Applying the Project Approach in Early Childhood Education: Challenges, Flexibility, and Integration with Other Methods

The Project Approach—as outlined in Judy Harris Helm and Lilian Katz’s Young Investigators: The Project Approach in the Early Years—remains one of the most inspiring frameworks for engaging young children in authentic inquiry. At its best, project work positions children as co-researchers: they ask questions, plan investigations, interview experts, and present what they’ve learned. This is powerful because it connects learning to real life and develops transferable skills such as problem-solving, collaboration, and communication. Yet when schools move from theory to daily practice, tensions appear: curriculum pacing guides, mixed-age attention spans, documentation workload, and differing family expectations about what “real learning” should look like.

Written by Ms. Hai Nguyen - Head of School at HEI Schools Saigon Central, this article takes a friendly but critical look at those tensions, critiques the assumptions in Young Investigators, and argues for a flexible blend with Montessori, Reggio Emilia, and Finnish ECEC rather than a one-track method. The goal is pragmatic: help teachers implement project work that is joyful, rigorous, culturally responsive, and sustainable in real classrooms

The challenge of time and curriculum demands

Projects are open-ended by design; children’s questions and the investigation should drive the timetable. But many systems require teachers to demonstrate progress against mandated outcomes each week or term (literacy, numeracy, well-being). This creates a pacing dilemma: stretch a project long enough for deep inquiry, or “cover” the expected objectives and move on. The problem intensifies when assessment windows or inspection cycles loom. A practical response is to anchor every project phase to explicit outcomes (e.g., emergent writing during interview notes, data handling during simple surveys) and to plan micro-cycles—shorter, 5–7 day investigations nested within longer themes. Finland’s national core curriculum models this balance: it mandates goals while giving local programmes latitude to implement through play, themes, and projects an example of standards with flexibility rather than standards versus flexibility. For school leaders, aligning term plans to outcomes first, then “weaving in” project arcs, reduces friction and protects inquiry time.

Teacher preparation and professional skills

Young Investigators presume teachers can observe, document, scaffold, curate resources, liaise with families, and assess, often simultaneously. In reality, these are advanced skills that take coaching and practice. Without them, projects risk becoming “theme weeks” of crafts and posters rather than genuine investigations. Two anchors help: (1) revisiting child development theory to anticipate what types of inquiries are doable at different ages, and (2) building team routines for guided discovery (e.g., modeling how to ask testable questions, co-creating observation charts, scheduling expert calls). Classic theory reminds us that children construct knowledge through active manipulation (Piaget) and that adults can lift performance with calibrated scaffolds (Vygotsky’s ZPD).

This supports a practical cadence: I do → We do → You do across a project. Finnish research on early mathematics further shows that teachers need a holistic view (number, spatial, reasoning) to design tasks that stretch thinking without overwhelming. Professional learning that pairs theory refreshers with live co-planning pays off quickly in project quality.

Developmental differences among children

A single project group can include children who are ready to hypothesise and others who are still developing joint attention. Expecting uniform participation sets everyone up for frustration. A developmentally savvy approach tiers experiences: sensory-rich stations (pouring, sorting, building) for emerging learners; guided small-group investigations (measure, compare, draw conclusions) for those with longer attention; and open tasks (design interviews, make maps) for advanced learners. The teacher’s role is to scaffold across the ZPD subtly increasing complexity as children demonstrate readiness while maintaining a shared project identity through common provocations, vocabulary, and documentation boards. This is precisely where classic theory is practical: Piaget’s stages warn against over-abstract tasks too early, Vygotsky encourages just-right support, and contemporary work in ECEC mathematics offers concrete progressions that can be embedded inside projects (e.g., moving from subitising to comparing quantities during a market project). The takeaway: personalised entry points keep the project inclusive while preserving intellectual stretch.

Cultural expectations and parental perceptions

Project work often looks like “play”—children carrying clipboards, building models, or talking to visitors—so some families equate it with low academic rigor. This perception is especially common in contexts where early mastery of print, numbers, and worksheets is the cultural norm. Rather than debating, show the learning: weekly “learning stories,” short video snippets with teacher voice-over, or one-page project newsletters can make goals and gains visible (e.g., “We counted, compared, and recorded—early statistics!”). Research across Asia shows parental expectations shape programme choices and satisfaction; families are more supportive when they understand the why behind methods. In practice, schedule brief parent mini-sessions (“How projects grow literacy and maths”), and send home conversation starters to extend inquiry at home. Over time, clear documentation shifts the narrative from “just play” to “purposeful play that builds language, thinking, and character.”

A friendly critique of Young Investigators

Helm & Katz give terrific step-by-step guidance, but the book can imply that the Project Approach is sufficient as a core method across contexts and staff capacities. In many schools, two issues need stronger treatment. First, integration: projects flourish when they borrow from other traditions—Montessori materials for precise hand-brain work, Reggio-style documentation for making thinking visible, and Finnish ECEC’s emphasis on outdoor experiences and well-being. Second, feasibility: the book underplays how staffing patterns, teacher turnover, and documentation workload can constrain depth. A more candid implementation chapter would include sample timetables, checklists for resourcing, and examples of “plan B” when experts cancel or field trips fall through. None of this diminishes the book’s contribution; rather, it invites a version 4.0 mindset projects as a platform that interoperates with multiple approaches and with the realities of contemporary ECEC systems.

Evidence for hybrid approaches

When researchers compare outcomes, blended models often outperform purist implementations. A widely cited longitudinal study found that Montessori preschool—implemented with fidelity yet situated within broader school systems—elevated and equalized outcomes in academics and social skills, suggesting that structured, developmentally aligned methods can act as powerful scaffolds around open inquiry. Likewise, Finland’s national guidance explicitly supports thematic learning that merges play, projects, and structured experiences, proof that standards and inquiry can coexist in policy and practice. For teams adopting the Project Approach, this evidence argues for deliberate hybridity: use projects to anchor motivation and purpose; use explicit teaching to guarantee foundational literacies; and use daily play to widen participation and joy. The aim is coherence: multiple methods, one child-centred story.

Documentation and assessment without burnout

Documentation is the heartbeat of project work—but also the number one cause of teacher fatigue. Two shifts help. Shift 1: from “everything” to “evidence.” Decide what matters (e.g., vocabulary growth, reasoning, collaboration) and collect just enough to show progress: one annotated photo per child per week, one transcript snippet per small group, and a class graph or chart each fortnight. Shift 2: narrative assessment. Margaret Carr’s Learning Stories reframes assessment as short narratives that capture dispositions (curiosity, persistence) in real contexts. These stories double as family communication and make learning visible to children themselves. To scale, agree on simple templates, rotate documentation roles, and set 20-minute “documentation sprints” into the timetable. The result is meaningful evidence that teachers can maintain the term, rather than a scramble at the end.

A practical illustration: a “Flour Project”

Imagine a mixed-age class investigating “flour.” Children notice labels (wheat flour, rice flour), test textures with wet and dry hands, and invite a baker to visit. Early writers co-create shopping lists; emerging mathematicians sort packages by weight and count scoops; budding scientists compare absorption. Misconceptions surface (“Is all flour from cassava?”), prompting the teacher to curate authoritative sources and model how to evaluate claims. This vignette shows project strengths (motivation, authentic integration) and limits (misconceptions, uneven participation, time pressure). The fix isn’t abandoning projects; it’s tightening the weave: short daily mini-lessons for core literacy/numeracy, planned expert input, scheduled documentation sprints, and roles that let every child contribute (materials manager, recorder, photographer). Over two weeks, the class produces a child-made booklet of recipes, graphs of taste-test votes, and a wall display that traces questions to answers—clear evidence for families and inspectors alike that play and rigour can live together. (For policy alignment exemplars that permit such blends, see Finland’s ECEC core.)

Towards a flexible, child-centred pedagogy

Treat the Project Approach as the heart, not the whole body of the curriculum. Start with a yearly outcomes map, then identify 3–4 anchor projects that naturally integrate those outcomes. Around each project, schedule explicit mini-lessons (phonological awareness, handwriting, counting strategies), daily free play, and outdoor exploration. Use ZPD-aware grouping to include everyone, and plan family touchpoints that explain the “why” behind activities. Finally, build staff routines—weekly co-planning, shared documentation templates, resource banks—that make projects repeatable even when staffing changes. This is not dilution; it’s design for reality. Theory, research, and policy all support this pragmatic blend: constructivist learning with intentional scaffolding, inquiry with standards, and play with evidence of progress.

Conclusion

The Project Approach endures because it honours children’s agency and connects learning to life. But implementation succeeds when we’re honest about constraints and intentional about solutions: map outcomes first, design hybrid pedagogy, scaffold across developmental differences, and document evidence rather than everything. Young Investigators remains foundational; our friendly critique simply urges a next step—projects that interoperate with Montessori precision, Reggio visibility, and Finnish policy coherence. The research base is clear: well-designed blends can elevate and equalize outcomes while keeping joy at the centre. When schools adopt this flexible stance, projects stop being a special event and become a dependable, sustainable way of learning one that families understand, teachers can maintain, and children remember.

References

Helm, J. H., & Katz, L. G. Young Investigators: The Project Approach in the Early Years. Teachers College Press.
Lillard, A. S., Heise, M. J., Richey, E. M., Tong, X., Hart, A., & Bray, P. (2017). Montessori preschool elevates and equalizes child outcomes. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1783.
Finnish National Agency for Education. National Core Curriculum for Early Childhood Education and Care. (English ed.). Opetushallitus
Piaget, J. (1964). Cognitive development in children: Development and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2(3), 176–186. Wiley Online Library
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. (Cole et al., Eds.). FAU Home
Carr, M. (2001). Assessment in Early Childhood Settings: Learning Stories. SAGE. PagePlace+1
Parviainen, P. (2019). The development of early mathematical skills: A holistic model. Journal of Early Childhood Education Research, 8(1), 162–191. Journal.fi +1
(Context on parental expectations in Asia) Tang, D. et al. (2022). Parents’ perceptions of ECCE programmes in Malaysia. Frontiers in Psychology.