory of change that is possible in PBL contexts. The process is inevitably more complex than can be represented here and it is certainly not as linear, but it suggests some important steps and diagnostic prompts for teachers’ practice. (This should be a table but proforma wold not accept) Progressive steps in PBL environment (ToC) Step 1: Setting and ‘launching’ appealing open tasks, challenges or questions; Marker: Students asking questions of clarification and intent. Step 2: Students supported to work well in small groups; Marker: Developing implicit and explicit ground rules for collaboration Step 3: Developing a sense of a learning community (social engagement); Marker: Engaging with project partners and places; uninhibited sharing in whole class Step 4: Developing individual capability, awareness of such and associated identity; Marker: Working on product/outcomes under pressure, responsibility for tasks Step 5: Student agency and social/political consciousness; Marker: Students initiating issues and demanding greater responsibility.

Barron, B. and Darling-Hammond, L., 2010. Prospects and challenges for inquiry-based approaches to learning. The nature of learning: Using research to inspire practice, pp.199-225. Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (2003). Becoming critical: education knowledge and action research. Routledge. Clarke, V., Braun, V., & Hayfield, N. (2015). Thematic analysis. Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods, 3, 222-248. DfE. (2019a). Permanent and fixed period exclusions in England: 2017 to 2018. London: Department for Education. Entwistle, N., & Waterston, S. (1988). Approaches to studying and levels of processing in university students. British journal of educational psychology, 58(3), 258-265. James, M. and S. Brown (2005). "Grasping the TLRP nettle: preliminary analysis and some enduring issues surrounding the improvement of learning outcomes." Curriculum Journal Vol. 16(1): 7-30. Laing, K., & Todd, L. (2015). Theory-based Methodology: Using theories of change for development, research and evaluation. Lawson, M. & Lawson, H. (2013). New Conceptual Frameworks for Student Engagement Research, Policy, and Practice. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 432-479. Leat, D. & Thomas, U. (2016a). Community Curriculum Making Through Enquiry and Project Based Learning: A Guide for Schools and Partners, Newcastle University: Research Centre for Learning and Teaching. Available at http://www.ncl.ac.uk/media/wwwnclacuk/cflat/files/Community%20Curriculum%20Making%20guide.pdf . Leat, D., Whelan, A., 2023. Innovative pedagogies in relation to curriculum. In: Tierney, R.J., Rizvi, F., Erkican, K. (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education, vol. 7. Elsevier, pp. 132–141. Lyons, N., Halton, C. and Freidus, H., 2013. Reflective inquiry as transformative self-study for professional education and learning. Studying Teacher Education, 9(2), pp.163-174. Menzies, V., Hewitt, C., Kokotsaki, D., Collyer, C., & Wiggins, A. (2016). Project Based Learning: evaluation report and executive summary. Mourshed, M., Patel, J., & Suder, K. (2014). Education to employment: Getting Europe’s youth into work. McKinsey & Company. Thomas, J. (2000). A Review of Research on Problem-Based Learning. San Rafael, California The Autodesk Foundation, http://www.autodesk.com/foundation. Torrance, H. and Pryor, J., 1998. Investigating formative assessment: Teaching, learning and assessment in the classroom. McGraw-Hill Education (UK). Sfard, A. (1998). "On Two Metaphors for Learning and the Dangers of Choosing Just One." Educational Researcher, 27(2): 4-13. Yin, R.K., 2009. Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5). Sage. Ziehe, T. (2009). ‘Normal learning problems’ in youth: In the context of underlying cultural convictions. In Contemporary theories of learning (pp. 192-207). Routledge.