Its Vocational Education Origin and
International Development
Michael Knoll
University of Bayreuth
Spring Issue 1997
Volume 34, Number 3
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JITE/v34n3/Knoll.html
In the 1970s, it experienced a remarkable renaissance, especially in Northern and Central Europe. Many current movements of educational reform-the comprehensive school movement, the movement for community education, open curriculum, and practical learning-make reference to the project method as far as implementation of their programs is concerned. The same is true in the U.S. with numerous approaches to revamping education. Whenever constructivist concepts, inquiry-based learning, problem-solving, and design are discussed in vocational and industrial education as well as in other fields of American education, the "project" is considered to be one of the best and most appropriate methods of teaching. Despite a plethora of books and articles on the topic, some important points of concern exist. In particular, the conceptual distinction between the project and other teaching methods remains unclear. The situation in Germany is particularly confusing. For example, Pütt (1982) defines the project as a "methodical device," Stubenrauch (1971) as a "didactic conception," and Suin de Boutemard (1976) as a "contrafactic idea" with which the existing capitalist system can be overcome. Much of this confusion is attributed to the fact that the history of the project method has, to date, been covered superficially and contradictorily. Thus, for example, American historians regard the agricultural expert Rufus W. Stimson with his "home project plan" of 1908 as the first project pedagogue and precursor of Kilpatrick (e.g., Bleeke, 1968; Kliebard, 1986), while German historians trace the origin of the project back to the university professors Charles R. Richards and John Dewey with their manual and industrial arts programs of 1900 (e.g., Magnor, 1976; Krauth, 1985).
Recently, however, historical research has made great progress in answering the question of when and where the term "project"-"progetto" in Italian, "projet" in French, "projekt" in German, and "proekt" in Russian-was used in the past to denote an educational and learning device. According to recent studies, the "project" as a method of institutionalized instruction is not a child of the industrial and progressive education movement that arose in the United States at the end of the 19th century. Rather it grew out of the architectural and engineering education movement that began in Italy during the late 16th century (Knoll 1991a, 1991b, 1991c; Schöller, 1993; Weiss, 1982). The long and distinguished history of the project method can be divided into five phases:
1765-1880: The project as a regular teaching method and its transplantation to America.
1880-1915: Work on projects in manual training and in general public schools.
1915-1965: Redefinition of the project method and its transplantation from America back to Europe.
1965-today: Rediscovery of the project idea and the third wave of its international dissemination.
From the outset, it was clear that training at the Academy would necessarily remain unsatisfactory until lectures were accompanied by a second element, namely competitions (Bergdoll, 1989). Since the Renaissance, competition had played an important part in building. It contributed to the establishment of architecture as an independent profession which challenged architects to become creative artists. The development of artistic creativity was, of course, also the goal of academic training. Teachers gave the advanced students challenging assignments, such as designing churches, monuments, or palaces. These assignments introduced students to the demands of their profession and, at the same time, enabled them to apply, independently and creatively, the rules and principles of composition and construction that had been acquired in lectures and workshops. The Academy's initial competition took place in 1596, but it was not until 1702 that it was permanently incorporated into the schoolyear calendar.
The structure of the academic competitions corresponded directly to architectural competitions; in both cases there were assignments to be carried out, deadlines to be kept, and juries to convince. However, in contrast to real competitions for architectural commissions, the designs in academic competitions were purely hypothetical tasks. For this reason, they were called "progetti." "The projects were intended to be exercises in imagination, since they were not intended to be built," observed Egbert (1980, p. 11). It was at the Accademia di San Luca in Rome that the term "project" first appeared in an educational context (Marconi, Cipriani, & Valerini, 1974). However, this does not imply that the project method had emerged as a central teaching device, since the competitions organized by Accademia di San Luca were not viewed as an integral part of training. Participation was open to every young architect, regardless of whether he was a student at the Academy or not.
Patterned after the Italian model, the Académie
Royale d'Architecture was founded in Paris in 1671 (e.g., Chafee,
1977; Egbert, 1980; Schöller,
1993); but the French architects did not simply replicate the Italian model.
For instance, they altered the conditions of competition, limiting participation
to registered students. The competitions also became more frequent. In
addition to the annual "Prix de Rome" competition, a monthly "Prix d'Emulation"
was also established. With the introduction of the Prix d'Emulation, training
focused on learning by projects. Students had to complete several monthly
"projets" to be awarded medals or gain recognition. These awards were necessary
in order to progress to the master class and acquire the title of academic
architect (Knoll, 1991a; Levine,
1982; Pérouse de Montclos, 1984). With
the Prix d'Emulation of 1763, the evolution of the project idea into an
acknowledged scholastic and teaching method was completed.
Stillman H. Robinson, Professor of Mechanical Engineering
at the Illinois Industrial University at Urbana, thought (around 1870)
that theory and practice belonged together-the student must be a craftsman
in order to become an engineer (Knoll, 1991a; Solberg,
1968). This view isolated Robinson from his colleagues in Paris, Karlsruhe,
and Boston, where the "scientific" engineer was seen as the ideal. Students
were required to learn how to apply the laws of science and technology,
and be able to develop machines, apparatuses, and turbines. To Robinson,
this was insufficient; he required his students to carry out the "complete
act of creation." This involved not only drafting their "projects" on the
drawing board, but extended to actually constructing them in the workshop.
In his report to the Board of Trustees, Robinson observed, "In practice
instruction consists mainly in the execution of projects, in which the
student is required to construct machines, or parts thereof, of his own
design and from his own working drawings" (Illinois
Industrial University, 1872-73, p. 29). Through this "construction"
requirement, Robinson wanted to achieve two purposes: enable students to
become "practical" engineers and "democratic" citizens (i.e., citizens
who believed in the equality of men and the dignity of labor).
At the Manual Training School, pupils worked successively
in the carpentry shop, on the lathe, in the smithy, foundry, and machine
shop. There, in accordance with the Russian system, students became acquainted
with the art of handicrafts in two phases. First, by passing through a
series of basic exercises, they learned the "alphabet" of tools and techniques.
For example, in the machine shop they filed cubes, turned screws, and drilled
cylinders. Second, at the end of each teaching unit and school year, they
were given time to develop and carry out "projects" independently (Woodward,
1887). Woodward
regarded the projects as "synthetic exercises." The techniques
earlier learned in isolation (i.e., in the construction of lathes, steam
engines, or electrical apparatus), were then applied in context. Thus,
instruction was designed to progress systematically from elementary principles
to practical applications, or, in Woodward's terms,
from "instruction" to "construction." At the end of the third year, the
manual training course culminated in what was called, the "project for
graduation." As was stated in the "Ordinance establishing the Manual Training
School" of June 1879,
Like Dewey, Richards thought that
"construction" and, consequently, project work should not be the final
goal of the educational process. Rather, construction should be the starting
point of manual training or, as he called the new subject, industrial arts
(Burton, 1929; Knoll, 1991b).
Children should work with "natural wholes" before dealing with artificial
parts. As they developed an understanding of tasks as a whole, they would
then be equipped to identify with their work, and recognize and solve the
identified problems. In a gentle critique of Woodward,
Richards (1901) observed that "When we take up
the problem of handiwork in this spirit, we are going to recognize that
a nice sequence of difficulties in the work may be of less importance than
the question of motive or the significance of a project to the real interest
of the particular moment" (p. 102). Children were not expected to develop
the entire plan and design for each thing done, since this would result
only in "crude projects" and "unsatisfactory work." Commenting on Dewey's
now famous sentence that "The only way to prepare for social life is to
engage in social life," Richards added (1900) "Where
the project is a common end that inspires all with a unity of thought and
effort, such work is perhaps the most natural and effective means of bringing
the community spirit and conditions into the school" (p. 256). Richards'
concept of natural and social learning was put into practice at the Horace
Mann School of the Teachers' College. On the teacher's initiative, for
instance, second grade pupils decided to carry out an Indian project (cf.
Richards 1900). They read Longfellow's poem "Hiawatha,"
discussed the customs and rituals of the Indians, and visited the Museum
of Natural History. Then they constructed tents, made costumes, and carved
bows and arrows in order to live as Indians for a day. The pupils acquired
the knowledge and skills they needed to execute the project. Thus, the
"instruction" did not (as with Woodward) precede
the project, but was integrated into the "constructive" project work
(pp. 267ff.).
Kilpatrick based his project concept on Dewey's theory of experience (Cremin, 1961; Knoll, 1993a). Children were to acquire experience and knowledge by solving practical problems in social situations. It should be noted that Kilpatrick was heavily influenced by Edward L. Thorndike's psychology of learning, even more than by Dewey's theory of experience (Kilpatrick, 1918). According to Thorndike's "laws of learning," an action for which there existed an "inclination" procured "satisfaction" and was more likely to be repeated than an action that "annoyed" and took place under "compulsion." >From this, Kilpatrick concluded that the "psychology of the child" was the crucial element in the learning process. Children had to be able to decide freely what they wanted to do; the belief was that their motivation and learning success would increase to the extent to which they pursued their own "purposes."
Using these insights, Kilpatrick (1925) defined the project as a "hearty purposeful act" (not as a "hearty planned act" as the German translation has it; Kilpatrick 1918, p. 320, Kilpatrick 1935, p. 162). "Purpose" presupposed freedom of action and could not be dictated. If, however, "the purpose dies and the teacher still requires the completion of what was begun, then it [the project] becomes a task"-mere work and drudgery (Kilpatrick, 1925, p. 348). Thus, Kilpatrick established student motivation as the crucial feature of the project method. Whatever the child undertook, as long as it was done "purposefully," was a project. No aspect of valuable life was excluded. Kilpatrick (1918) drew up a typology of projects ranging from constructing a machine via solving a mathematical problem and learning French vocabulary, to watching a sunset and listening to a sonata of Beethoven. In contrast to his predecessors, Kilpatrick did not link the project to specific subjects and areas of learning such as manual training or constructive occupations; the project did not even require active doing and participating. Children who presented a play executed a project, as did those children sitting in the audience, heartily enjoying it. In Kilpatrick's view, projects had four phases: purposing, planning, executing, and judging. The ideal progression was when all four phases were initiated and completed by the pupils and not by the teacher (1925). Only when the pupils exercised "freedom of action" were they able to acquire independence, power of judgment, and the ability to act-the virtues that Kilpatrick believed were indispensable for the maintenance and further development of democracy.
Kilpatrick's concept is usually
illustrated through the "typhoid project," a world-renowned undertaking
reported by Ellsworth Collings, (a doctoral student
of Kilpatrick) in 1923. When 11 pupils from the
third and fourth grades discovered that two of their classmates had fallen
ill with typhoid, they decided to explore how the infectious disease was
caused, spread, and combated (1923). The children worked on their own,
without help and interference from their teacher or direction from a formal
lesson plan. Thanks to their research and activities, the sick classmates
recovered quickly and the community was never again plagued by typhoid
fever. While Collings' account is engaging, it
is not borne out by the facts (Knoll, 1996). According
to reconstructions from the newspaper articles and essays Collings
published at the time, the work never took place as described (i.e., the
sick children did not exist and the students determined neither the project's
content nor its direction). The teacher prepared the lessons by selecting
the subject matter and material and giving thought to what questions were
to be asked, what discussions would be pursued, and what activities would
be proposed. There was little of the free and spontaneous learning that
educators have admired and tried to duplicate in their own schools for
more than half a century.
It is noteworthy that John Dewey, Kilpatrick's teacher and friend, also intervened in the discussion, criticizing his disciple's conception (Knoll, 1992, 1993d; Swimmer 1957). Dewey's primary objection was the one-sided orientation on the child. In his view, pupils by themselves were incapable of planning projects and activities-they needed the aid of a teacher who would ensure the continuous process of learning and growth. To Dewey, the "project" was not (as it was to Kilpatrick) to be an "enterprise of the child," but rather a "common enterprise" of teacher and pupils (Dewey, 1938; Kilpatrick, 1927). Dewey was also critical of Kilpatrick's definition of the project as a "purposeful" activity, observing that "A genuine purpose starts with an impulse but differs from an original impulse and desire through its transformation into a plan and method of action" (1938, p. 43). It is only as the teacher convinced pupils to abandon spontaneous behavior and go through the "complete act of thinking"-from encountering a difficulty, via drafting a plan, to solving the problem-could they expand their experience and broaden their education (Dewey 1916). According to Dewey, all teaching methods were based on scientific thought and the method of educative experience. The project method, however, differed from the other procedures by requiring a kind of problem-solving which-like building a boat or making a kite-was designed to challenge and develop the constructive skills of the pupils (cf. Dewey, 1916; Dewey 1933). Contrary to Kilpatrick, Dewey emphasized the role of the teacher in providing guidance and direction to students.
The criticism of Dewey and other
educators had a dampening effect on the popularity of the project method.
In the early 1930s, the term "project" was used less and less in its broad
sense. Even Kilpatrick distanced himself from
his own definition. In a letter to Abraham Flexner (dated January 25, 1950
and today housed in Special Collections at Mercer University), he admitted
that he should not have connected his notion of the "hearty purposeful
act" with the traditional project approach in 1918. "In the end [i.e.,
after 1927]," Kilpatrick wrote, "I decided I
had made a mistake to marry my program to the term, and I stopped using
the term as being provocative and ambiguous" (1950, p. 3). Indeed, Kilpatrick's
self-critique makes the point and is self-explanatory. His project conception
was ambiguous, since it disregarded the conventions of language and designated
the subjective attitude of the student as an objective method of teaching.
The project conception was provocative, since it neglected the traditions
of the field and changed the project definition arbitrarily from responsible,
constructive work to hearty, purposeful activity. In its original, narrow
sense, the project has survived the years undamaged, and still exists today.
Especially in science, agriculture, and technology education/industrial
arts, American high school students have regularly completed projects that
are judged by a jury and awarded prizes and certificates in a manner similar
to the architectural competitions of the 17th and 18th centuries.
Figure #1. Number of annual publications on the project method in selected countries and regions, 1895-1982.
From Gottfried Petri: Idee, Realitat und Entwicklungsmoglichkeiten des Projektlernens. Graz: Bundesminsterium fur Unterricht, Kunst und Sport, Zentrum fur Schulversuche und Schulentwicklung 1991, p. 271. - Petri took the data of the bibliography from Ulrich Schafer.
However, the new curricula had just been passed when the
Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union intervened.
In a resolution dated September 5, 1931, the highest decision-making body
in the country condemned the "ill-considered craze for the project method"
(Anweiler, 1978, p. 431), declaring that the project
was not suited for teaching the knowledge and skills necessary to increase
industrial production and strengthen communist consciousness. Indeed, there
was considerable risk that, through the fusion of instruction and work,
progress achieved in the field of general and scientific education in recent
years would be jeopardized. This governmental resolution brought the discussion
of the project method to an abrupt halt. Like progressive education as
a whole, the project method was no longer on the agenda of the educational
theory debate, either in the Soviet Union or in the countries that were
to come under Soviet domination in Eastern Europe after World War II.
The uniqueness of the German situation during the period
between the wars was that her educational reformers were suspected of having
paved the way for Fascism and National Socialism (Fishman
& Martin, 1987, p. 166ff.; Knoll, 1989, p.
217ff.). Their proposals for educational innovations were largely rejected
in the 1960s and 1970s in favor of American progressive education movement
concepts. With Dewey and Kilpatrick's
project method, many of the new reformers believed that they had found
the mechanism for the democratic and libertarian transformation of school
and society. However, their appropriation of American models was only fragmentary.
>From Dewey's formula of "education for democracy"
and Kilpatrick's slogan of "hearty purposeful
activity," they concluded that all actions could be classified as projects
as long as they satisfied the criteria of self-determination and self-satisfying
needs. When the realities associated with imparting systematic knowledge
and skills through independent project work emerged, the new reformers
developed a more differentiated approach. On typical, routine school days,
a reduced form of project-oriented teaching was used; but on special occasions
(e.g., before public holidays and vacations), an ideal form of project
teaching was employed. Implementing this ideal form consisted of special
project days and project weeks during which the normal curriculum and the
teacher's "planning monopoly" were suspended (Fishman
& Martin, 1987; Knoll, 1997). During project
weeks, the process was sometimes so open that virtually anything the pupils
fancied, from making cider to staging peace demonstrations, qualified as
a project. This project euphoria soon evaporated. Since the 1980s, much
of the sharp disparity between the standard course of instruction and the
project method has been resolved. Currently, substantial effort is being
directed toward harmonizing project work with more conventional methods
of teaching (Apel and Knoll, 1997).
2.The two basic models of the project method still used today were already developed in the 19th century. According to the older model (e.g., Woodward), students first learn, in a course of instruction, the skills and knowledge that they then apply independently and creatively in the practical project. According to the more recent model (e.g., Richards), the project is moved from the end of the unit to the center of teaching, in accordance with the fundamental idea of the new psychology that "natural wholes" must be the subject of learning if valuable interests and insights are to be developed. Here, the course of instruction does not precede the project, but is integrated into it.
3. At the beginning of the 20th century, a movement arose among American progressive educators (e.g., Kilpatrick) that attempted to replace (a) the traditional narrow definition of the project with a new, broad one, and (b) "constructive" activity with "purposeful" action as the crucial feature of the project method. This new definition was unable to gain ascendancy in the United States, but in other countries it was accepted as an innovation and a truly democratic achievement, with the paradoxical result that in Europe today the broad "American" concept predominates, while in America the narrow "European" approach plays the leading role.
Anweiler, O. (1978). Geschichte der schule und pädagogik in rußland vom ende des zarenreiches bis zum beginn der Stalin-ara. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Apel, H. J., & Knoll, M. (in press). Projekt lernen. Grundlegungen und anleitungen. Munchen: Oldenbourg Verlag.
Bennett, C. A. (1937). History of manual and industrial education, 1870-1917. Peoria: Bennett.
Bergdoll, B. (1989). Competing in the academy and the marketplace: European architecture competitions, 1401-1927. In Hélène Lipstadt (Ed.),The experimental tradition: Essays on competitions in architecture (pp. 21-51). New York: The Architectural League of New York.
Bleeke, M. H. (1968). The project: From a device for teaching to a principle of curriculum (Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison).
Bode, H. B. (1927). Modern educational theories. New York: Macmillan.
Burton, W. H. (1929). The nature and direction of learning. New York: Appleton.
Chafee, R. (1977). The teaching of architecture at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts. In A. Drexler (Ed.), The architecture of the Ecole des Beaux-Arts (pp. 61-110). New York: Museum of Modern Art.
Charters, W. W. (1923). Curriculum construction. New York: Macmillan.
Church, R. L., & Sedlak, M. W. (1976). Education in the United States: An interpretative history. New York: Free Press.
Collings, E. (1923). An experiment with the project curriculum. New York: Macmillan.
Cremin, L. A. (1961). The transformation of the school: Progressivism in American education, 1876-1957. New York: Knopf.
Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming again, again, and again. Educational Researcher, 19(1), 3-13.
Dewey, J. (1899). School and society. The middle works of John Dewey (Vol. 1). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1-109.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. The middle works of John Dewey (Vol. 9). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Dewey, J. (1931): The way out of educational confusion. The later works of John Dewey (Vol. 6). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 75-89.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. The later works of John Dewey (Vol. 8). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 105-352.
Dewey, J. (1938): Experience and education. The later works of John Dewey (Vol. 13). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1-62.
Egbert, D. D. (1980). The beaux-arts tradition in French architecture. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Fishman, S., & Martin, L. (1987). Estranged twin: Education and society in the two Germanys. New York: Praeger.
Frey, K. (1996). Die projektmethode. Weinheim: Beltz.
Hager, H., & Munshower, S. S. (Ed.) (1984). Projects and monuments in the period of the Roman baroque. University Park: Pennsylvania State University.
Ham, C. H. (1886). Manual training: The solution of social and industrial problems. New York: Harper.
Helmert, G. (1994). Schule unter Stalin 1928 bis 1940: Über den Zusammenhang von Massenbildung und Herrschaftsinteressen. Berlin: Harrassowitz.
Henderson, C. H. (1894). Manual training. Popular Science Monthly, 46, 48-62.
Henderson, C. H. (1898). The philosophy of manual training. Popular Science Monthly, 53, 322-339.
Holmes, L. E. (1991). The Kremlin and the schoolhouse: Reforming education in Soviet Russia, 1917-1931. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Horn, E. (1922). Criteria for judging the project method. Educational Review, 63, 93-101.
Illinois Industrial University (1872-73). Report of the Board of Trustees.
Katz, L. G., & Chard, S. C. (1989). Engaging children's minds: The project approach. Norwood: Ablex.
Kilpatrick, W. H. (1918). The project method. Teachers College Record, 19, 319-335.
Kilpatrick, W. H. (1925). Foundations of method: Informal talks on teaching. New York: Macmillan.
Kilpatrick, W. H. (1927). School method from the project point of view. In M. B. Hillegas (Ed.), The Classroom Teacher (pp. 203-240). Chicago: Teacher Inc.
Kilpatrick, W. H. (1935). Die projekt-methode. In P. Petersen (Ed.), Der Projekt-Plan: Grundlegung und Praxis von John Dewey und William Heard Kilpatrick (pp. 161-179). Weimar: Böhlau.
Kliebard, H. M. (1986). The struggle for the American curriculum, 1893-1953. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Knoll, M. (1988). Calvin M. Woodward und die Anfänge der Projektmethode: Ein kapitel aus der amerikanischen erziehungsgeschichte, 1876-1900. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 34, 501-517.
Knoll, M. (1989). Transatlantic influences: The project method in Germany. In C. Kridel. (Ed.), Curriculum history: Conference presentations from the society for the study of curriculum history (pp. 214-220). Lanham: University of America Press.
Knoll, M. (1991a). Europa-nicht Amerika: Zum ursprung der projektmethode in der pädagogik, 1702-1875. Pädagogische Rundschau, 45, 41-58.
Knoll, M. (1991b). Lernen durch praktisches problemlösen: Die projektmethode in den U.S.A., 1860-1915. Zeitschrift für internationale erziehungs- und sozialwissenschaftliche Forschung, 8, 103-127.
Knoll, M. (1991c). Niemand weiß heute, was ein projekt ist: Die Projektmethode in den vereinigten staaten, 1910-1920. Vierteljahrsschrift für wissenschaftliche Pädagogik, 67, 45-63.
Knoll, M. (1992). John Dewey und die projektmethode: Zur aufklärung eines mißverständnisses. Bildung und Erziehung, 45, 89-108.
Knoll, M. (1993a). Die projektmethode-ihre entstehung und rezeption: Zum 75. Jahrestag des Aufsatzes von William H. Kilpatrick. Pädagogik und schulalltag, 48, 338-351.
Knoll, M. (1993b). 300 jahre lernen am projekt: Zur revision unseres geschichtsbildes. Pädagogik, 45, H. 7/8, 58-65.
Knoll, M. (1994). Das "Russische System," "Slöjd" und die entwicklung der projektmethode in Amerika. Zeitschrift für Berufs- und Wirtschaftspädagogik, 90, 5-25.
Knoll, M. (1996). Faking a dissertation: Ellsworth Collings, William H. Kilpatrick, and the "Project Curriculum." Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28, 193-222.
Knoll, M. (1997). Projektmethode und fächerübergreifender unterricht: Eine historisch-systematische betrachtung. Über Fachgrenzen hinaus: Chancen und Schwierigkeiten fächerübergreifenden Lernens in Schule und Unterricht. Ed. L. Duncker & W. Popp. Heinsberg: Agentur Dieck.
Krauth, G. (1985). Leben, arbeit und projekt: Eine konzeptionsgeschichtliche und vergleichende studie über die gesellschaftliche, pädagogische und didaktische bedeutung der projektidee in reformpädagogischen bewegungen. Frankfurt: Lang.
Larsson, G. (1893). Sloyd for elementary schools contrasted with the Russian system of manual training. Proceedings of the National Educational Association, 599-603.
Levine, N. (1982). The Competition for the Grand Prix in 1824: A case study in architectural education at the École des Beaux-Arts. In R. Middleton (Ed.), The Beaux-Arts and Nineteenth-Century French Architecture (pp. 67-123) Cambridge: MIT-Press.
Magnor, M. (1976). Die Projektmethode: Ein ergebnis der philosophischen und erziehungstheoretischen ansätze John Deweys und William Heard Kilpatricks (Doctoral dissertation, University of Osnabrück).
Marconi, P., & Cipriani, A, & Valeriani, E. (1974). I disegni di architecttura dell'Archivio storico dell'Accademia di San Luca. Roma: De Luca Editore.
Oelkers, J. (1996). Reformpädagogik: Eine kritische dogmengeschichte. Weinheim: Juventa.
Pérouse de Montclos, J. M. (1984). Les Prix de Rome: Concours de l'Académie Royale d'Architecture au XVIIIe Siècle. Paris: Berger-Levrault.
Picon, A., & Yvon M. (1989). L' Ingénieur Artiste: Dessins Anciens de l'École des Ponts et Chaussées. Paris: Presses de l'École des Ponts et Chaussées.
Pütt, H. (1982). Projektunterricht und vorhabengestaltung. Essen: Neue deutsche Schule.
Richards, C. R. (1900). The function of handwork in the school. Teachers' College Record, 1, 249-259.
Richards, C. R. (1901). How early may handwork be made part of school work? Proceedings of the National Educational Association, 100-107.
Röhrs, H. (1977). Die progressive erziehungsbewegung: Verlauf und auswirkung der reformpädagogik in den USA. Hannover: Schroedel.
Runkle, J. D. (1876). The Russian system of shop-work instruction for engineers and mechanists. Boston: Kingman.
Schäfer, U. (1988). International bibliography of the project method in education, 1895-1982. 2 Vols. Berlin: Verlag für Wissenschaft und Bildung.
Schöller, W. (1993). Die "Académie Royale d'Architecture," 1671-1793: Anatomie einer Institution. Köln: Böhlau.
Schurter, W. J. (1982). The Development of the Russian system of tool instruction (1763-1893) and its introduction into the U.S. industrial education programs. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland).
Solberg, W. U. (1968). The University of Illinois, 1867-1894: An intellectual and cultural history. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Stubenrauch, H. (1971). Die gesamtschule im widerspruch des systems: Zur erziehungstheorie der integrierten gesamtschule. München: Juventa 1971.
Suin de Boutemard, B. (1976). 75 jahre projektunterricht. In W. Geisler (Ed.), Projektorientierter Unterricht: Lernen gegen die Schule? (pp. 58-64). Weinheim: Beltz.
Swimmer, G. G. (1957). A Comparison of the intellectual development of John Dewey and William Kilpatrick with implications for differences in their educational theories. (Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University).
Thayer, V. T. (1928). The Passing of the recitation. Boston: Heath.
Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Washburne, C. (1928). The Limitations of the project method. Proceedings of the National Educational Association, 187-188.
Washington University. (1880-81). Catalogue of the Officers and Students.
Weiss, J. H. (1982). The making of technological man: The social origins of French engineering education. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Wilkinson, C. (1977). The new professionalism in the Renaissance. In S. Kostof (Ed.), The architect. Chapters in the history of the profession (pp. 124-160). New York: Oxford University Press.
Woodward, C. M. (1887): The manual training school,
comprising a full statement of its aims, methods, and results. Boston:
Heath.