[slm_HN]

This reads like a very thinly veiled ad for the author's $500 Software Design web class.

Project based learning won't work, traditional learning won't work, only my class will work. In fact the source he quotes (himself) claims he can give you a year's worth of experience in an hour.

But why doesn't project based learning fail? Well, in his example Bob, who wants to learn network programming, pairs with Alice, who somehow mysteriously takes over the entire project and does all the networking code so Bob learns nothing. That's sort of like arguing that you can't learn guitar from a teacher because a velociraptor might stroll by and eat the teacher.

I don't know what type of learning is best, but I know you need a little more evidence then that for a post titled "Why project-based learning fails".

[joshdance]

agree with this. Theoretical example, seems to tilt to advanced the authors view point. Would love some data on project based learning.

[cpkpad]

8-year study of progressive education from a hundred years ago is probably the oldest result showing project-based learning works well. Miki Chi's ICAP is the current one. You have the same result repeated with a new methodology every couple decades in education research.

Neither shows project learning is the only thing which works well; just that it works better than the model the author proposes or than traditional classrooms.

The key fallacy the author makes is that free-form project working doesn't work. Let's say I want you to learn machine learning. I need a carefully designed and sequenced series of projects which exercise all the skills along the way. That's not an uncommon fallacy; many progressive schools made the same mistake and basically failed.

The random coding project model, in isolation, as the author described, falls flat on its face just as the author describes. It works pretty well for simple/broad things (e.g. learn an API), but for anything with depth, expert sequencing of knowledge and design of projects/assessments becomes important.

[zaq_xsw]

> but one student reports that she learned much more from traditional classes.

You can't argue with that. She got more from a 4 year computer science education than the 6 week bootcamp! QED

But seriously, as another commenter mentioned, these maximalist headlines don't really help us get to a better education system. Deliberate practice is very important, but that doesn't mean project-based learning "fails".

I'm tutoring a student 1-on-1 at the moment, and my biggest concern as a teacher is always motivation. The delight that comes from building your own little real world website/app (simple cookie clicker clone in her case) after only a few weeks of programming is so useful in getting students to actually appreciate the value of what they're learning, and then it just snow-balls.

Some good points raised in the article, but perhaps a little click-baity and one-sided.

[tebugst]

agree with you absolutely. In broad field like CS, one can't keep interest so long unless there are some practical usefulness.

[walshemj]

Yes that's what I thought I learnt as much from the practical and project based parts of my ccna course - even more so when I came in on a day off and spent a day investigating some edge cases where the course material was incorrect.

[zombieprocesses]

> This reads like a very thinly veiled ad for the author's $500 Software Design web class.

My takeaway as well.

> In fact the source he quotes (himself) claims he can give you a year's worth of experience in an hour.

Did he invent a form mind-meld?

[courteouselk]

I was imagining some sort of CS shark in its prime with tons of experience while reading the article. PhD candidate? Hm...