Interesting study here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070228...c&printer=1;_ylt=AmO2CNdZnywFjJbLFdLk4aAXIr0F The reason I say interesting is the last of the 3 highlighted 'suggestions' has been being pushed by education departments for the past 15-20 years, yet over and over again, it has not proved an effective learning tool. Projects are those wonderful 'assessments' such as building a pyramid, making some sort of diorama, making and wearing costumes-while pretending to be a news host or guest. While there has been some positive learning results up to grade 4, the gains must be weighed against the reported negatives of usually being part of 'cooperative grouping': fighting with peers; being dominated by one or two members; being stuck with more than a fair share of work; being the 'smart one' in a group; being the 'low one' in a group; etc. By the very nature of projects, the learning results from them tends to be on the lower end of cognitive development. They are literal interpretations of facts gathered. In fact, the most effective method of dispensing information and for the learner to be able to interpret, synthesize, and generalize from is 'direct instruction', i.e., lecture. When combined with extension readings and assignments that require the learner to extrapolate and expand from the infomation given the results of testing demonstrate the integration of the information into the learner's base of knowledge. While education departments in universities around the country keep pushing for 'cooperative learning', project based assessments, etc., the math, science, and even social sciences departments are racking up the proof of the less effective methodologies. I would hypothesize that the results from the 'study' may be skewed by the researchers or possibly the students are a result of having had 'group fun' in lower grades, have not adjusted to the more rigorous and effective teaching in secondary schools.