Young Children Volume 81 • No 3 Integrating Guided Play and Hands-On Learning: Insights and Applications | Our Proud Heritage

Approaches to Projects: Lessons from Two Key Figures in the Past Century


By Patricia A. Crawford and Barbara Kimes Myers

Early childhood educators work in a wide variety of settings and with a range of curriculum models and expectations. Intentional teachers draw on their knowledge of child development as well as the interests, experiences, and contexts of children to help them master meaningful learning goals (Bredekamp & Willer 2022). For over a century, projects or project-based work, including the project approach, have been commonly used approaches to curriculum planning and pedagogical implementation (Kilpatrick [1918] 2018; NASEM 2024). Central to projects are principles of child-driven inquiry and opportunities for deep learning through authentic experiences (Baines & DeBarger 2021).

We (the authors) have served for many years as teacher educators at the university level and have taught in preschool, kindergarten, and primary grade settings. Barbara (second author) also studied and worked closely with Lilian G. Katz, a key figure in the history and development of the project approach in early childhood settings. These experiences have convinced us that the project approach is appropriate and helpful in a wide range of early childhood educational settings. In this article, we explain the components of projects, recognize two thought leaders who contributed to the project approach, and describe how the approach can be incorporated into early childhood educators’ professional toolboxes today, especially for those who serve children in preschool, kindergarten, and primary-grade settings.

Key Components of a Project

Projects are a common part of daily life. Activities as diverse as planting and effectively caring for a garden, redecorating a room, and coordinating a community recycling program can all be considered projects. Some projects are brief, others long term; some are simple, others are elaborate. They may be driven by mere curiosity or by the need to solve a particular problem. Most projects involve the perceived need to answer a question or to go deeper in pursuing an area of interest or passion. Engaging in projects can support individuals to gain knowledge, refine or change currently held ideas, and develop new skills to help navigate everyday situations. Project work also offers opportunities to connect with others and contribute to meeting real-world needs.

In the context of early childhood education, projects have a specific form and occupy a unique space (Spodek & Saracho 2003). More broadly, high-quality curricula and pedagogical strategies are needed: Ones that actively engage children in content, in-depth inquiry, and the development of skills that foster important developmental and learning goals. In general, educational projects are geared toward these ends since they are in-depth investigations driven by children’s interests and aligned with curricular goals (Katz 1994; Katz et al. 2014; Baines & DeBarger 2021).

The project approach more specifically encompasses a philosophy and a set of strategies for guiding children through in-depth investigations of topics that connect to real life. Projects support learning objectives and are used “alongside explicit instruction and as a means of achieving curricular goals” (The Educators Institute at Duke School, n.d.; see also Katz et al. 2014 and Helm & Katz 2016). They are rarely viewed as a curriculum unto themselves; rather, projects are planned and enacted in conjunction with broader curricula and learning goals (The Educators Institute at Duke School, n.d.; Mitchell et al. 2009). Implementation of the project approach typically follows three flexible phases: Beginning the project, developing the project, and concluding the project (see “The Three Phases of the Project Approach” below.)

The Three Phases of the Project Approach

The project approach consists of three phases (Helm & Katz 2011; Martalock 2012; Alfonso 2017). Each is briefly described below.

Phase One: Beginning the Project
The goal for this phase is to identify a topic related to both the children’s interests and the curriculum. The topic may come from the children or the teacher. Good topics offer children opportunities to conduct research, observe, engage in hands-on experiences, and interact with experts. During this time, teachers work to assess both what children already know and what they want to know about this topic.

Phase Two: Developing the Project
Children investigate the focus topic and seek out answers to questions posed during phase one. Teachers typically support these investigations by facilitating varied learning experiences, including hands-on explorations, readings, connections with outside experts, and appropriate field trips, among others. Teachers document data and learning.

Phase Three: Concluding the Project
This phase marks the close of a project through a culminating event that highlights the children’s learning during the project. Children communicate and share their work with others, such as family members, community members, or peers.

In the early childhood education field’s past and present, other approaches have been developed that share many of the tenets of project work; these include Reggio Emilia, Montessori, and Waldorf philosophies (Edwards 2002; Aljabreen 2020). Although these approaches are all steeped in constructivist principles and consider children’s inquiries, interests, and diverse ways of learning, they differ in their emphases and specific forms of pedagogy. At the heart of these approaches is their emphasis on child-centered learning, the role of the teacher as a facilitator, and connecting to meaningful experiences and topics. For specific examples of project work in action, see “Focusing on Projects in the Pages of Young Children” below.

Focusing on Projects in the Pages of Young Children

This year marks NAEYC’s 100th anniversary. NAEYC’s centennial year offers an opportunity to look back at the organization’s history, including articles published in Young Children. A number of articles have featured project work or the project approach. A search of Young Children’s archives for the terms project-based, project approach, or project method returns over 200 results. One early mention appeared in Young Children in September 1989, in a review of the book Engaging Young Minds: The Project Approach, by Lilian G. Katz and Sylvia C. Chard. In her review, Gail Perry notes that the book both discusses the theoretical underpinnings of the approach and offers firsthand glimpses of teaching in action.

In Young Children, the project approach has been explored in the context of different age groups, settings, and curricular goals. Educators have also offered their own reflections on implementing the approach. The following is just a small sampling of the articles featuring project work in the journal.

Throughout its history, Young Children has offered educators examples of project-based learning and the project approach in action that they can adapt and apply in their own settings.

The Origins and Development of the Project Approach

Project-based learning is not a new concept. Rather, it has deep roots. Dating back more than two centuries, fields as diverse as architecture, agriculture, and manual training included project-like courses of study (Knoll 2012). While many have contributed to the development of the project approach and its application to early childhood education in the most recent century, two notable figures are William H. Kilpatrick and Lilian Katz.


William H. Kilpatrick, early advocate of the project approach.

William H. Kilpatrick

Although project-oriented experiences have been included in many educational contexts over time, formal references to project-specific learning often point to the work of William Kilpatrick (1871–1965). Kilpatrick was a teacher, educational philosopher, and a faculty member at Teachers College, Columbia University (Beyer 1997; Knoll 2012). Kilpatrick is perhaps best identified as a developmentalist, as he pursued his exploration of teaching and learning through the eyes of many who came before or were within his lifespan.

Kilpatrick and like-minded others focused on a shift in education in the United States from the more traditional teacher-directed method to what became known as progressive education (Pratt 1948; Aldridge & Christensen 2013; Aldridge et al. 2014; Crawford 2017). Notably, Kilpatrick was a pupil, colleague, and successor of John Dewey and an ongoing interpreter of progressive education and the project method of teaching and learning. Dewey described Kilpatrick as the best student with whom he ever worked (Beineke 1998). Dewey also critiqued how Kilpatrick defined projects (Knoll 2012), perhaps showing his continued interest in and influence on his former student’s work. Later, Dewey’s generalized five-step approach to reflective thinking became embedded in Kilpatrick’s theoretical and pragmatic work. Dewey’s maturing five stages of reflective thinking are outlined by Archambault (1974) and summarized by Myers:

. . . in simple fashion this five step approach usually (but not always) occurred in sequential fashion; students and teachers: (1) were to identify the experiential (contextual) problem they hoped to solve; (2) uncover related data (clarification) surrounding the problem; (3) suggest possibilities (hypothesis); (4) sort out implications (choosing one); and (5) test the resulting hypothesis by overt or imaginative action. The experiential problems encountered by learners were to be subjected to this experimental method. Whatever results emerged from such work were again to be directed into and through the same process. (2017, 164)

Kilpatrick’s embrace of this model can be seen in his ongoing commitment to situating children’s own interests, questions, and purposeful activity at the center of the learning experience. He referred to this as the project method and wrote a related seminal piece, “The Project Method,” originally published in the Teacher’s College Record in 1918. In it, he noted: “The contention of this paper is that wholehearted purposeful activity in a social situation as the typical unit of school procedure is the best guarantee of the utilization of the child’s native capacities” (Kilpatrick [1918] 2018, 18). For Kilpatrick, effective education meant learning that was active, meaningful, and socially situated. It involved the investigation of authentic questions and deep investment in worthwhile topics.

As an educational historian described, the essay “The Project Method” launched Kilpatrick in the education field (Cremin 1961). However, his ideas about projects were not without debate or criticism: Colleagues, friends, and others in the field critiqued his views on projects, and his explanations about projects changed over time (Knoll 2012). But certain key tenets—active learning, centering children’s questions and interests, and connecting to the real world—were carried into future movements and practices, thereby cementing a place for Kilpatrick in the history of project work in education.

Meanwhile, Dewey’s progressive ideas eventually moved and evolved with him and his wife, Alice Chipman Dewey, first to Columbia University and then across the Atlantic Ocean to a small school in Wattmanngasse in suburban Vienna, Austria. Initially, it was in the home of Eva Rosenfeld and then in a small building constructed in her backyard. A young Erik Erikson joined his friend Peter Blos, the director, to teach there using the project method. Years later, Erikson wrote:

In this memorable little School the children, no doubt, did learn many things. The teachers, however, observed unforgettably the “strahlende Intelligenz” (the “radiant intelligence”) displayed by children who for some moments are permitted (by themselves and by circumstances) to function freely. ([1950] 1993, 127)

By the 1920s, interest had grown in the project approach, which seemed to offer “something for every student and every teacher” (Burlbaw et al. 2013, 12). This approach to teaching and learning fit well with a trend toward child-centered and progressive approaches at this time in the United States. This is exemplified by the emerging kindergarten movement and the influence of the developmental-interaction approach associated with Bank Street College of Education, which emphasizes children’s engagement with their environments and growth across developmental domains (Ducharme 1993; Grinberg 2005; Park & Lit 2015). In spite of the importance of centering children’s interests, Kilpatrick believed that project work should be connected with the curriculum and that not all expressed interests were equally appropriate for children’s learning. He believed the teacher had an active and important role to play in mediating the selection and development of these projects (Kilpatrick et al. 1921).

Critiques of the project approach arose as schools moved toward the mid-twentieth century, including concerns about challenges related to merging the approach with standardized curricula, the potential time-consuming nature of projects, and problems with consistent assessment practices (Knoll 2012). These foreshadow the challenges raised by current thought leaders and practitioners (Schuler 2000; Mitchell et al. 2008; Helm 2015; Chen 2025). Over time, Kilpatrick’s own ideas changed. He came to reconceptualize the approach as a philosophy and moved away from the use of the term project method, preferring instead to describe this mode of learning as one involving “purposeful” and “wholehearted” activity (Knoll 2012). Despite challenges and a waning interest in the project approach, it and other forms of progressive education received renewed attention in the 1960s (Peters 1971; Katz & Chard 1992; Spodek & Saracho 2003).


Lilian Katz, contemporary proponent of the project approach in early childhood education.

Lilian Katz

Toward the end of the twentieth century, Lilian Katz (b. 1932) began translating these ideas for a new generation, helping educators understand what the project approach meant for early childhood education in particular. Katz’s interest in early childhood education began with her involvement in the cooperative nursery school her children attended. She pursued formal education in the field and eventually earned a doctorate from Stanford University. Over her professional life, she held influential roles in the field, including as a faculty member at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and director of the ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education. She also served as NAEYC’s president from 1992 to 1994. (To read more about Katz’s work, see “Bernard ‘Bud’ Spodek and Lilian G. Katz: From Humble Beginnings to Extraordinary Impacts” in the Spring 2026 issue of Young Children.)

Katz worked with others, such as Sylvia C. Chard and Judy Harris Helm, over the course of decades to more clearly define project work and support educators to implement it in early childhood settings. Katz and Chard published The Project Approach in the ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education, stressing that the word project has many meanings. When used within early childhood education, the definition and features of a project are specific (Katz & Chard 1992; Katz 1994).

A project is an in-depth investigation of a topic worth learning more about. The investigation is usually undertaken by a small group within a class, sometimes a whole class, and occasionally by an individual child. The key feature of a project is that it is a research project deliberately focused on finding answers to questions about a topic posed by the children, the teacher or the teacher working with the children. (Katz 1994, 1)

Many publications followed, often written with other colleagues and students. Katz also lectured and led workshops and taught classes throughout the United States and internationally. The most recent publication to eventually emerge from this seminal work is Young Investigators: The Project Approach in the Early Years, now in its fourth edition. Co-authored by Judy Harris Helm, Katz, and Rebecca Wilson (2023), the book includes an accessible review of brain development in the early years as well as guidelines and insights for teachers of young children, including toddlers. Notably, this recent text still features the definition of projects listed above. More than 30 years later, Katz’s definition of project work as in-depth learning driven by the questions of children still holds and influences teaching and learning in early childhood contexts.

Projects as Part of Today’s Professional Toolbox

Focusing on holistic learning that springs from investigations of children’s curiosities and questions continues to have relevance today. The project approach as well as other project-based approaches can support active learning and engagement as well as critical thinking skills that nurture children’s development across the curriculum. In this era of accountability, rich projects connected to curricular goals offer numerous benefits (Beneke & Ostrosky 2009; Mitchell et al. 2009; Yuen 2009; Helm et al. 2023). These include

As Beneke and Ostrosky (2009) note, “Project work allows children to demonstrate their strengths by applying their knowledge, skills and dispositions in ways that are helpful to others.”

Project-based learning also depends on skilled, knowledgeable, and supported educators (NASEM 2024). Educators and scholars have pondered how to effectively implement projects as far back as Kilpatrick’s time (Knoll 2012). More recent work has clarified how educators can design and carry out projects in different types of programs and curricula. This is done by focusing on children’s curiosities and inquiries along with teachers’ intentional scaffolding and integration of content areas. In one foundational publication, Katz wrote that the project approach should be viewed as supporting the broader curriculum and that “both systematic instruction and project work have an important place in the curriculum” (Katz 1994, 2). Educators play a key role in determining alignment with their curricular goals and supporting children’s learning, individually and collectively, as do professional supports for these educators (Helm & Katz 2016; Alfonso 2017; Snider et al. 2017; NASEM 2024; Wise et al. 2024).

Project Work in Action

A group of children in a public school kindergarten gather around Ms. Gomez as she reads a poem about country and city life that concludes an instructional unit included in the district’s core literacy program. While the goal of this part of the lesson is to expose students to poetry as a form of writing, the children immediately connect with the topic and spontaneously share their related experiences.

Luis notes, “My grandpa lives on a farm. We go there all the time. I sat on the tractor.”

Aven says, “My aunt lives in New York City. We went there, and the buildings are huge! So many cars!”

Katy asks, “What are we? Are we city or country?”

The children discuss this and conclude that they live in a town, which is not quite like a city or the country. They wonder aloud, “How do cities grow? Will a town become a city?”

Ms. Gomez suggests, “Maybe we should build our own city and think about it more.”

She helps the children develop a KWL chart about cities (What do we know? What do we want to know? What did we learn?). To help build vocabulary and conceptual knowledge, she conducts interactive read alouds using classic building stories like The Little House, by Virginia Lee Burton, and Roxaboxen, by Alice McLerran and illustrated by Barbara Cooney. She introduces other picture storybooks set in city landscapes, such as Last Stop on Market Street, by Matt de la Peña and illustrated by Christian Robinson, and Nana in the City, by Lauren Castillo. Ms. Gomez adds city-related informational texts like The Ultimate Book of Cities, by Anne-Sophie Baumann and illustrated by Didier Balicevic, to the classroom library for children to explore on their own or in small groups.

In addition, she adds butcher paper to the table, so the children can draw rivers and roads. She adds blocks for bridge construction. The children rearrange the city as they consider the needs of residents and add buildings like hospitals and libraries. The class revisits this focus on building the city each morning over four weeks. Ms. Gomez observes and documents throughout these experiences to monitor each child’s engagement and growth related to their evolving understanding of cities and the needs of communities.

Family members visit during drop-off time to see and learn more about the city the children have built. The children share their work and celebrate their learning with their peers, teacher, and family members.

The vignette illustrates how a teacher guides a group of children through the three phases of the project approach. To begin the project, Ms. Gomez identified that the children were interested in how cities grow. She guided children through a KWL chart to determine what they already knew and what they would like to learn about cities. This highlights the importance of curricular goals and expectations as well as children’s interests and experiences. It shows that teachers can attend to both as they plan and support children’s active learning and critical thinking.

To develop the project, the children investigated the topic and worked to build a model city. Ms. Gomez supported their investigation by planning and implementing certain learning experiences and materials to address children’s questions and the main learning goals. For example, she incorporated texts about cities and supplied materials (butcher paper, blocks) for building the city.

To conclude the project, children shared their work with their family members as they visited the classroom during drop-off time. They showcased new words, ideas, and skills that they had gained as a result of the project.

Ms. Gomez was intentional as she implemented the project approach to support children’s learning. She knew the district’s core literacy program well and was able to leverage it. She used her professional knowledge, immediate insights, and observations and documentation to provide fuel for the new project and to monitor how it was going. Ms. Gomez’s curriculum included other approaches to working with her class, as suggested by Helm and colleagues (2023). These range from “less child initiation and decision making” to “more child initiation and decision making” and include a “teacher-instructed single concept, units, themes, and learning centers” (Helm et al. 2023, 17–18). Ms. Gomez supported the project through her classroom organization, interactions with children and families through documentation and verbal communications, and experience in curriculum development.

In early childhood education, projects like these provide an invitation for learning to children, their families, and their teachers. Although deeply rooted in the history of early childhood education, project-based teaching and learning remain relevant and important today. Projects offer a springboard for jumping deeply into curriculum while maintaining children’s interests, concerns, wonderings, and engagement at the heart of the learning process.

About the Authors

Patricia A. Crawford, PhD, is professor of early childhood education and language literacy and culture at the University of Pittsburgh in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. She is a current teacher educator and a former teacher of young children in the primary grades. pcrawfor@pitt.edu

Barbara Kimes Myers, PhD, is professor emerita of education at DePaul University in Chicago, Illinois. Currently she lives in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, where she studies, writes, teaches, and works with others in child development and early childhood education. kimesmyers@yahoo.com

Our Proud Heritage

Our Proud Heritage, coedited by Grace Jepkemboi Komol, PhD, and Jerry Aldridge, EdD, shares insights from the history of early childhood education to help educators develop teaching goals and objectives today. By considering the origins of ideas and programs, early childhood education professionals can better understand the present and make greater progress in the early childhood field.

References

Aldridge, J., & L.M. Christensen. 2013. Stealing from the Mother: The Marginalization of Women in Education and Psychology from 1900–2010. Bloomsbury.

Aldridge, J., J.L. Kilgo, G. Jepkemboi, & R. Ruto-Korir. 2014. “Matriarchs of Experimental and Progressive Education: Ten Women Who Influenced John Dewey.” International Journal of Case Studies 3 (5). casestudiesjournal.com/Volume%203%20Issue%205%20Paper%201.pdf.

Alfonso, S. 2017. “Implementing the Project Approach in an Inclusive Classroom: A Teacher’s First Attempt with Project-Based Learning.” Young Children 72 (1): 57–65.

Aljabreen, H. 2020. “Montessori, Waldorf, and Reggio Emilia: A Comparative Analysis of Alternative Models of Early Childhood Education.” International Journal of Early Childhood 52 (3): 337–53. doi.org/10.1007/s13158-020-00277-1.

Archambault, R.D., ed. 1974. “Introduction.” In John Dewey, On Education: Selected Writings. University of Chicago Press.

Baines, A., & A. DeBarger. 2021. “Key Principles for Project-Based Learning. Rigorous Project-Based Learning: An Inquiry-Based Educational Approach.” Lucas Education Research, George Lucas Educational Foundation. lucasedresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Key-Principles-for-PBL-White-Paper-1.pdf.

Beineke, J.A. 1998. And There Were Giants in the Land: The Life of William Heard Kilpatrick. Peter Lang.

Beneke, S., & M.M. Ostrosky. 2009. “Teachers’ Views of the Efficacy of Incorporating the Project Approach into Classroom Practice with Diverse Learners.” Early Childhood Research & Practice 11 (1). ecrp.illinois.edu/v11n1/ostrosky.html.

Beyer, L.E. 1997. “William Heard Kilpatrick (1871–1965).” PROSPECTS  27 (3): 468–85. doi.org/10.1007/BF02736644.

Bredekamp, S., & B. Willer. 2022. “Intentional Teaching: Complex Decision Making and the Core Considerations.” In Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs Serving Children from Birth Through Age 8. 4th ed. NAEYC.

Burlbaw, L.M., M.J. Ortwein, & J.K. Williams. 2013. “The Project Method in Historical Context.” In STEM Project-Based Learning: An Integrated Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Approach, eds. R.M. Capraro, M.M. Capraro, & J.R. Morgan. SensePublishers Rotterdam.

Chen, S. 2025. “Enhancing Project-Based Learning in 21st-Century Classrooms: Lessons from Dewey and Kilpatrick’s Progressive Ideas.” The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas 98 (2): 29–35. doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2025.2482196.

Crawford, P.A. 2017. “Back to the Future with Patty Smith Hill.” Childhood Education 93 (3): 213–17. doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2017.1325238.

Cremin, L.A. 1961. The Transformation of the School: Progressivism in American Education, 1876–1957. Knopf.

DuCharme, C.C. 1993. “Historical Roots of the Project Approach in the United States: 1850-1930.” Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the National Association for the Education of Young Children. ERIC, ED368459. files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED368459.pdf.

Edwards, C.P. 2002. “Three Approaches from Europe: Waldorf, Montessori, and Reggio Emilia.” Early Childhood Research and Practice 4 (1): 1–14. digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=famconfacpub.

Erikson, E.H. [1950] 1993. Childhood and Society. 2nd ed. W.W. Norton & Company.

Grinberg, J.G.A. 2005. Teaching Like That: The Beginnings of Teacher Education at Bank Street. Counterpoints series. Peter Lang.

Helm, J.H. 2015. Becoming Young Thinkers: Deep Project Work in the Classroom. Teachers College Press.

Helm, J.H., & L.G. Katz. 2011. Young Investigators: The Project Approach in the Early Years. 2nd ed. Teachers College Press.

Helm, J.H., & L.G. Katz. 2016. Young Investigators: The Project Approach in the Early Years. 3rd ed. Teachers College Press.

Helm, J.H., L.G. Katz, & R. Wilson. 2023. Young Investigators: The Project Approach in the Early Years. 4th edition. Teachers College Press.

Katz, L.G. 1994. “The Project Approach.” ERIC, ED368509. files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED368509.pdf.

Katz, L.G., & S.C. Chard. 1992. “The Project Approach.” ERIC, ED340518. files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED340518.pdf. 

Katz, L.G., S.C. Chard, & Y. Kogan. 2014. Engaging Children’s Minds: The Project Approach. 3rd ed. Bloomsbury.

Kilpatrick, W.H. [1918] 2018. The Project Method: The Use of the Purposeful Act in the Education Process. 11th ed. Teachers College Press. education-uk.org/documents/kilpatrick1918/index.html.

Kilpatrick, W.H., W.C. Bagley, F.G. Bonser, J.F. Hosic, & R.W. Hatch. 1921. “Dangers and Difficulties of the Project Method and How to Overcome Them–A Symposium.” Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education 22 (4): 283–321. doi.org/10.1177/016146812102200402.

Knoll, M. 2012. “ ‘I Had Made a Mistake’: William H. Kilpatrick and the Project Method.” Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education 114 (2): 1–45. doi.org/10.1177/016146811211400202.

Martalock, P.L. 2012. “‘What is a Wheel?’ The Image of the Child: Traditional, Project Approach, and Reggio Emilia Perspectives.” Dimensions of Early Childhood 40 (3): 3–11.

Mitchell, S., T.S. Foulger, K. Wetzel, & C. Rathkey. 2009. “The Negotiated Project Approach: Project-Based Learning Without Leaving the Standards Behind.” Early Childhood Education Journal 36 (4): 339–46. doi.org/10.1007/s10643-008-0295-7.

Myers, W.R. 2017. “John Dewey, God, and the Religious Education of the American Public.” Theology Today 74 (2): 157–71. doi.org/10.1177/0040573616688732.

NASEM (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine). 2024. A New Vision for High-Quality Preschool Curriculum. The National Academies Press. doi.org/10.17226/27429.

Park, S., & I. Lit. 2015. Learning to Play, Playing to Learn: The Bank Street Developmental Interaction Approach in Liliana’s Kindergarten Classroom. Educate: Bank Street College of Education. educate.bankstreet.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1015&context=books.

Peters, S. 1971. “Open Education–the American British Infant Schools.” Gifted Child Quarterly 15 (3): 229–32. journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/001698627101500312?download=true.

Pratt, C. 1948. I Learn from Children. Simon & Schuster.

Schuler, D. 2000. “The Project Approach: Meeting the State Standards.” Early Childhood Research & Practice 2 (1). ecrp.illinois.edu/v2n1/schuler.html.

Spodek, B., & O.N. Saracho. 2003. “ ‘On the Shoulders of Giants’: Exploring the Traditions of Early Childhood Education.” Early Childhood Education Journal 31 (1): 3–10. doi.org/10.1023/A:1025176516780.

The Educators Institute at Duke School. n.d. “About the Project Approach.” Accessed June 23, 2026. projectapproach.org/what-is-the-project-approach.

Wise, C.N., B.D. Sandriaz, M.M. McCormick, & A-L. Halvorsen. “Powering Up: Interdisciplinary Project-Based Learning for Young Engaged Citizens.” Young Children 79 (1): 22–29.

Yuen, L.H.F. 2009. “From Foot to Shoes: Kindergartners’, Families’ and Teachers’ Perceptions of the Project Approach.” Early Childhood Education Journal 37 (1): 23–33. doi.org/10.1007/s10643-009-0322-3.

Photographs: first photo, courtesy of Bennington College Archives; second photo, courtesy of NAEYC. Copyright © 2026 by the National Association for the Education of Young Children. See permissions and reprints online at NAEYC.org/resources/permissions.