If you have followed my blog for any amount of time, you’ll know that I am a huge proponent of project based learning (or PBL for short). I have a PBL hub with articles and resources you can access. I conduct PBL workshops, keynotes, and coaching. As a classroom teacher, I embraced PBL and now, as a professor, I continue to use PBL within my work with pre-service teachers.

To my core, I believe in the power of project based learning to help students learn and retain the content at a deeper level while also helping them gain the skills they’ll need as they navigate a complicated and uncertain world.

But today I want to explore a different kind of question. I’d like to focus on when we shouldn’t have students do PBL. I actually think there are times when the standards don’t align well with PBL as a framework. In other words, I don’t believe we should be using PBL for every unit plan we design.

Sometimes PBL Isn’t the Best Idea

“How do we get our middle school math teachers to embrace project-based learning?” A principal asks me. 

“Have you asked them about it?” 

He nods. “They say that PBL doesn’t work in math. I disagree. I taught AP Stats for years. We did PBL on a regular basis. They mention the time crunch and the test. We had limited time and a high stakes AP test. But we still did it.” 

“What standards are they doing?” I ask. 

“I mean, it’s kind of all over the place. But I think the could be clustered together to do meaningful projects instead of just constant direct instruction, worksheets, and tests.” 

I take a look at the curriculum map and suddenly I’m immediately empathetic toward both this principal and the middle grades math team. 

The time crunch is real. You have this is a massive set of standards that students are supposed to master in a single year. Unlike high school statistics, these range from algebra to geometry to statistics. Some are very skill-based and procedural. Others are conceptual. Some of these require lots of explicit instruction and a strong set of prerequisite skills. Others allow for more discovery and open inquiry. 

I’m struck, in this moment, by the fact that I would only do one or two PBL units if I were given this curriculum map. I could easily imagine a project based statistics, probability, and key concepts like permutations. I could maybe envision a blended PBL (with the clustering of standards that the principal described) based on proportional reasoning, volume, and surface area. 

At the same time, many of these standards require a systematic approach with clear explicit instruction, where each skill builds on the next in complexity. In these moments, I wouldn’t embrace PBL. Instead, I would create meaningful, context-based word problems or even short design challenges. Then, only after they have built deeper background knowledge, I would incorporate more inquiry or discovery. 

For me, this is a reminder that sometimes PBL isn’t the best instructional model. There are times when PBL might actually backfire completely. I learned this the hard way when I was an eighth grade teacher. 

 

The Myth of “Always PBL”

“Hey Spencer, can I ask you something?” Miguel said as he walked into the classroom. 

“Go on.” 

“Okay, I’m not trying to be mean. I just want to know something. Why can’t we just read right now?” 

“What do you mean?” I asked. 

“I mean, I don’t mind doing research. I liked our Geek Out Blogs. I like writing, too. But, um, I just, I don’t know. I miss the silent reading we were doing.” 

“Yeah, you replaced reading with work,” Liliana chimed in. 

“Okay, but this is reading. I mean . . .” 

“But we aren’t reading,” she pointed out. “We’re talking. We’re making things. We’re discussing. That’s fine. I just miss reading. I love the projects we do in science and social studies. And I know that these book reviews are necessary. I just wish I could be reading a book instead.” 

“Thanks for your feedback. I’ll consider that,” I said. 

As students streamed in, I began a short mini-lesson on video editing. It was a solid lesson . . . on video editing. And to an outside observer, it would have been a lesson with peak student engagement. However, when we finished, I had this lingering question. Was this actually a reading lesson? Were students actually engaged in the standards that were listed on my lesson plan? Yes, they were doing video previews of books they had read. But were they focused on video composition or the actual literary review standards. 

At the end of the day, I made a key decision. This didn’t need to be a PBL unit. Instead, we would take 2-3 class periods and do a short mini-project. The videos might not be perfectly edited but that’s okay. We might not have the ultimate authentic audience but, again, that’s okay. We would make the videos and launch them to the library with QR codes so students could watch the videos. 

Honestly, I felt guilty about putting academic standards above the “Gold Standard PBL” I had learned in training. 

 

Don’t Implement PBL When Students Lack Foundational Knowledge or Skills

One of the core tenets PBL is that students learn the content through the project rather than doing a project to demonstrate. I’ve used the metaphor of a plate. It’s not about adding a bonus project on top of a crowded plate so much as it is rearranging the plate. 

And yet . . . 

This is only true if students can access prior knowledge.  We sometimes assume that students will simply “pick up” the foundational knowledge along the way while they work on a project. Occasionally that happens. But often students end up overwhelmed, confused, or dependent on the strongest students in the group. 

If a student has a very basic, cursory knowledge of the content, they’ll end up engaging in a project that is somewhat shallow. If this is about conceptual knowledge (the Civil Rights movement, World War II, animal adaptations), they might reinforce misconceptions or simply create something that doesn’t delve deeply into the concepts. If the issue is skill-based, they’ll end up struggling the entire time because they haven’t mastered the pre-requisite skills needed for a project. 

Project-Based Learning works best when students have enough background knowledge and enough core skills to actually think deeply. They can’t make connections if there’s nothing to connect it to. They can’t solve problems if they lack the skills or the conceptual framework for the content they’re engaged in. Otherwise, the project can become little more than guesswork with a polished final product.

This is especially true when students are learning complex concepts or technical skills for the first time. If students are still struggling with basic math operations, a giant engineering design challenge may create frustration instead of empowerment. If students lack reading fluency, a large inquiry project can quickly turn into surface-level research and copied information. 

Sometimes students need direct instruction, guided practice, modeling, repetition, and smaller learning experiences before they are ready for a larger open-ended project. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, strong PBL often depends on those foundational building blocks. In other words, you can’t build anything if you don’t have the building blocks to build with. 

I think of it less as “PBL or traditional instruction” and more as sequencing. Sometimes students need workshops before the project. Sometimes they need mini-lessons during the project. Sometimes they need a smaller structured challenge before tackling something more complex. 

The best PBL teachers I’ve known are able to determine when to open things up and when to provide tighter scaffolds. The goal is not maximum freedom at all times. The goal is deeper learning. And deeper learning still requires students to build knowledge, practice skills, and develop confidence along the way.

At the same time, there’s a danger in always saying, “this group can’t do projects because they haven’t mastered ________ first.” I find it tragic when special education students, for example, never have access to PBL. So, I think it’s important that we make sure to craft some projects that allow students to practice new skills in a way that taps into their current prior knowledge. 

For example, they might do a Geek Out Blog project. Here, they can craft blog posts about any topic they want (fashion, Minecraft, music, sports, food) but they need to engage in research and craft pieces that are informational and persuasive. You set the tighter parameters but they can choose whatever topic they want because the standards are topic-neutral. 

Another option is to start off small with mini-projects and sprints. Students might do a three day rapid prototyping design challenge. They might complete a Wonder Day project in a single class period. You might have them solve a problem using what they have learned in the last two weeks but not actually share it with a larger authentic audience. 

I realize that this approach isn’t “real PBL.” But honestly, the goal isn’t “real PBL.” The goal is helping students master the content at a deep level while developing the type of competencies they’ll use for a lifetime. 

 

Don’t Implement PBL When the Goal Is Precision and Fluency

“I want to do PBL in language arts but we have a tight curriculum map,” a teacher tells me. 

“Oh, it’s not just a map. It’s a script,” another teacher says. 

“Can you share it with me?” 

They show me some samples from the current unit they’re teaching. I’m immediately struck by how precise it is. Everything is sequential and systematic. And it feels high stakes if students fail to learn a particular phoneme or blend. This entire curriculum has been built intentionally on the science of reading. 

I used to rail against scripted curriculum. I remember saying, “Why are they asking chefs to use Hamburger Helper.” When I taught reading intervention, I would do a phonics screener, a grammar screener (for verb tenses and language acquisition) and I would look at things like reading endurance and reading strategies. I still, to my core, believe that there is a craft to teaching that blends together the science with the art of teaching (built on contextual understanding). But I also see where precise, systematic approaches to phonics make a huge difference.  

“I wouldn’t change any of this,” I explain. “I think this approach to phonics and blending actually works. Students need precision here with instant feedback. A phonics-based project would backfire.” 

Sometimes students need repetition with tight feedback. This is true in learning phonics but also in something like linear equations, where students learn to identify equations by looking at graphs, solving algorithms, and setting up tables. A “linear equation project” doesn’t make sense. They simply need practice. 

Other times, the issue isn’t simply repetition and feedback. Instead, it’s about uninterrupted practice. If you teach PE, you might not need a project. Kids simply need to play the game. They need to lift in weight training and run in a fitness class. Similarly, they need to build reading endurance by simply reading for longer stretches of time.

So, if students are mastering a standard built on skill practice, precision, and systematic knowledge, PBL might not be the best instructional model. Instead, we can have students practice some of these skills in an authentic context while they do a PBL that centers more on conceptual knowledge. Here we can use PBL las a way to reinforce these skills while still teaching and practicing them in a more “traditional way.” 

 

Don’t Implement PBL When the Task Isn’t Authentically Complex

I’ve had times when I tried to force PBL into places where it simply didn’t belong. I remember trying to figure out if the Pythagorean Theorem could be a PBL unit. Short answer. It can’t. Or rather, it shouldn’t. But earlier on in my PBL journey, I attempted to turn certain standards into PBL units and wound up wasting time and frustrating my students. 

Not every learning experience needs to become a PBL unit. If the task lacks authentic complexity, PBL can actually make learning feel more artificial instead of more meaningful. 

A worksheet turned into a poster board presentation is still basically a worksheet. Just one that has some extra pizzaz. And, while I love pizzaz, that doesn’t translate to deeper knowledge. 

Students recognize these forced projects immediately. They know the difference between solving a real problem and completing a dressed-up activity pretending to be a project. Jennifer Gonzalez describes some of these projects as “Grecian Urns” where students do a craft related to a topic (in this case, Greece) but they don’t actually learn about Greek history in a deep way. 

At its best, Project-Based Learning involves sustained inquiry, decision-making, problem-solving, revision, and creativity. Students wrestle with ambiguity. They evaluate multiple possible solutions. They deal with constraints, trade-offs, and unexpected challenges. 

This is great if we are diving into deep mastery. However, some learning tasks are actually fairly straightforward. If there is a single right answer and no meaningful decisions to make, students may simply need to engage in direct practice, discussion, simulation, or a shorter performance task. 

I think this is where authenticity matters. Real projects emerge from real complexity. Designing a community garden involves trade-offs, research, collaboration, budgeting, and ecological thinking. We can tie it into the standards on volume and surface area as well as some of the previous mentioned two step equation standards. 

Creating a public awareness campaign requires audience analysis and intentional communication. It often asks students to take a deep dive into an issue with a sense of empathy. 

Those tasks naturally invite deeper learning because they mirror the complexity of the real world. But when the task itself is shallow, we end up with the types of “projects” that are basically just a hands-on extension of the learning. Students make a slideshow or a poster but they don’t think deeply about the content. 

Sometimes the best thing we can do is keep the lesson simple, focused, and honest about what students are actually learning.

 

A Better Lens: Matching the Method to the Purpose

After doing my first three PBL units as an eighth grade teacher, I noticed significant growth in my students. They understood social studies at a deeper level and they were more engaged in the content. I watched as they developed essential durable skills like collaboration and critical thinking. 

I became a PBL evangelist. But the danger in evangelists is that you focus on the “good news” of an idea or strategy and you forget that it doesn’t work all the time. I tried to transform my class into a full-blown PBL social studies class. I visited PBL schools and learned about the so-called gold standard way of doing project-based learning. 

But then I realized that sometimes forcing PBL into every situation actually backfires. Authentic learning doesn’t always require a massive project. Authenticity is simply whatever is real to the student. It’s about the connection between the task and the strategies that we use. 

Instead of asking, “When should I use PBL,” we might want to ask, “What does this learning require?”

Sometimes PBL is the perfect fit. Sometimes a short inquiry-based activity works better. Other times, we can run a simulation or a game and learn through that. Still other times, we just need skill practice, direct instruction, and immediate feedback. A worksheet isn’t “artificial” if you’re practicing a skill. A test doesn’t “lack authenticity.” A lecture isn’t inherently “disengaging.” 

True, students are more likely to remember those big epic projects rather than those repetitive lessons on phonics. But you know what else they remember? Phonics. Blending. And they apply those skills from a place of automaticity and apply those daily into authentic tasks. 

To be clear, I still believe in the power of PBL. However, I also believe in the power of explicit instruction and guided practice and peer discussions. All of these strategies are authentic if we use them in the right contexts. 

 

The Real Road is Depth

Ultimately, the goal of PBL is not to become a master at project-based learning. It’s about deeper learning. When students engage in authentic PBL, they learn the content at a deep level while also gaining the skills that they will need as they navigate an uncertain future. I describe this as the “depth advantage” that students will need in a world of AI.

Students gain this depth advantage through PBL. But they also gain this through structured practice and repetition. In other words, it’s not about the pedagogical models we use so much as they right fit between the model and the learning outcomes.