OURPROUDHERITAGE 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).
90 Young Children
Fall 2026