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 projectlike 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. 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:
OURPROUDHERITAGE
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
... 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
Fall 2026 Young Children 89