We often assume that improving the quality of student work means slowing down and spending more time on a single project. But sometimes the opposite is true. Creating more can actually help students create better. In my latest article and podcast episode, I explore how we can harness the power of quantity within longer project-based learning units.

Listen to the Podcast

If you enjoy this blog but you’d like to listen to it on the go, just click on the audio below or subscribe via iTunes/Apple Podcasts (ideal for iOS users) or Spotify.

 

Why Longer Projects Aren’t Enough

I recently did a project-based learning training at a university that brought together industry partners, CTE teachers, and college professors. At one point, I had a candid conversation with a university dean and an industry partner who specialized in industrial design.

“Would you say that the workforce is pretty project-based?” I asked.

She nodded. “Yes and no. Let’s start with one really important distiction. School is there to teach content. You have course goals to move through. We have a profit motive. Those are different.”

“Makes sense,” I respond.

“And also there’s a slight difference in the balance of product to process. We try to emphasize process as being as important as the end result but ultimately the end result is how we make money. Profits, right?”

I nod.

“Okay but then there’s another layer. Project-based learning is, from what I’ve gathered, learning content through the project. We definitely learn key skills and ideas through doing projects. However, our employees are more likely to have mastered those basic initial skills aead. They have like a speed or something.”

“Like fluency?” I ask.

She nods.

The dean says, “We had a really hard conversation about that fluency piece a few years back. We were fully project-based, which is good. We did massive projects. But then our industry partners said a few things from an audit. First, our students work too slowly. They weren’t as good at rapid prototyping as you would think. Second, their groups work in isolation. There’s not that cross-group pollination. Finally, they aren’t necessarily working in projects the way the industry does. They aren’t working on part of a project, waiting awhile while they tackle other projects, then coming back to that project. So we realized that we actually need to have students do more prototyping and do shorter projects, too. We need to increase their creative output.”

It has me thinking about the way we do creative work in subjects that skew heavily project-based. My first thought is that we need to be incorporating short sprints and mini-projects alongside our longer PBL units. Here’s a quick comparison of each model:

	Sprints	Mini-Projects	Project-Based Learning
Description	Sprints are shorter opportunities for creative work that often focus on one key area of the creative process (brainstorming, problem-solving, rapid prototyping)	Mini-projects are shorter projects that still encompass most of the elements of PBL. They typically last around a week and give students a flavor of project-based learning.	Project-based learning is a pedagogical framework where students learn the content through an authentic project.
Timeframe	45-90 minutes	3-5 days	3-9 weeks
Examples	Divergent Thinking Challenge, Wonder Day Project, STEM Challenge	Independent Science Experiment, Tiny House Project, Curiositycast Project, Invent a sport	History Documentary Project, Service Learning Project, Entrepreneur Design Thinking Project, Genius Hour Project
Standards	Introducing concept standards, quick practice of single skill-based standards, quick practice of methods standards	Deeper dive into concept standards, practicing multiple skill-based standards together, practicing method standards grouped together	A deep dive into concept standards (learning a concept in-depth) while integrating multiple skill-based standards and using method standards for an extended time
When to Implement This Approach	Introducing a unit, a closing activity for a unit, breaking the monotony of a longer project, using it on a “lame duck” day	Shorter unit plans with a narrower focus, final week or first week of a quarter	Longer unit plans with multiple concept or methods standards that are related to each other, a clear connection between the content and an authentic context
Models to Consider	Rapid prototyping, STEM challenges, design sprints, inquiry-based model*, game-based / simulation-based model	Scientific method, engineering method, design thinking (abbreviated), inquiry-based model*, problem-based model*	Engineering model, design thinking model, inquiry-based model, service learning model
Audience	Private or within the school	Private, within the school, or public / authentic audience	Requires an authentic audience with a strong emphasis on empathy
Strengths	This approach works quickly and can be adapted into more traditional lesson pedagogical frameworks. You can focus on a narrower part of the creative process (research, prototyping, problem-solving, etc.). This approach often incorporates necessary movement and hands-on learning. The faster pace of a sprint can help students avoid stagnation and risk-aversion. It tends to be low-risk with more permission to “fail forward.”	This approach encompasses many of the elements of PBL while sticking with a tighter schedule. Students experience less project fatigue while they move through each phase of the mini-project but there’s still a depth involved and an opportunity for an authentic audience / context. Students learn the building blocks of basic project management as they develop collaboration skills.	This approach encourages students to make connections between the subject matter and a real-world context. The longer project encourages a fully developed creative process with ample time for each phase. The emphasis on an authentic audience allows for deeper empathy to develop. Students learn the content through the project in a way that allows the learning to stick.
Challenges	It lacks an authentic context. The lack of revision time can lead to sprints that lack the depth needed in creative work. If there’s no reflection, it can come across as a fun activity and little more.	Mini-projects can feel rushed and students who fall behind during one phase might end up giving up too easily. The lack of longer revision time means certain students might focus on the finished product and rush through the creative process without engaging in longer, more open-ended creative thinking.	An authentic project-based learning unit takes weeks to complete. This is a challenge with crowded curriculum maps or in situations where there is a greater need for repetition and recall as they develop practical skills. If alignment isn’t solid and assessment isn’t well-embedded students can fail to reflect on their learning and improve in their metacognition.

But we can also leverage the power of quantity to improve the quality of PBL units themselves.

 

Quantity Improves Quality

Researchers have repeatedly demonstrated how quantity can improve creative quality. In one study, Paul Paulus and his colleagues gave participants different instructions for a brainstorming task. Some were told to focus on quality. Others were told to focus on both quality and quantity. Another group was simply told to generate as many ideas as possible. Surprisingly, the quantity group generated not only more ideas but also better ideas than any of the other groups. In other words, asking people to concentrate on quality did not produce the highest number of high-quality ideas. Asking them to ignore quality altogether and simply “create more” had the greatest effect on quality. 

This pattern shows up in other brainstorming research as well. In a study of 69 groups, Alfredo Muñoz Adánez found a very strong relationship between the number of ideas a group produced and the number of ideas that judges considered both original and useful. This does not mean that every additional idea becomes progressively better. Instead, producing more ideas creates more chances for a genuinely strong idea to emerge.  

We see something similar when people move from brainstorming into actual prototyping. In one study, Stanford researchers Steven Dow and his colleagues asked novice designers to create advertisements. Some designers created one prototype, received feedback, revised it, and then repeated the process. Others created multiple prototypes at the same time before receiving feedback. The designers who created multiple versions produced final designs that performed better according to both expert ratings and actual click-through data. Their ideas were also more diverse. By making several versions instead of becoming attached to the first one, they had more possibilities to compare, combine, abandon, and improve. It became malleable.

There is an important caveat here. Quantity does not magically transform mediocre work into great work. Some research has found diminishing returns as people continue generating ideas, and researchers have cautioned against treating the sheer number of ideas as a substitute for quality. 

The point is subtler. As humans, we are remarkably bad at predicting which idea will become brilliant. We suck at figuring out which work of art will be a masterpiece. We don’t know which experiment or prototype will be groundbreaking. So, instead of trying to make every first attempt brilliant, we increase our odds by creating more possibilities. We sketch five versions. We write ten openings. We build three prototypes. We take fifty photographs. Then we compare, combine, revise, and select.  

As we think about routine creativity, one of the core ideas here is that a routine simply requires us to do more creative work. And as this happens it will improve who your students are as creative thinkers while also improving their creative output.

It’s important to recognize here that we need longer forms of creativity. We want students to work methodically through the revision process as they develop a single piece over time. That’s actually part of how they develop their craft and begin to find their voice. We also want students to engage in project-based learning, where they wrestle with complex problems and ultimately create something they share with an authentic audience. But even within these longer creative projects, we can embrace the idea that quantity can lead to quality. In fact, some of the best opportunities for generating more ideas, drafts, and prototypes can happen right inside the PBL process.

Integrating Increased Quantity into a PBL Unit

Let’s consider the different phases of PBL in a PBL by Design framework (overlapping PBL with design thinking)

To do this, we want to think about this idea of “more” within PBL:

Gather more:  We want to see students research, collect, observe, and question more.

Generate more: We want to see students brainstorm, sketch, draft, and imagine more during a PBL unit.

Make more: We want to see students create more prototypes, conduct short experiments, and create multiple versions.

Assess More: Reflection should be a constant embedded part of the process, so they share, compare, get feedback, revise, and discard more.

So, let’s dive right in!

Look, Listen, and Learn

This is the starting place of PBL, where students gain awareness of the project itself (a blueprint). It’s also where you prime them for the learning and activate their prior knowledge. It’s where you help them define the initial problem.

Students begin by observing, noticing, and gathering information about the context. They might study users, listen to stories, analyze data, or look closely at the conditions surrounding the challenge. This is also where you might let them tap into their prior knowledge by getting out “as much as possible that you know about this subject” in the form of a list or a concept map.

This phase is also about widening the lens before students narrow their focus. Instead of rushing toward a solution, they spend time trying to understand the problem from multiple angles. They gather more information, encounter different perspectives, and begin identifying what they still need to know. In this sense, the “more” in the L phase is about helping students look more carefully, listen more intentionally, and learn enough to make better decisions later in the project.

Ask Tons of Questions

There’s a reason AJ Juliani and I labeled this as “tons of questions.” We want to see students asking more. In this phase, we want students to generate as many questions as possible. Here, you don’t narrow down the questions (that will come next). Some questions are content questions. Others are procedural questions along the lines of “what can we make.” They can sort them later.

We also don’t focus on the quality of questions. This isn’t the time to judge whether a question is “thin or thick.” This sounds odd but when we say “we want good questions,” we end up with worse questions because students self-censor. They end up asking, “Is my question good enough?” instead of simply asking more questions.

Asking tons of questions activates their curiosity but it also teaches students intellectual humility. It helps them realize just how much they don’t know. This process of asking more can actual spark divergent thinking and get them out of an initial tunnel vision they might be experiencing. Students often have this fixed vision of what a project should look like when it’s done and this gets them past that initial idea so they can be more open to something new.

Understand the Process or Problem

This is the research phase. In this moment, we often have students take the quantity of questions and begin to evaluate the quality. We might use the Question Formation Technique (QFT) or we might have students evaluate each question based on the criteria (Is it specific? On topic? Fact-based? Using critical thinking?)

But as they move through this research phase, we can focus on quantity again. True, we might want to do a few close readings of specific articles. However, this is also a chance for students to broaden their knowledge while narrowing in on the key elements that will emerge in the project. Students can look across multiple sources rather than relying on a single article or website. They can practice lateral reading by opening new tabs, checking who is behind a source, comparing claims, and looking for confirmation or contradiction elsewhere.

The goal is not simply to collect more information. It is to build a fuller picture of the problem by seeing where sources agree, where they differ, and where important gaps still remain. They might need to slow down through part of this process and engage in prompt engineering with the FACTS Cycle:

But again, there is a quantity piece that will help them develop the knowledge they need as they navigate ideas int he next phase.

This broader approach should also include multiple kinds of research. Students might conduct interviews, analyze data sets, make observations, study maps, conduct surveys, or examine how the problem plays out in different contexts. In some projects, they might test a small idea or gather evidence through a short experiment.

The more varied the research methods, the more angles students have for understanding the problem. Quantity here is not about piling up sources for the sake of it. It is about creating enough evidence and perspective that students can begin to see patterns, challenge assumptions, and make stronger decisions about where to go next.

Navigate Ideas

Here’s where the brainstorming data becomes important. We want students to generate a higher number of ideas and to not get caught up in the “best ideas.” Just like we did with Ask Tons of Questions and Understand the Process or Problem, this brainstorm phase should have an initial idea phase and followed by an analyzing and planning piece afterward.

But we can also generate more ideas by having students brainstorm alone at first and then in groups. Consider this brainstorming process that I have used with students for two decades.

Note that the quantity element helps push divergent thinking.

Quantity expands the adjacent possible. Idea #27 exists partly because you generated ideas #1–26. Each creation changes what you can imagine next. You think of one thing and that makes you try another, then another, and still another as these sort of options that expand outward in a web. 

Create a Prototype

This is where students take an idea and turn it into something tangible. The prototype might be a sketch, model, draft, storyboard, mock-up, simulation, or rough version of a product. And the product could be an event or a service. The goal is not to make it polished. Instead, it’s to make the thinking visible so students can test an idea and figure out what works best.

This is also a place where quantity can improve quality. Instead of creating one prototype and becoming attached to it, students can create several quick versions. They might test different designs or solutions before deciding what to develop further. More prototypes create more opportunities for feedback and revision before students invest heavily in a final product.

It took me a long time to incorporate this element into a PBL unit. I felt like students had planned their prototype before this and now they should be locked in on creating their product that they would then revise. But taking 1-2 days to do rapid prototyping sprints here can yield better prototypes further down and actually save time.

Highlight and Fix

Here’s the last stop before you launch your work to the world. In this revision phase, students pause to evaluate what is working and what needs to change. But quantity can make a huge difference here. Instead of waiting for one large critique at the end (with a massive rubric), we can use shorter, more frequent moments of assessment throughout the project. Students can quickly identify strengths, spot problems, gather feedback, and make small adjustments while the work is still developing.

We can also embed short self- and peer-assessment routines across the entire project.

Students might use a quick checklist, compare their work to criteria, give one piece of warm and cool feedback, or answer a short reflection prompt. These moments do not need to take long. When they happen regularly, students get more chances to notice patterns, make corrections, and improve the quality of the final work.

In the end, routine creativity isn’t about short, daily doses of creativity versus long-term projects. Instead, it’s about developing better creative thinking during both short and long-term assignments.