









































McCaster, A. L.  Global Journal of  
Transformative Education (2019) 1:1, 46-51.  
DOI 10.14434/gjte.v1i1.25920 

Open Access

Published by the Global Insitutute of Transformative Education (http://www.gite.education)
© McCaster, 2019 Open Access This journal is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 
NonCommercial NonDerivative 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which 
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction without revision in any non-commercial medium, provided you 
give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license,

Adult Education and Dialogue: Utilizing Project-Based 
Education as a Method to Provide Transformative Change 
in Both Students and Teachers

Antonette L. McCaster

Abstract

Knowledge is built upon personal experiences and the information to which we have access. My area of 
research is in communicating the language of business (accounting) to non-business learners. I have found that 
both communication and motivation are primary factors in transformational learning. To this end, research has 
shown that project-based education improves student skills, and transforms the traditional classroom for both 
teachers and students. Combining project-based education with adult dialogue education provides a transfor-
mative method of education that encourages student-driven, collaborative project-based learning as well as 
opportunities for teachers to reflect upon their epistemology and pedagogy.

Keywords: Instructional technology, Adult dialogue education, Project-based education, STEM,   
           Transformative instructional approaches

Full listing of authors and contacts can be 
found at the end of this article.

Introduction
In order to have an understanding of my theory of 

learning, I must discuss my epistemology and beliefs 
about intelligence. I believe that knowledge is relative 
and it should be evaluated based upon personal expe-
riences and the available information. I define intelli-
gence as the ability to relate new knowledge to existing 
knowledge in a variety of situations. I believe that 
intelligence is not fixed and knowledge is not discrete 
or constant. Consequently, I subscribe to the incremen-
tal theory that intelligence is changeable and can be 
improved. 

My philosophy of education is grounded in my 
personal beliefs about the nature of people and learn-
ing. I recognize that operant conditioning is beneficial 
for learning basic facts and principles. This is an area 
in which the use of various methods of instructional 
technology utilizing authentic activities can accomplish 
much. Liberal education provides practice for our

mind to explore connections, which satisfies the social, 
esteem, and self-actualization needs.

Learning is a personal experience and knowledge is 
based upon personal experiences and the information 
to which we have access. To this end, project-based ed-
ucation allows for authentic learning activities. A liberal 
education provides new areas from which we can draw 
valuable insight for problem solving. Humanistic educa-
tion places value in the whole person and underscores 
how relationships are critical to our development. Rad-
ical theory wants us to question the existing constructs, 
dismantle the status quo, and reshape our perceptions 
of reality. The radical ideas about communication 
(adult dialogue education) is an area that I continuous-
ly analyze in my current practice and have utilized in 
face-to-face courses. This study looks at prior research 
on project-based education and its intersection with 
technology for providing a transformative change in 
both teachers and students. 



McCaster, Adult Education and Dialogue  47

What is Learning?
According to Kirschner et al. (2006), Learning is 

defined as “a change in long-term memory” (p. 75). 
This is in contrast to Hmelo-Silver et al. (2007), where 
they indicate the goal of education is to learn content 
and soft skills; such as epistemic practices, self-directed 
learning, and collaboration. A broader definition can 
be gleaned from Gagne’s Events of Instruction; where 
learning is the process of “getting the student from 
one state of mind to another” (p.178). The importance 
of collaboration is supported in Merrill (2009) during 
the application principal. Specifically, when learners 
“actively engage in interaction with one another rather 
than passively observing the demonstration” (p. 47).

A broader definition is needed than what was pro-
posed by Kirschner et al. (2006). According to Gagne’s 
Events of Instruction; learning is the process of “getting 
the student from one state of mind to another” (p.178). 
Further, the importance of collaboration is supported in 
Merrill (2009) during the application principal. Spe-
cifically, when learners “actively engage in interaction 
with one another rather than passively observing the 
demonstration” (p. 47). This definition supported the 
Hmelo-Silver proposed definition for the purpose of 
education. 

I define a good learning experience as one in which 
any of the following activities occurred:

• I obtained valuable information that helped me 
to understand a situation or experience I have 
encountered in the past either personally, aca-
demically, or professionally.

• The experience provided tools to better resolve 
existing issues or presented alternatives of which 
I was not aware. 

• The experience created a springboard for learn-
ing growth.  

I define a bad learning experience as one in which:
• I received no benefit (including knowledge acqui-

sition of skill development) during the process or 
afterwards. 

• That I didn’t understand the purpose of the expe-
rience. 

• The experience did not meet the objectives stated 
for the experience. 

What is Project-Based Learning?
Thomas (2000) conducted a review of the research 

on project based learning and outlined five components 
that he felt were necessary in a project for it to fit under 
the umbrella of project based learning. These elements

included: centrality, diving question, constructive 
investigations, autonomy, and realism. Further, Brund-
iers and Wiek (2013) reviewed several articles to posit 
key features of problem and project based learning. 
The intersection of these two strategies included six 
elements; engaging students in real-world tasks, stu-
dent-centered/small group work, simulate profession-
al situations, use of multiple sources of information, 
teachers as facilitators and a resource, formative and 
performance-based peer evaluations. 

Taylor (2017) defined project-based learning in his 
abstract as “a teaching technique in which authentic, 
real-world projects are used as the primary vehicle to 
drive the student’s learning experience” (p.1). Nilsson 
(2012) outlined a method for implementing proj-
ect-based education called the “working seminar.”  It is 
based on the assumption that groups with a common 
base of knowledge increase both the group results and 
the individual learning.

The Buck institute for education (2015) similarly 
provided seven design factors that should be utilized 
for a successful implementation of project based educa-
tion (see Fig.1).

Teacher Transformation
Even now, the field of accounting and finance is 

dominated by white males over the age of fifty. As such, 
aspects of a liberal education such as collaboration, 
interpersonal skills, and the skill of discernment are 
integral. I have used the Socratic Method when students 
ask questions in the past. Especially, when it involves 
an authentic issue and the group is more than capable 
of formulating a response and sharing it. A transforma-
tion I have made through the use liberal education and 
adult dialogue included the incorporation of the liberal 
education model by having several students who have 
briefly discussed an issue with peers (think, pair, and 
share) to pull pieces of their understanding and write 
them with bullets upon the board. Then I will call on 
several other students to sum up what they heard their 
fellow students say, and add to what’s been bulleted 
or question further. In the end, I will call for a “vote” 
using clicker devices to poll all students based on the 
shared discussion. This represents liberal education in 
two ways. First, it allows the students to hear stories 
firsthand and draw their own conclusions about possi-
ble scenarios and their implications. Second, it lets the 
learner know that not all knowledge is central but but 
dispersed throughout a group and can be understood 
differently. 

Global Journal of Transformative Education (2018) 1:1



McCaster, Adult Education and Dialogue  48

Global Journal of Transformative Education (2018) 1:1

Kirschner et al. (2006) take the position that episte-
mology or how an expert does something is not equiv-
alent to pedagogy or how to learn the field. To support 
this, they offer DeGroot’s chess results where it is 
concluded that it is the extensive experience of profes-
sionals stored in long-term memory that enables them 
to be good at what they do. They conclude by indicating 
that the shortcoming is due to the differences between 
behaviors and methods knowns to experts as compared 
to novices with no foundation to draw from. 

In examining my assumptions on adult learning, I 
would like to highlight four that have been discussed 
extensively in the literature. The first is that adult 
learners have experiences from which to draw on to 
support their learning. The second is that adult learners 
need to understand how the information they acquire 
relates to what they already know. This allows them 
to see relevance and improves motivation. Third, adult 
learners have positive and negative self-efficacy in var-
ious domains that affect how they approach learning. 
Finally, a “readiness” to learn arises from an experience 
in which the individual realizes that they don’t have the 
skill, knowledge, or information to address it.

Theories that address these assumptions include 
Malcolm Knowles theory of Androgyny (2012), which 
posits that there are particular characteristics of adult

learners that differ from the way children learn. These 
assumptions included self-concept, experience, read-
iness/orientation to learning, motivation to learn and 
relevance. Some critics point out that the perspective 
of andragogy supports “white middle-class values” and 
does not include the “relationship between self and 
society” (Sandlin, 2005, p. 27).

In contrast, Hmelo-Silver et al. (2007) indicate that 
the shift in importance stems from sweeping reforms in 
education based upon the idea that the purpose of edu-
cation is to prepare students for the workplace. As such, 
“content and practice” should be central learning goals. 
Furthermore, the relationship to long-term memory 
storage is emphasized because there is a direct cor-
relation of the “influence of the learning context on the 
accessibility of the knowledge for future use” (p. 105).

In forming my response to rather project based ed-
ucation should be supported, I considered the results of 
these issues. Project Based Education should not be cat-
egorized like “discovery” and other “experiential” forms 
of instruction. Additionally, the definition of learning 
used by Kirschner et al. (2006) is too narrow and does 
not fully encompass learning as does the definition of 
the purpose of education put forward by Hmelo-Silver 
et al. (2007). This means I discount that minimally 
guided instruction is ineffective for student learning,

Figure 1. PBL design factors (Buck Institute 2015).



McCaster, Adult Education and Dialogue  49

Global Journal of Transformative Education (2018) 1:1

due to evidence presented that demonstrates the condi-
tions that it is effective.

The decision to use project based education in a 
course should be based upon the broader definition of 
learning. Kirschner et al. (2006) present compelling ev-
idence as to why the content and timing of the guidance 
in inquiry based instruction must be scaffolded to be 
successful. That is to say, in order to reducing working 
memory overload, scaffolding will keep learning with 
the proximal development zone. Without scaffolding, I 
would not recommend the use of inquiry-based instruc-
tion under any circumstances.

Student Transformation
Blumenfeld, Soloway, Marx, Krajcik, Guzdial and 

Palinscsar (1991) published a study from the Univer-
sity of Michigan with the intent of exploring projects 
and examining difficulties that students and teachers 
encounter, and describing how technology supports 
both teachers and students for projects. In summary 
Blumenfeld et al. (1991) posit that projects allow for 
the integration of both thinking and motivation for stu-
dents. Historically, tasks utilized a programmed instruc-
tion approach which has resulted in some students 
having “poor attitudes toward learning and schooling.” 
(p. 371). An area of weakness for many students is 
group work and collaboration. In essence learning to 
work effectively in groups. Bell (2010) discusses how 
projects provide intrinsic motivation because students 
can present their best selves through the use of individ-
ual learning styles and preferences. 

Hmleo-Silver et al. (2007) states that PBL “supports 
the development of reasoning skills, problem-solving 
skills and self-directed learning skills” (p. 103). This 
statement implies that these are skills that can be car-
ried over to other areas. According to Vygotsky (1978), 
article entitled “Interaction Between Learning and De-
velopment,” learning in one general area will not carry 
over to another. It referenced the study of adults where-
by training on discovering the length of short lines did 
not improve the participants’ ability to determine the 
length of long lines. This points to the importance of 
learning in context. It concluded that “special training 
affects overall development only whenits elements, 
material, and processes are similar across specific do-
mains” (p. 83).

Technology
Taylor (2017) completed a study to answer several 

questions regarding the use of technology with project-

based learning. Their study used two web-based sur-
veys to obtain data from participants at Georgia Tech. 
One survey was to teachers the other for students; 
the survey garnered 23 responses from teachers with 
prior PBL experience and 52 responses from students. 
Although the response rate is low, there were some 
interesting findings that I used to triangulate with 
information from other research. Of primary interest to 
this study, was the findings about PBL-specific teaching 
practices that technology provided the greatest support 
and overall how integral technology was to the delivery 
of project-based learning. “Nearly 74% of teachers and 
63% of students thought that technology tools were 
either very important or extremely important relative 
to their successful delivery of Project-Based Learning” 
(Taylor, 2017, p. 7).

The results of Taylor (2017) suggest that while 
technology can help support all PBL Teaching Practices, 
it is most impactful in three areas: (1) Helping teachers 
to design and plan for the successful execution of their 
projects, (2) Providing teachers with the ability remain 
in close contact with students throughout the project, 
as well as providing students the ability to collaborate 
with each other regardless of location. (3) Giving stu-
dents the creative freedom to explore the topics under-
lying their projects in ways that are meaningful to them, 
while simultaneously ensuring they are equipped with 
the core knowledge needed to stay focused. 

The need for minimal guidance is also supported 
by Gagne’s Events of Instruction (as step 5; “Providing 
learning guidance” (p. 162). The authors stated how 
too much guidance is considered “condescending to the 
quick learner” (p. 188). The importance of scaffolding is 
supported in Merrill (2009) “First principals of Instruc-
tion,” with the application principle where the author 
states that learning is improved when “coaching is 
gradually withdrawn for each subsequent task” (p. 47). 
This supported the need for scaffolding in minimally 
guided instruction.

Challenges
Kirschner et al. (2006) refer to PBL and IL as having 

no guidance, they cited these teaching strategies as 
“unguided” when discussing “Research Comparing 
Guided to Unguided,” the “Knowing Less After Instruc-
tion” and the “Empirical Evidence about Science Learn-
ing from Unguided Instruction” sections of the article. 
Consequently, the authors use examples of “unguided” 
research as a basis for their knowledge claim that PBL 
and IL are ineffective for learners.



McCaster, Adult Education and Dialogue  50

Global Journal of Transformative Education (2018) 1:1

In contrast, Hmelo-Silver et al (2007), demon-
strate numerous examples that PBL is a guided form of 
instruction even if minimal; through the use of “scaf-
folding and guidance to facilitate student learning” (p. 
99). The authors included the Geier et al research to 
support this. This research was particularly strong due 
to the longevity of the study and “observed gains up to 
a year and a half after participation in inquiry-based 
instruction” (p. 104).

The need for minimal guidance is also supported 
by Gagne’s Events of Instruction (as step 5; “Providing 
learning guidance” (p. 162). The authors, stated how 
too much guidance is considered “condescending to the 
quick learner” (p. 188). Further, the importance of scaf-
folding is supported in Merrill (2009), “First principals 
of Instruction,” with the application principle where the 
author states that learning is improved when “coaching 
is gradually withdrawn for each subsequent task” (p. 
47).

Discussion
In forming my position as to rather or not inquiry 

based instructional strategies should be supported, I 
considered the results of the following issues:

• How does project-based education improve 
learning?

• How does the role and beliefs of the teacher 
change with Project Based education?

• How are students’ roles changed as a result of 
project based education?

• What role does technology play in project-based 
education?

Project based education improves intrinsic moti-
vation by working with a variety of learning styles and 
student preferences. The level of autonomy provides a 
sense of ownership for the results. Using project-based 
instructional strategies requires a transformation in 
teachers. They must rethink their role in the classroom 
from dictator to facilitator. The projects selected will 
not have a right or wrong answer. Additionally, teach-
ers must be willing to accept an element of unscripted 
learning.

Project based learning requires that students 
change their approach to the classroom. They must go 
from the “baby bird” method of receiving knowledge to 
assuming an active role. Many students will need assis-
tance in how to actively listen to others and engage in 
dialogue that requires negotiation. Finally, the ability to 
synthesis multiple ideas of sources of information into 
a cohesive thought pattern must be achieved. Technolo-
gy supports learning through the variety of sources and 
means of gathering information, increased volume of 
information, and multiple means of delivering artifacts. 
In conclusion, teacher and student transformations 
benefit from readily available resources, such as tech-
nology, to support them through challenges.

.



McCaster, Adult Education and Dialogue  51

References

Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st 
Century: Skills for the future. The Clearing House, 
83(2), 39-43, doi: 10.1080/00098650903505415

Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. 
S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating 
project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, 
supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 
26(3-4), 369-398.

Brundiers, K., & Wiek, A. (2013). Do we teach what 
we preach? An international comparison of 
problem-and project-based learning courses in 
sustainability. Sustainability, 5(4), 1725-1746.

Buck Institute for Education. (2015). Gold Standard 
PBL: Project based teaching practices. Novato, CA: 
Buck Institute for Education.

Gagne, R.M., Briggs, L.J., & Wager, W.W. (1988). The 
events of instruction. In (3rd Ed.),   Principles of 
Instructional Design (pp. 176-197). Fort Worth, TX: 
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.

Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). 
Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and 
inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, 
and. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99-107.

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why 
minimal guidance during instruction does not 
work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, 
discovery, problem-based, experiential, and 
inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 
41(2), 75-86.

Knowles, M. S., Holton III, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2012). 
The adult learner. New York: Routledge. 

Merrill, M.D. (2009). First principles of instruction. In 
Instructional Theories and Design Models Volume 
III: Building a Common Knowledge Base (pp. 41-56). 
New York, NY: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.

Nilsson, F. (2012). Working Seminar - A method for 
proactive learning in project based education. 
Paper presented at LTHs 7:e Pedagogiska 
Inspirationskonferens, 2012, Lund, Sweden. 

Sandlin, J. A. (2005). Andragogy and its discontents: 
An analysis of andragogy from three critical 
perspectives. PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning, 
14(1), 25-42.

Taylor, J. (2017). Study on the best uses of technology 
in support of Project-Based Learning. arXiv preprint 
arXiv:1712.06034.

Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-
based learning. Buck Institute for Education.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning 
and development. Mind and Society (pp.79-91). 
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Antonette L. McCaster (mccaster@indiana.edu) 
is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Public and 
Environmental Affairs at Indiana University,  
Bloomington, Indiana, USA.

Author

http://www.bie.org/object/document/gold_standard_pbl_project_based_teaching_practices1
http://www.bie.org/object/document/gold_standard_pbl_project_based_teaching_practices1

