Higher Education (2006) 51: 287–314 Ó Springer 2006

DOI 10.1007/s10734-004-6386-5

Project-based learning in post-secondary education – theory,

practice and rubber sling shots

LAURA HELLE 1; 2;
, PÄIVI TYNJÄLÄ1 & ERKKI OLKINUORA2

1
Institute for Educational Research, University of Jyväskylä Finland; 2Department of
Education, University of Turku, 20014 Turun Yliopisto, Finland
(*author for correspondence, e-mail: lhelle@utu.fi)

Abstract. The purpose of the study was to explore what project-based learning is,
what are the pedagogical or psychological motives supporting it, how it has been
implemented and what impact it has had on learning in post-secondary education.
The study is based on a qualitative review of published articles. The work revealed
that the majority of articles on project-based learning are course descriptions
focusing on the implementation of individual courses, whereas serious research on
the topic is virtually non-existent. In addition, the term project-based learning sub-
sumes different activities with varying purposes. Therefore, practitioners and cur-
riculum developers are encouraged to reflect upon the purpose and possibilities of
project-based learning along with students and to set realistic, clear goals. Practi-
tioners and researchers are urged to document courses even more carefully. Several
issues for further research are identified.

Keywords: higher education, impact, implementation, project-based learning, project

method, project studies, review.

Introduction

Tides of progressive approaches seem to sweep through the educational

field every 40 years or so, indicating that we could be experiencing such
a peak right now. This in turn, should be followed by an array of sling
shots from the conventionalists, the disillusioned and the sceptics (For a
sceptic note, see Colliver 2000). But if these are merely trends, why is it
that progressive approaches such as the project method generate con-
siderable amounts of enthusiasm in innovative teachers and students
alike? Why is it that ‘‘in searching for organizing principles of instruc-
tion and curriculum that attend to critical relations between motivation
and thinking, researchers have recurringly turned to the idea of pro-
jects’’ as Blumenfeld et al. (1991) have put it?
The purpose of this study is to explore the following questions: (1)
What exactly is project-based learning? (2) What are the pedagogical or
288 LAURA HELLE, PÄIVI TYNJÄLÄ AND ERKKI OLKINUORA

psychological motives supporting it? (3) How has it been implemented

in post-secondary education? (4) Is there any evidence in terms of its
impact on learning? We approach these questions mainly from the point
of view of cognitive psychology and socio-constructivism which, rather
surprisingly, seem to be neglected in discussions concerning project
pedagogy. The findings of the study are based on a qualitative review of
the literature.
This article consists of two parts: in part one we attempt to define
project-based learning, and to distinguish the most prominent peda-
gogical or psychological rationales for practising this type of pedagogy,
while part two consists of a systematic review of empirical studies on
project-based learning in post-secondary education.

Part I: Project-based learning: definition and rationale

Defining project-based learning

First we attempt to answer the question: What exactly is project-based

learning? Adderley et al. (1975, p. 1) provided the following definition
for the project method, which after a quarter of a century is still a good
definition:
(1) [projects] involve the solution of a problem; often, though not
necessarily, set by the student himself [or herself];
(2) they involve initiative by the student or group of students, and
necessitate a variety of educational activities;
(3) they commonly result in an end product (e.g., thesis, report, de-
sign plans, computer programme and model);
(4) work often goes on for a considerable length of time;
(5) teaching staff are involved in an advisory, rather than
authoritarian, role at any or all of the stages – initiation, conduct
and conclusion.
Aspects (1) and (3) can be considered the crucial aspects of project-
based learning. According to Blumenfeld et al. (1991), the essence of
project-based learning is that a question or problem serves to organise
and drive activities; and these activities culminate in a final product that
addresses the driving question (Blumenfeld et al. 1991).
Although these principles characterise student projects in general,
project-based learning in practice can assume a variety of forms
depending upon the pedagogical, political or ethical reasons for its
 PROJECT-BASED LEARNING IN POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION 289

adoption. Morgan (1983), for example, described three general models

of project work for educational purposes
(1) Project exercise: The aim of this type of project is that students
should apply knowledge and techniques already acquired to an
academic issue in a subject area already familiar to them. This
represents the most traditional kind of project-based learning.
(Authors’ note: the idea of applying knowledge is still prevalent as
a central feature of project work in course descriptions of project-
based courses in post-secondary education).
(2) Project component: In this type of project work, the aims are
broader and the scope is larger; the project is more interdisci-
plinary in nature and often related to ‘‘real world’’ issues; the
objectives include developing problem-solving abilities and a
capacity for independent work. Often, traditionally taught courses
are studied in parallel with the project course.
(3) Project orientation: This term denotes the entire curriculum
philosophy of a programme of study; the projects that students
complete form the entire basis of their university education,
while instructional teaching is provided only to supplement the
requirements of the project topics. The subject material studied
is determined by the demands of the project topics, which is in
sharp contrast to model 1. (Authors’ note: In the most extreme
case, such as in the Social Sciences Basic study programme at
Roskilde University, it is the students who decide on project
topics, which is in line with the original philosophy of the
university to educate ‘‘critical technocrats’’ see Voetmann
Christiansen 1999.)
Project exercises are typically a part of teacher-centred project peda-
gogy. The project exercise is the ‘‘capstone’’ event designed to integrate
the subject material learnt during a specific course. On the other hand,
project components and project orientation tend to leave more scope for
student centeredness. However, project components and project orien-
tation can also be work-based, which serves to introduce an extra ele-
ment into the control in the learning process. Ideally, this results in a
three-way partnership between the client, the student and the teacher
(see, e.g., Guile and Griffiths 2001).
What are the motives for project-based learning? It seems that
four rough categories of motives for project-based learning can be
identified (cf. Heitman 1996): professional motives (related to practice
orientation and work-based learning), democratic or humanitarian
290 LAURA HELLE, PÄIVI TYNJÄLÄ AND ERKKI OLKINUORA

motives (eminent in service learning and in international projects

incorporating humanistic studies), the motive to foster critical
thinking (related to science orientation) and pedagogic motives (to
foster understanding of subject matter). Due to the proliferation of
motives, different interest groups have propagated project-based
methods in the course of time (for a historical account, see Kliebard
1987). At the moment practice-oriented professional motives seem to
dominate the political scene (Foster and Stevenson 1998; Mäkinen
et al. 1999), which is at least partly due to new professional
requirements and industry increasingly insisting on expanded pro-
fessional skills and the right attitude, whereas educational psycholo-
gists mainly seem to be interested in the fostering of subject matter
understanding and inquiry skills. In section ‘‘Features of project-
based learning relevant to cognitive psychology’’, we attempt to
explicate the motives relevant to pedagogy, cognitive psychology or to
motivation supporting project-based learning.

Features of project-based learning relevant to cognitive psychology

The most distinctive feature of project-based learning is problem

orientation, that is, the idea that a problem or question serves to
drive learning activities. This was according to Dewey (1933) at the
core of ‘‘scientific’’ or ‘‘reflective’’ thinking, which in his view, should
have constituted the goal of education. According to Dewey,
adopting this goal would serve at least two functions: solve the
problem of ever increasing subject matter abundance (in 1933!) and
retain the ardent curiosity of childhood (cf. Boud and Feletti 1999;
Brew and Boud 1995).
From a modern cognitive point of view, Dewey was trying to ad-
vance students’ metacognitive ability, which has been shown to be an
important predictor of inductive problem-solving by novices in the con-
text of well defined problems (Veenman et al. 2004), a topic of great
interest to the pioneers of problem-solving research such as the Gestalt
theorists and Newell and Simon. The obvious limitation of these studies
is that the solving of problems faced by professionals are ill defined and
require considerable amounts of domain specific knowledge. For this
reason research has shifted in the direction of research on expertise.
From this perspective, problem orientation permits the acquisition of a
collection of prior examples that can be used for subsequent problem
solving on the basis of similarity or pattern recognition relevant to the
 PROJECT-BASED LEARNING IN POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION 291

development of expertise. According to Schmidt et al. (1990), preceding

cases and ‘‘scripts’’ (i.e., mental models of typical cases) are what expert
medical doctors usually activate in the process of problem-solving,
whereas biomedical information is typically activated only when the
problem in question is atypical and impossible to solve by the
hypothesized quicker route. Formation of these ‘‘scripts’’ requires re-
peated knowledge application in the context of practical experience
(Boshuizen et al. 1995). Thus, getting students to solve real life prob-
lems during their studies, and to reflect in action and on action (Schön
1983), presumably promotes the important process of knowledge
restructuring for the development of expertise. Problem orientations
may also serve as a starting point for the adoption of an attitude or
‘‘lifestyle’’ that Bereiter and Scardamalia (1993) call progressive prob-
lem-solving. By this term, Bereiter and Scardamalia refer to the process
through which experts continuously rethink and redefine their tasks at
new and more complex levels and go beyond their previous under-
standing. In progressive problem solving, solving problems does not
lead to routine strategies or problem reduction but, instead, to
addressing new problems at more complex levels and to surpassing
oneself. If problem solving is so essential to the development of expertise
it should be ideal to form a problem-solving continuum from the outset
of (post-secondary) education instead of exposing people to complex ill-
defined problems, which are typical of ‘‘real life’’, only during their
working career. Weaver (1999) seems to be referring to this idea in
stating: ‘‘thinking like an architect’ can only be learnt through experi-
ence; that is learning to solve problems through the experience of
solving problems’’.
The second feature, constructing a concrete artefact, distinguishes
project-based learning from problem-based learning. In project-based
learning the process of constructing a concrete artefact (draft of a
design or an end product) forces the student or student team to think
through the steps of the construction process, and in some cases to
execute them in an orderly fashion just like a construction team. The
advantage over traditional studying is that gaps in knowledge cannot
be easily overlooked or overcome by rote learning. This is not to
deny that learners need to be supported to appropriate, for example,
new concepts and relations to their formal programmes of study. As
a matter of fact, the concrete artefact can serve as a boundary object
(see Star 1989 or Boland and Tenkasi 1995) facilitating continuous
task-oriented interaction among students and teachers or among
peers. Tutorial feedback may be given either through a formal mid-
292 LAURA HELLE, PÄIVI TYNJÄLÄ AND ERKKI OLKINUORA

course assessment or in the form of more informal continuous

tutorial discussions between the teacher and the project group (see
Tynjälä and Tourunen 2002). Thus, the process of learning while
preparing the product is emphasised (Askeland 1999; Borgnakke
1999; Thatcher and Compeau 1999). This should serve to prevent the
formation of misconceptions (cf. Blumenfeld 1991). In addition, if the
project is well thought out, important new concepts have to be fig-
ured out and used in order to solve the ‘‘construction assignment’’
instead of being learnt by rote.
The concept of project-based learning has a certain similarity with
the notion of knowledge building launched by Bereiter and Scardamalia
(1993, 1996). These authors define ‘‘learning’’ as an activity that is di-
rected to improve mental structures, whereas ‘‘knowledge building’’ is
directed at improving knowledge objects such as explanations and
models. Learning is assumed to take place through the use of mental
tools such as concepts and theories, while the students’ attention is not
directed to the improvement of mental structures per se but to the
productive activity of making meaning. Similarly, project-based learn-
ing can be described as involving both vertical learning (i.e., cumulation
of subject matter knowledge) and horizontal learning (i.e., generic skills
such as project management). Whether it is vertical or horizontal
learning, that occurs, depends in our view on what kind of learning is
focused upon and supported. In a similar vein, the quality of learning is
determined by the extent that the student is able to draw upon systems
knowledge (i.e., declarative knowledge), not just procedural knowledge
(cf. Barron et al. 1998; Gott and Lesgold 2000).
The third feature of student projects is learner control of the learning
process, which leaves scope for decisions regarding the pacing,
sequencing and actual content of learning (cf. Duffy and Cunningham
1996). Voetmann Christiansen (1999) refers to ‘‘participant directness’’,
whereas Morgan (1983) speaks of ‘‘student-centred control’’. Further-
more, learner control gives the students the opportunity to utilise their
prior knowledge and experience. An old maxim of cognitive psychology
is that the activation of relevant prior knowledge before the processing of
new information is critical to learning and subsequent retrieval (e.g.,
Ausubel 1968). We suggest that the strength of project-based
approaches (and other similar pedagogics such as problem-based
learning) lies in that they afford students the possibility and the motive
to work their way to the solution in their own idiosyncratic way (in terms
of content, sequence and pacing). This serves not only to activate, apply
and acquire concepts and facts in a personally meaningful way but also
 PROJECT-BASED LEARNING IN POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION 293

helps to register experiential information, which may be of use in sub-

sequent problem-solving situations. The transmission model of learning,
in contrast, may lead to a false sense of security on the part of the
students and a concentration of cognitive efforts upon memorisation
without the activation of prior information relevant to the learner nor the
necessary elaboration of new information.
Forth, the contextualisation of learning is evident in student projects.
The value of authentic or simulated learning contexts has been argued
for both cognitive reasons and by the situated learning camp. Cogni-
tivists explain that the reason why the learning environment and the
environment where the retrieval of the information is supposed to take
place should be similar, is that we inadvertently (or implicitly) code
aspects of our learning environment, while explicitly coding subject
matter; this is presumably why aspects of the environment serve as cues
facilitating retrieval; it has been shown that if we learn something
underwater, for instance, we remember it better underwater than on the
beach (Godden and Baddeley 1975). However, as argued by Norman
and Schmidt (2000), this is probably a minor aspect of problem-based
learning environments, since there is no way of telling what cues a
person will happen to code. Situationalists, in turn, define learning itself
in a different way: learning is not seen only as acquisition of knowledge
but rather as becoming able to participate in a community of practice
(Lave and Wenger 1991; Wenger 1998). If learning is conceptualised in
this way, work-based projects can be considered learning environments
in which students can at least ideally participate in authentic practices
and practice skills needed in real life projects. The role of a teacher as an
expert practitioner, a model and a coach, is considered essential in this
model. However, as Barab et al. (2000b) pointed out, authenticity,
which ‘‘can be said to be the mantra of current constructivist and sit-
uativity learning theorists’’, is most often poorly defined and definitely
lacks a solid base of empirical research.
The fifth characteristic of the project method is its potential for using
and creating multiple forms of representation. In modern working life
most tasks require the combined use of (interdisciplinary) knowledge in
different forms (e.g., abstract, concrete, pictorial, verbal, as formulae
etc). Several studies show that it is difficult to ‘‘build bridges’’ or connect
different forms of representation (see, e.g., van Someren et al. 1998).
One reason for this could be that students lack important meta-
knowledge on the customary forms of representation, such as what an
essay is, and how it is used to represent disciplinary thinking (cf. Stefani
and Nicol 1997). On the other hand, this could stem from students’
294 LAURA HELLE, PÄIVI TYNJÄLÄ AND ERKKI OLKINUORA

poorly integrated or otherwise inadequate mental models related to the

subject at hand. The results of Boshuizen and Wiel (1998) suggest that
cases can serve to link different forms of representation. The strength of
the project method could lie in the fact that it enables not only the
integration of knowledge from different disciplines but also theory and
practice. In the process of project work, students can see and feel the
reality to which difficult concepts and interactions are related: we sug-
gest that this – if properly implemented – might serve to ease conceptual
change and to build mental models enriched with experiential (i.e.,
autobiographic) knowledge.
Finally, in project-based learning, there are several features that
may advance the adoption of favourable motivational orientations
(e.g., task orientation and deep study orientation) by the students.
The projects that are chosen or designed are relevant, but complex
enough in order to induce students to generate questions of their
own. As students define problems and generate questions they may
develop a sense of ownership of the learning process. This is in sharp
contrast with ‘‘the definition of chalk and talk pedagogy’’: educa-
tion ¼ the answer to questions no one ever asked. Furthermore,
fostering the experience of agency, belonging and competence – the
prerequisites of intrinsic motivation according to Ryan and Deci
(2000) – is at the core of project-based pedagogics. In fact, the results
of Helle et al. (submitted) suggested that a work-based project
learning environment had a positive effect on the study motivation of
computer science students, and that the effect was most salient
among students initially low in self-regulation.

Delineation of relationships to other pedagogical approaches

What is the relationship between project-based learning and other

pedagogical conceptualisations such as problem-based learning, expe-
riential learning, experimental learning, work-based learning and service
learning? We start by examining the relationship between project-based
learning and problem-based learning (incidentally both abbreviated
‘‘pbl’’).
In problem-based learning, according to Norman and Schmidt
(1992), a collection of carefully constructed problems is presented to
small groups of students. The problem usually consists of a description
of a set of observable phenomena or events that need explanation in
terms of underlying processes and mechanisms. What is essential is that
 PROJECT-BASED LEARNING IN POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION 295

students’ prior knowledge of the problem is insufficient for them to

properly understand the phenomena in question. The students then
decide upon learning goals, after which they study the problems on their
own. They may also attempt to solve the problem, but this is not a goal
in itself. For a description of the stages of problem-based learning (see
Boud and Feletti 1999).
Consequently, if the two key features of project-based learning are:
(1) the presence of a problem or a question, which serves to drive
activities that result in a series of artefacts or products which (2)
culminate in a final product which addresses the driving question
(Blumenfeld et al. 1991), it is obvious that problem-based learning
does not necessarily ‘‘culminate in an end-product’’. In other words,
the starting point in both approaches is a problem but in problem-
based learning, students’ activity is directed to ‘‘studying’’, whereas in
project-based learning, students’ activity is directed to constructing
the product.
Interestingly, experiential learning as learning from experience
bears a resemblance to the original model of project-based learning
dating back more than a hundred years. According to the legendary
pioneer of project-based learning, William Heard Kilpatrick (1921),
central to the original method was wholehearted experience; ‘‘any
instance of purposeful activity where the dominating purpose, as an
inner urge: (1) fixes the aim of action; (2) guides its processes; (3)
furnishes its drive, its inner motivation’’. He distinguished four types
of projects. The first type represented those experiences in which the
dominating purpose was to do, to make, or to effect: to embody an
idea in ‘‘material’’ form. Writing letters and composing symphonies
were activities that represented projects of type 1. The second type
involved purposeful enjoyment or appropriation of an experience, for
instance, a boy enjoying a piece of music or fireworks. In the third
type of project the dominating purpose was to solve a problem. The
fourth type, the learning project, included experiences in which the
purpose was to acquire some item or degree of knowledge or skill.
What is lacking in Kilpatrick’s definition with respect to more recent
conceptualisations of experiential learning is conscious reflection and
action (see, e.g., Dewey 1933; Kolb 1984; Tourunen 1992). It is evi-
dent that ‘‘projects’’ of type 2 are no longer considered suitable for
project-based learning, since they are passive experiences, which do
not require conscious reflection and action. Interestingly, the elements
of projects 1 and 3 are subsumed under Blumenfeld’s definition of
project-based learning.
296 LAURA HELLE, PÄIVI TYNJÄLÄ AND ERKKI OLKINUORA

While problem-based learning and experiential learning can be

considered relatively abstract conceptualisations of learning, the no-
tions of work-based and service learning are much more concrete.
Work-based learning is defined as consisting of ‘‘university
programmes that bring together universities and work organisations
to create new learning opportunities in workplaces’’ (Boud et al.
2001, p. 4). Thus, the only condition of work-based learning is that
learning is linked to work practice. Consequently, the categories of
project-based learning and work-based learning overlap provided that
learning takes place in the form of project studies, which are closely
linked to the work role. Service learning, on the other hand, uses
community service to promote student learning and development
(Gray et al. 1999). In practice, service learning takes on many forms.
For example, in one case, management students spent approximately
15 h outside class preparing and delivering economics classes in local
schools. In another case, students in an information systems class
applied their skills within a service context (Tucker et al. 1998).
Sometimes service learning involves carrying out a project. An
example of a service learning project is a first(!) year building project
described by Newman (1980), which consisted of a group of archi-
tectural students designing a building, and then building it, which
resulted in 40–60% savings for the client who provided nothing ex-
cept the materials.
Collaborative learning or cooperative learning are also concepts
often mentioned in connection with student projects. The distinction
between these two terms is often defined on the basis of the extent of
shared activity: characteristic of cooperation is the effective division
of labour, while collaboration requires participants to solve a prob-
lem or perform a task together (Teasley and Roschelle 1993, see also
Littleton and Häkkinen 1999). Project work is usually divided among
participants but, at the same time, the aim is to construct a shared
outcome. Thus, project-based learning involves both cooperative and
collaborative elements. Furthermore, a project task is usually planned
so that it could not be performed without the common efforts of the
participants.
The theoretical basis of collaborative learning can be traced back
to two main sources: the Neo-Piagetian research tradition on the one
hand and the Vygotskyan view of learning as a basically social
activity on the other hand (see e.g., Rogoff 1999; Tudge and Rogoff
1989). Piaget’s (1963) idea of cognitive conflict or Neo-Piagetians’
concept of socio-cognitive conflict (Doise and Mugny 1984) refer to
 PROJECT-BASED LEARNING IN POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION 297

the mechanism through which an individual realises that her thoughts

or ideas are inconsistent with other people’s views or new informa-
tion. This internal conflict leads the individual to reflect on her
thinking and may serve to initiate conceptual change. The
Vygotskyan argument for collaborative learning is based on Vygot-
sky’s (1978) view of the social nature of learning. According to Vy-
gotsky, learning takes place primarily on the social,
interpsychological plane, and only secondarily on the
intrapsychological plane when a learner internalises what has first
been experienced in social interaction. The ideal state for learning is
what Vygotsky called the zone of proximal development. This concept
refers to the distance between the learner’s actual state of develop-
ment determined by independent problem-solving and the potential
level of development that he or she can reach through the guidance
of adults or collaboration with peers. Thus, Vygotsky argued that
through social interaction students may reach a higher state of
development than they would achieve by working and studying on
their own. Dillenbourg (1999) has emphasised that collaboration itself
is neither a learning mechanism nor a method. Rather, collaborative
learning is an interactive situation which may trigger specific cogni-
tive learning mechanisms (such as induction, deduction, compilation,
knowledge elicitation, internalisation, etc.).

Part II: Empirical studies

Before we present the results of our systematic review of empirical

studies on project-based learning in post-secondary education, we re-
port on some studies and reviews on project-based learning in general,
and on other instructional methods stemming from similar pedagogical
principles or assumptions.

Previous studies on the impact of project-based learning

and similar pedagogical approaches

There have been some evaluations of the impact of project-based

learning in early childhood and on elementary education (Stites
1998). For example, Barron et al. (1998) reported on a project-based
intervention during which sixth graders designed chairs. The result
was that during the intervention students’ scores on the Standard
298 LAURA HELLE, PÄIVI TYNJÄLÄ AND ERKKI OLKINUORA

Geometry test increased by approximately 10% points. What is

noteworthy is that no interaction between time and achievement level
could be detected; in other words, the lower achieving students
benefited from the intervention as much as average and high
achieving students. Bredderman (1983) reviewed the results of three
‘‘activity-based’’ science programmes designed for elementary stu-
dents. The conclusion was that positive results could be detected
mainly in terms of ‘‘inquiry skills’’. In addition, there was a small,
but significant increase in subject matter acquisition.
At the other end of the educational continuum, Springer et al.
(1999) conducted a meta-analysis of the effects of small-group
learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering and
technology. On the basis of a meta-analysis of 39 studies, the authors
concluded that the reported effect of cooperative or collaborative
learning is consistently about half a standard of deviation (d ¼ 0.51),
which means that these forms of learning should move a student
from the 50th percentile to the 70th on a standardised test. Fur-
thermore, small group learning had a favourable effect of 0.55 on
students’ ‘‘attitudes’’, which far exceeds the novelty effect (estimated
0.28). Finally, the effects of small group learning were significantly
greater for groups under-represented in those fields (such as African-
Americans and women).
There have been four comprehensive reviews on the effectiveness of
problem-based learning in medical education (Albanese and Mitchell
1993; Colliver 2000; Dochy et al. 2003; Vernon and Blake 1993). These
all conclude that, on measures of knowledge, PBL students perform
slightly better or slightly worse than students in a traditional curricu-
lum, whereas on measures of diagnostic ability there is a small but
significant positive effect of PBL. On measures of student satisfaction,
there is a consistent benefit of PBL (Norman and Schmidt 2000). Fur-
thermore, there is evidence that even students may acquire slightly less
knowledge, they remember more of the acquired knowledge (Dochy
et al. 2003).
It is worth noting a point made by Norman and Schmidt (2000).
They stress the fact that the interventions associated with PBL are
multiple, each having a demonstrable effect, some positive and some
negative. They also point out that it would be folly to try to average
the effects due to reasons beyond the scope of the present discussion.
On the basis of the synthesis by Norman and Schmidt, it seems
especially important that tutors are properly trained, that they provide
instruction in problem-solving and that learning in conducted on a
 PROJECT-BASED LEARNING IN POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION 299

cooperative basis. On the basis of their own research findings, the

authors also stress that the quality of problems seems to play a central
role in the process leading to achievement and interest in the subject
matter.

Systematic review of empirical studies

Method
Material for the review was searched from the following databases:
ERIC, Sociological Abstracts, PSYC INFO, EBSCO Host and
Medline, using the keywords ‘‘project learning’’, ‘‘project-based
learning’’, ‘‘project studies’’, ‘‘learning projects’’, and ‘‘project meth-
ods’’. Furthermore, the thesaurus search was conducted with the
combinations ‘‘student projects’’ and ‘‘higher education’’. Originally
we used the words ‘‘project learning’’ in the thesaurus search but the
programme suggested the use of the words ‘‘student projects’’ instead.
As the outcome of this search was 4197 references, the limitation
with ‘‘higher education’’ was tried out with an outcome of four
references. The searches covered the years 1966–2000 in PSYC INFO,
1960–2000 in ERIC and 1991–2000 in Medline. The final outcomes of
the searches were as follows: ERIC and Sociological Abstracts (a
combined search) 450 references, PSYC INFO 153 references, EB-
SCO Host 163 references, and Medline no references. Most of the
references were overlapping. In other words, they appeared in several
databases and in several searches at the same time. The searches were
carried out at the beginning of February 2001. The articles collected
were then subjected to initial review: those articles which did not
concern project-based learning AND post-secondary education were
rejected. The references of the articles which were accepted were also
checked in order to find more articles. Later, in July 2001, additional
searches were carried out covering only the year 2001. The entire
process resulted in 37 articles of which 9 were regarded theoretical or
having a theoretical focus (e.g., providing theoretical background, a
particular model or suggestions on implementation rather than course
a course description). Six of the 28 course descriptions were consid-
ered to contain so little information that they were excluded from the
majority of the analysis. The remaining 22 course descriptions were
tabulated and analysed for pedagogical framework, course scope,
staff requirements, group size, course impact and encountered chal-
lenges. These constructs were considered relevant with respect to
300 LAURA HELLE, PÄIVI TYNJÄLÄ AND ERKKI OLKINUORA

purposes three and four of the study. The 22 articles, which are
marked by a single asterisk (*) in the list of references, form the core
or ‘‘umbra’’ of the data. On the other hand, course descriptions
excluded from the umbra and ‘‘theoretical’’ articles form the ‘‘pen-
umbra’’. The former are marked by a double asterisk (**) and the
latter by a triple asterisk (***).

Findings
General findings. We will start with the bad news. First, the majority
of the articles were limited to course descriptions written by inno-
vative teachers or research students in fields other than educational
psychology or research. In only 5 of the 28 course descriptions was
there a clear indication that the article had been authored or co-
authored by an educational researcher. Probably partly due to the
practitioner perspective, evaluations were with a few notable excep-
tions anecdotal, containing very little evidence on the impact of the
course. Of the 28 course descriptions we judged 18 to be ‘‘purely
descriptive’’, indicating that no attempt had been made to evaluate
the course in question or present the results of the evaluation. When
some sort of evidence in terms of the success of the course in
question was provided, it seldom focused on learning outcomes de-
fined by course-specific goals: only 2 articles out of 28 provided
concrete evidence on learning outcomes. Second, course-specific goals
tended to cover a very broad range of objectives making assessment
extremely complicated. A typical list of objectives includes at least
the following: the development of team skills, the development of
learning or critical thinking skills, the development of content
knowledge relevant to the course, and the ability to apply that
knowledge. Third, the pedagogical framework was with a few
notable exceptions poorly articulated or conceptualised: a typical
article refers to the idea of experiential learning and/or the Kolbian
learning cycle, which is mentioned in seven articles; other sources
frequently mentioned the theory of collaborative or cooperative
learning (referred to in 4 out of 28 articles), or the idea of service
learning (referred to in three articles). Three of the background
‘‘philosophies’’ were judged more or less socio-contructivist. For the
most part, no reference to a pedagogical or psychological framework
was found (13 articles out of 28). On the positive side, the imple-
mentation of ‘‘successful’’ courses was described with a fair amount
of detail. These not only permitted us to abstract some sort of
guidelines for teachers willing to adopt project-based learning, but
 PROJECT-BASED LEARNING IN POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION 301

they also gave us a glimpse of what is actually happening in the

field. Next, we synthesize our findings in terms of course magnitude,
student/teacher-ratio, and group size.

Course scope, staff requirements, group size. Course scope was examined
from two perspectives: the number of students taking the course, and
the number of working hours required by the student. Of the courses
described in the core of the data (22 articles), 8 were considered to
involve large numbers of students (over 50 students), while four in-
volved a small or medium-sized class (up to 30 students). In 10 of the
articles, the number of students taking the course was not specified. The
proportion of courses with large numbers of students is noteworthy,
because it has been suggested by Winn (1995) that the courses described
in the literature are usually optional ones, which are taken by a small
number of students. As for student workload (and credits), four of the
courses examined were clearly intensive and extensive. These were
usually integrated courses requiring several months of work (full time),
whereas the majority of the courses were individual courses requiring
altogether only 1–3 weeks of (full time) work.
Possible group sizes were analysed on the basis of group size ranges.
Group size ranges covering group sizes of three, four and five are
mentioned most frequently in the literature, while instances of group
sizes of less than three and over five are relatively scarce. Davis and
Miller (1996) recommended a group size of five, Henke (1985) group
sizes of 3–5, Malhotra et al. (1989) ‘‘smaller groups’’, while Barab et al.
(2000a) and Peterson and Myer (1995) report problems with group sizes
of three and five. Problems with five students were based on student self-
reports: some students complained about the difficulty in arranging to
meet outside class with group sizes of up to five members. Barab et al.
(2000a) noted, in examining a total of four(!) groups, that pairs of
students tended to work collaboratively, whereas in groups of three,
there was a tendency for one of the members to dominate. We must
conclude that it is not clear yet whether there is a problem with uneven
group sizes. However, it would seem safe to conclude that groups of 2–5
students are feasible for most purposes.
As for staff requirements, in 11 cases out of 22, it was stated or
implied that there was one teacher (or two teachers for whom the course
represented 50% of a full course load) in charge of a small or medium-
sized class. One of these teachers used senior seminar students who
acted as ‘‘mentors’’ for junior students, while another used a teaching
assistant for a few hours per week, plus a research assistant, to deal with
302 LAURA HELLE, PÄIVI TYNJÄLÄ AND ERKKI OLKINUORA

the final report to the client. In another 5 cases out of 22 staff

requirements were not spelled out. Fortunately, five authors made a
serious attempt to report tutorial arrangements: Bobrowski and Kumar
(1992), who described a project management internship, indicated that
the student intern was being supervised by the city engineer in charge of
the larger project and by a faculty advisor. Lenschow (1998) who de-
scribed a project-based approach to engineering education, reported
that a course through five semesters with 160 students working in
groups of four receiving 25% of semester credits for the project work,
was organised so that 20 teachers acted as advisers in their subject area
and at the same as students in the field of IT. Fourteen student assis-
tants helped the students and teachers. Teachers were presumed to
spend 4 h a week with the student, and student assistants 6 h, indicating
that student groups were eligible for guidance by a faculty tutor for up
to 20% of the time the students were supposed to work on the project,
and by a student assistant for another 20% of the time. Verran (1992),
who described a course during which microbiology students prepared
leaflets for authentic clients, reported that there was an academic tutor
per student group (of 5–7) in addition to the supervisor; unfortunately,
the author does not indicate measures of workload. Vaz (2000), on the
other hand, gave a rather picturesque and detailed description of an
international project-based module designed to educate ‘‘technological
humanists’’ that has been going on in various parts of the world for a
quarter of a century. According to Vaz (2000), a full-time supervisor is
in charge of five groups of three students. Assuming that supervisors
and students are required to work 40 h a week, this would mean that
student groups are eligible for 8 h (or 25% of standard working time) of
faculty guidance. Finally, an innovative approach to arranging the se-
nior project (in sociology) is described by Grzelkowski (1986). The se-
nior project was organised in such a way that a project committee was
responsible for support and assessment. The committee consisted of the
student, at least one faculty member, at least one peer, and at least one
community member (given that the project involves community service).
No indication of workload was provided. To conclude, the two authors
who described two extensive engineering courses in detail, were
describing courses in engineering which were surprisingly similar: the
course described by Vaz (2000) involved groups of three students
working on authentic community-based problems with 25% faculty
guidance, while the other involved groups of four students working on
comprehensive problems ‘‘as close to reality as possible’’ with 20%
faculty guidance + guidance from a student assistant familiar with IT
 PROJECT-BASED LEARNING IN POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION 303

issues (Lenschow 1998). From the longevity of the former concept and
the rather impressive results described by the authors, this format
appears feasible, at least for engineering projects.

Impact. It is unfortunate that the frequent claim that all parties gain
(e.g., Foster and Stevenson 1998) remains unsubstantiated by the data
available. Details required for a cost-benefit analysis are lacking. In
addition, serious attempts to measure the impact of project work on
learning are scarce: only two articles out of 22, i.e., the article by Barab
et al. (2000a) on the learning of introductory astronomy and the article
on extension training by Fell (1999), provided concrete evidence of the
impact on learning. The final line was that the 10 students taking the
pilot course in astronomy, involving the use of three-dimensional
modelling technology to build virtual solar systems, performed better
than students of the previous year (with the lecture format) on questions
requiring conceptual understanding. Fell conducted a 360° evaluation
procedure on the learning of adult students in agricultural extension
training. Results indicated that all respondents felt that the work-based
projects were one of the keys to successful completion of the course. The
most frequently mentioned result was the gain in self-confidence (seen
by the adult students, their manager and some clients). Managers and
students also felt that there had been an increase in knowledge. There
was even some evidence that the course had changed the way the adult
students went about their work.
Interestingly, Barab et al. (2000a) stressed similar factors in the imple-
mentation of the course to Barron et al. (1998), namely the importance
of a rich set of resources (or scaffolds) and multiple opportunities for
assessment and revision. The resources students use while working can
be material, social, or conceptual and can include facts, instruments,
phenomena and theories that students can use in their work. The
multiple opportunities for (formative) (self) assessment and revision in
the case described by Barab et al. included: (1) the writing of a joint
paper describing the features of the model (describing the solar system);
(2) having each student present and explain their model to other stu-
dents using computer-based technology; (3) having each group give a
lecture to the class; (4) writing a final paper in which the model is
contrasted with other models and reality; (5) a final exam. The action
learning model described by Fell (1999) stresses the role of reflection.
For instance, residential sessions involve: (1) quick reflections at the end
of each session. What has stood out, what was learnt, what could be
done differently?; (2) learning logs, using the same prompts, completed
304 LAURA HELLE, PÄIVI TYNJÄLÄ AND ERKKI OLKINUORA

each day; (3) ‘‘walk-talk’’, 10 min discussions with a partner at the end
of each day, using the same prompts and; (4) learning reviews at the
start of each day conducted in small groups using similar questions. To
sum up, it seems that ‘‘loads’’ of reflection and articulation are needed
to foster effective learning in project-based learning environments.
As for impact on student satisfaction, enjoyment, interest or moti-
vation, many mainly anecdotal references (seven out of 22) were made
to the positive effect on students, but no serious attempts to study the
question of motivationally-related impacts were found. On the other
hand, Malhotra et al. (1989) reported that the use of the project method
requires ‘‘the existence of a core of good and conscious students’’. Titus
and Petronius (1993) reported that there was a fairly high standard of
deviation regarding student satisfaction (value of the course and whe-
ther it should be assigned in the future).

Encountered challenges and reported solutions. Encountered challenges

were not reported very often and in some cases they were reported
implicitly, e.g., in the form of solutions to problems. What did come
up? The problem reported most often (in three articles) was the fact
that the organisation and administration of project-based courses can
be very time-consuming. In addition, the following challenges were
reported in at least two articles: matching student requirements with
task requirements, integrating support and supplementary material with
the project, student motivation, intra-group dynamics, work load for
students, and the fact that some projects are not practicable or good
for learning. In addition, two authors suggested that steps need to be
taken to integrate student responsibilities so that students learn about
all aspects of the subject matter instead of specialising in some specific
aspects. Some very interesting challenges were mentioned only once:
the fact that some university teachers are so specialised that they are
unable to supervise a project in their field, group grading, lack of
orientation among some students, and challenges related to the
learning of subject matter.
Tips and comments on some of these challenges can be found in the
data set of 37 articles and in other literature on the topic. First, a case
has been reported in which student impressions tended to overestimate
the work load of project-based courses, presumably due to the fact that
on the project-based course the work load was unevenly distributed
(Nye læringsmetoder 2000). In other words, the students may remember
the ‘‘peaks’’ and overestimate the overall workload. Thus, one challenge
noted by the Norwegian evaluation group is to even out the peaks.
 PROJECT-BASED LEARNING IN POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION 305

In addition, tips can be found on the following topics: project

selection, promotion of favourable group processing, integration of
project and course material, and learning. In order to promote
favourable group processing it is suggested that groups should be
observed, so that problems are detected early on (Winn 1995; Holter
1994). Lenshow even reports on a computer-based monitoring system
(consisting of students responding regularly to some short question-
naire items) established for a massive course in engineering.
According to Lenschow, the system has reduced the number of very
problematic groups to 10% (Nye læringsmetoder 2000). Another
approach would be to let the students take responsibility for active
monitoring: the students could be prompted to consult with the tea-
cher on a confidential basis should problems in group processing arise.
In addition, it is obvious that the assessment system influences group
dynamics. The general rule is that the assessment system should in-
clude an individual component and a group component. Williams
et al. (1991) provide several tips for designing an assessment system.
They also emphasise that, whatever the approach the individual
instructor adopts, it is important to track the success of the assess-
ment system at the end of each semester.
The concept of the ‘‘just-in-time’’ lecture is offered as a solution to
the problem of integrating support (cf. Barab et al. 2000a; Barron et al.
1998; Brown 2000), or as Holter (1994) puts it
‘‘the lecture material should dovetail with the case assignment. For
example, when the teams are staffing the inventory assignment, the
lecture should cover problems associated with inventory and discuss
appropriate audit test of inventory.’’
As for project selection, Lattery et al. (2001) advocate simplicity,
matching student capability and task requirements, and relevance,
among other things. Relevance refers to the idea that whenever possible
students should work with projects that encapsulate a network of
associations and ideas from the course, or why not even curriculum in
other circumstances. Then, according to Lattery, the project helps ‘‘put
it all together’’.
An additional challenge reported by Barab et al. (2000a) is that
especially technologically-rich project-based environments result in
cognitive overload for students before they are well acquainted with the
environment. Moreover, the project environment poses challenges re-
lated to learning and instruction for both the students and the teacher.
For these reasons, it would be interesting to arrange a series of project-
306 LAURA HELLE, PÄIVI TYNJÄLÄ AND ERKKI OLKINUORA

based courses and to measure student learning as a function of experi-

ence with a certain learning environment.

Discussion

The aim of the present investigation was to explore the definition of

project-based learning and its pedagogical or psychological basis and
to report on its implementation and impact on learning based on the
results of a qualitative review of articles on project-based learning
carried out in post-secondary education. The major limitation of the
study is that there is no reason to assume that the course descriptions
analysed represent the field of project studies in a statistical sense.
The other limitation is the fact that qualitative analysis involves
subjective interpretation. In order to minimise subjective bias, all the
articles were reread in an explicit attempt to reveal misconceptions in
tabulated data.
The most salient feature of the articles analysed was that they
were mainly course descriptions focusing on the implementation of
project-based courses. Although we are convinced that these course
descriptions can offer important insights for researchers and practi-
tioners, we would be happy to see serious theoretically-grounded
research on the topic. We also welcome detailed course descriptions
from practitioners and researchers alike: for the time being, the de-
tails needed for a proper impact or cost-benefit analysis are lacking.
Details which should be mentioned include class size, staff require-
ments and other expenses. In addition, more attention should be paid
to the issue of learning.
Secondly, we observed that goals for project-based courses are typi-
cally manifold, including mastery of subject content, application of
knowledge, critical thinking and communication skills. In general, there
is a focus on so many goals that it would not be feasible to try to
concentrate on them all. In addition, some of the goals are poorly
conceptualised. For example, many authors put forward that one of the
goals of projects is to foster ‘‘communication skills’’. The problem is
that researchers studying ‘‘communications skills’’ are convinced that
there is no such thing in a generic sense. ‘‘Communication skills’’ seem
to be composed of a set of different types of skills e.g., interviewing
skills, and the ability to tell bad news to somebody, which are inde-
pendent of one another and context-bound, thus varying from one task
or job to another (cf. Aspegren 1999). The same seems to apply to
 PROJECT-BASED LEARNING IN POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION 307

‘‘problem-solving skills’’ (Schmidt et al. 1990). Our main point is that

students would benefit if curriculum developers and teachers were to
invest more in the definition of goals and the congruence between stated
goals and the activity students are engaged in (cf. Barron et al. 1998;
Hewton 1985; Nye Læringsmetoder 2000). It is important to note that
the curriculum developers and teachers do not need to fix learning goals
beforehand. Especially on work-based courses, which afford multiple
different types of learning opportunities, it is a good idea to involve
individual students in the process of learning goal definition for other-
wise official learning objectives may differ from what the individual
learner sets out to learn. Typically, this does not result in optimal
learning.
Third, there is an issue related to the issue of goals, namely,
assessment. Given that project-based teaching is necessarily more or
less an adventure, as Kilpatrik (1921) put it, assessment is especially
difficult. Even if course-specific goals have been agreed upon, there is
the question of who should do the assessing. It is often suggested that
in commissioned projects, the assessment should be handled through
a three-way partnership (e.g., Tynjälä and Tourunen 2002). Given
that project learning emphasises process orientation, students’ initia-
tive, (guided) self-regulation and self-reflection, student self-assess-
ment should be part of the assessment. The role of workplace trainers
or coaches is more complicated. Several authors have noted that
especially work-place instructors are not very comfortable in assessing
students (Barab et al. 2000b; Tynjälä and Tourunen 2002). This raises
the next question: on what evidence should the grade be based? If
assessment is done in situ, the coach would be the person having the
most information on the process. However, some authors have sug-
gested that ideally the roles of assessor and coach or ‘‘facilitator’’
should be separated from one another (Hamilton and Hamilton 1997
Hughes 1998;). Team-based projects provide additional challenges:
how should the contribution of each team member be weighted in the
final grade? These are issues to be addressed when designing project-
based learning environments. The results of assessment are of par-
ticular interest to researchers, policy makers and to teachers consid-
ering the possibility of designing project-based courses.
From the student learning point of view, there is another assess-
ment-related issue that may be even more important than the accu-
racy of assessment. It is of utmost importance that curriculum
developers and teachers see to it that students have multiple opportu-
nities for formative assessment and revision in terms of learning goals
308 LAURA HELLE, PÄIVI TYNJÄLÄ AND ERKKI OLKINUORA

(cf. Barron et al. 1998). Tutoring discussions on a regular basis and

formative mid-term assessments could be a part of the process (e.g.,
Tynjälä and Tourunen 2002). Furthermore, as mentioned earlier,
successful project-based learning environments typically include mul-
tiple more or less high stake situations in which students have to
articulate the basis of their solutions (project reports, posters, ab-
stracts and presentations, etc.)
Fourth, we observed that in empirical case descriptions, project-
based learning was poorly conceptualised. Premises we consider rel-
evant to cognitive psychology or motivational research were seldom
spelled out in the reported cases. Typically, a casual reference to a
very general theory of learning such as the Kolbian cycle was made.
We hope that our explorations help to pave the way for other
researchers as well as for practitioners to further explicate the basis
of project-based learning practice.
Finally, careful examination of the collection of articles offered
some exploratory insights regarding the purposes of project-based
learning. On the one hand, project-based learning can provide the
student with (1) a very concrete and holistic experience regarding a
certain process (e.g., the construction process, the management of a
project). When project-based learning is used in this sense, it is
usually as an introduction to something (e.g. the beginning of studies
in a certain field or as a transition to working life). On the other
hand, some practitioners and students are convinced that properly
implemented project-based learning environments can promote (2) the
integration of subject material (and the ability to apply it as circum-
stances dictate). When project-based learning is used in this sense, it
is usually at the end of a course or curriculum as a ‘‘capstone’’
experience. In addition, project-based learning can be used as (3) a
method of guided discovery learning with the intention of promoting
self-regulated deep-level learning. In this case, the project aspect is
embedded in the course structure. It is useful especially for practi-
tioners and curriculum designers to distinguish between the different
purposes project-based learning, because these purposes affect the
way courses should be implemented. For example, if the objective of
a course is to help students learn the basics of astronomy in a guided
discovery mode, it is not a good idea to send them on a journey to
outer space. But if the objective is to provide students with a taste of
travelling in space for whatever reason, then the idea would make
sense. It is not always reasonable to try to achieve all three purposes
during a single course.
 PROJECT-BASED LEARNING IN POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION 309

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the Academy of Finland (Project No.

46849 and Project No. 78033), which made the writing of this article
possible. We would also like to thank the Cultural Fund of South-
west Finland under the auspices of which the initial screening of the
articles was completed. We are also grateful to Professor Kirsti
Lonka especially for acquainting us with the literature on problem-
based learning.

References

Adderley, K. et al. (1975). Project Methods in Higher Education. SRHE working party
on teaching methods: Techniques group. Guildford, Surrey: Society for research into
higher education.
Albanese, M.A. and Mitchell, S. (1993). ‘Problem-based learning: A review of literature
on its outcomes and implementation issues’, Academic Medicine 68, 52–81.
Askeland, K (1999). ‘Project organised learning – what is it ‘‘really’’?’ in Jens Olesen,
H.S and Højgaard Jensen, J. (eds.), Project Studies – A Late Modern University
Reform? Roskilde University Press, pp. 235–252.
Aspegren, K. (1999). ‘BEME guide No. 2: teaching and learning communication skills in
medicine – a review with quality grading of articles’, Medical Teacher 21(6), 563–570.
Ausubel, D.P. (1968). Educational Psychology. A Cognitive View. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
Barab, S.A., Hay, K.E., Squire, K., Barnett, M., Schmidt, F., Karragan, K., Yamagata-
Lynch, L. and Johnson, C. (2000a). ‘Virtual solar system project: Learning through
a technology-rich, inquiry-based, participatory learning environment’, Journal of
Science Education and Technology 9 (1), 7–24.*
Barab, S.A., Squire, K.D. and Dueber, W. (2000b). ‘A co-evolutionary model for
supporting the emergence of authenticity’, Educational Training and Development
48(2), 37–62.*
Barron, B.J.S., Schwartz, D.L., Vye, N.J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., Brans-
ford, J.D. and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1998). ‘Doing with understanding:
Lessons from research on problem and project-based learning’, Journal of the
Learning Sciences 7, 271–311.
Bereiter, C. and Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing Ourselves. An Inquiry into the
Nature and Implications of Expertise. Chicago, IL: Open Court.
Bereiter, C. and Scardamalia, M. (1996). ‘Rethinking learning’ in Olson, D.R. and
Torrance, N. (eds.), The Handbook of Human Development. New Models of Learning,
Teaching and Schooling. London: Blackwell.
Blumenfeld, P.C., Soloway, E., Marx, R.W, Krajcik, J.S., Guzdial, M. and Palincsar, A.
(1991). ‘Motivating project-based learning: sustaining the doing, supporting the
learning’, Educational Psychologist 26, 369–398.***
Bobbitt, L.M. (2000). ‘Integrating marketing courses to enhance team-based experien-
tial learning’, Journal of Marketing Education 22 (1), 15–24.*
310 LAURA HELLE, PÄIVI TYNJÄLÄ AND ERKKI OLKINUORA

Bobrowski, P.M. and Kumar, P. (1992). ‘Learning project management outside the
classroom: The internship’, Project Management Journal 23 (1), 27–31.*
Boland, R.J. and Tenkasi, R.V. (1995). ‘Perspective making and perspective taking in
communities of knowing’, Organization Science 6 (4).
Borgnakke, K. (1999). ‘Group work and learning processes: Viewed practically and
analytically’, in Olesen Jens, H.S. and Højgaard Jensen, J. (eds.), Project Studies – A
Late Modern University Reform? Roskilde University Press, pp. 78–92.
Boshuizen, H.P.A., Schmidt, H.G., Custers, E.J.F.M. and van de Wiel, M.W. (1995).
‘Knowledge development and restructuring in the domain of medicine: The role of
theory and practice’, Learning and Instruction 5, 269–289.
Boshuizen, H.P.A. and van de Wiel, M.W.J. (1998). ‘Using multiple representations in
medicine: How students struggle with them,’ in van Someren, M.W., Reimann, P.,
Boshuizen, H.P.A. and de Jong, T. (eds.), Learning with Multiple Representations.
Amsterdam: Pergamon, pp. 237–262.
Boud, D. and Feletti, G. (eds.) (1999). The Challenge of Problem Based Learning (2nd
edition). London: Kogan Page.
Boud, D., Solomon, N. and Symes, C. (2001). ‘New practices for new times,’ in Boud,
D. and Solomon, N. (eds.), Work-Based Learning. A New Higher Education?
Buckhingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open Univer-
sity Press, pp. 3–17.
Brew, A. and Boud, D. (1995). ‘Teaching and research: Establishing the vital link with
learning’, Higher Education 29, 261–273.
Brown, K.A. (2000). ‘Developing project management skills: A service learning ap-
proach’, Project Management Journal 31(4), 53–58.*
Bredderman, T (1983). ‘Effects of activity-based elementary science on student out-
comes. A quantitative synthesis’, Review of Educational Research 53, 499–518.
Brown, K.A. (2000). ‘Developing project management skills: A service learning ap-
proach’, Project Management Journal 31(4), 53–58.*
Colliver, J. (2000). ‘Effectiveness of problem based learning curricula’, Academic
Medicine 75, 259–266.
Davis, B.D and Miller, T.R. (1996). ‘Job preparation for the 21st century: A group
project learning model to teach basic workplace skills’, Journal of Education for
Business 72(2), 69–74.***
Dewey, J. (1933). How We Think. A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to
the Educative Process. Boston: D.C. Heath.
Dillenbourg, P. (1999). ‘Introduction: What do you mean by ‘‘collaborative learning’’?’
in Dillenbourg, P. (ed.), Collaborative Learning. Cognitive and Computational Ap-
proaches. Amsterdam: Pergamon, pp. 1–19.
Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P. and Gijbels, D. (2003) ‘Effects of problem-
based learning: A meta-analysis’, Learning and Instruction 13(5), 533–568.
Doise, W. and Mugny. G. (1984). The Social Development of the Intellect. Oxford:
Pergamon.
Duffy, T.M. and Cunningham, D.J. (1996). ‘Constructivism: implications for the design
and delivery of instruction,’ in Jonassen, D.H. (ed.), Handbook of Research for
Educational Communications and Technology. New York: Macmillan Library Ref-
erence, pp. 170–198.
Fell, R.F. (1999). ‘Adult learning and action learning – a real workplace learning ap-
proach’, Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 6(2), 73–82.*
 PROJECT-BASED LEARNING IN POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION 311

Foster, E. and Stephenson, J. (1998). ‘Work-based learning and universities in the U.K.:
a review of current practice and trends’, Higher Education Research and Development
17(2), 155–170.
Godden, D.R. and Baddeley, A.D. (1975). ‘Context-dependent memory in two natural
environments: On land and underwater’. British Journal of Psychology 66, 325–331.
Gott, S. and Lesgold, A.M. (2000). ‘Competence in the workplace: how cognitive
performance models and situated instruction can accelerate skill acquisition’, in
(ed.), R. Glaser, Advances in Educational Psychology. Educational Design and Cog-
nitive science, Vol 5. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 239–327.
Graeff, T.R. (1997). ‘Bringing reflective learning to the marketing research course: A
cooperative learning project using intergroup critique’, Journal of Marketing Edu-
cation 19(1), 53–64. **
Gray, M., Ondaatje, E. and Zakaras, L. (1999). Combining Service and Learning in
Higher Education: Summary Report. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
Grzelkowski, K.P. (1986). ‘Merging the theoretical and the practical: A community
action learning model’, Teaching Sociology 14, 110–118.*
Guile, D. and Griffiths, T. (2001). ‘Learning through work experience’, Journal of
Education and Work 14(1), 113–131.
Hamilton, M.A. and Hamilton, S.F. (1997). ‘When is work a learning experience?’ Phi
Delta Kappan, May 1997.
Heitman, G. (1996). ‘Project-oriented study and project-organisized curricula: A brief
review of intentions and solutions’, European Journal of Engineering Education 21,
121–132.***
Henke, J.W., Jr. (1985). ‘Bringing reality to the introductory marketing student’,
Journal of marketing education, Fall 1985, 59–71.*
Hewton, E. (1985). ‘Project work in higher education,’ in Husen, T. and Postlethwaite,
N. (eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education, Research and Studies, Vol 7.
Oxford: Pergamon.
Holter, N.C. (1994). ‘Team assignments can be effective cooperative learning tech-
niques’, Journal of Education for Business 70(2), 73–76.**
Hughes, C. (1998). ‘Practicum learning: Perils of the authentic workplace’, Higher
Education Research and Development 17(2), 207–227.
Hyrkäs, Tarkka and Paunonen-Ilmonen (2001) ‘Teacher candidates’ reflective
teaching and learning in a hospital setting – changing the pattern of practical
training: A challenge to growing into teacherhood’, Journal of Advanced Nursing
33(4), 503–511.**
Kilpatrick, W.H. (1921). ‘Dangers and difficulties of the project method and how to
overcome them: Introductory statement and definition of terms’, Teachers College
Record 22(4), 283–288.
Kliebard, H.M. (1987). The Struggle for the American Curriculum: 1893–1958. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential Learning. Experience as a Source of Learning and
Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kushman, J.E. (1996). ‘Project-based learning for customer service and consumer
voice’, Consumer Interests Annual 42, 235–236.**
Lattery, M., Cicerelli, M., Covach, E., Dempsey, S., Franke, J., Rudich, C. and
Smith, M. (2001). ‘Full immersion into physics’, Physics Teacher 39, March 2000,
166–171.*
312 LAURA HELLE, PÄIVI TYNJÄLÄ AND ERKKI OLKINUORA

Laughton, D. and Ottewill, R. (1998). ‘Laying foundations for effective learning

from commissioned project in business education’, Education and Training 40,
95–101.***
Lave, E. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lenschow, R.J. (1998). ‘From teaching to learning: A paradigm shift in engineering
education and lifelong learning’, European Journal of Engineering Education 23(2),
155–161.*
Lenschow, R. (1998). ‘From teaching to learning: A paradigm shift in engineering
education and lifelong learning’, European Journal of Engineering Education 23(2),
155–161.
Littleton, K. and Häkkinen, P. (1999). ‘Learning together: Understanding the processes
of computer-based collaborative learning,’ in Dillenbourg, P. (ed.), Collaborative
Learning. Cognitive and Computational Approaches. Amsterdam: Pergamon/Elsevier
Science, pp. 20–30.
Long, A.B., Larsen, P., Hussey, L. and Travis, S.S. (2001). ‘Organizing, managing and
evaluating service-learning projects’, Educational Gerontology 27(3), 3–22.***
Lunsford, D.A. and Henshaw, J.M. (1992). ‘Integrating courses in marketing re-
search and engineering design: An instructional technique for enhancing the
product development process’, Journal of Marketing Education Summer 1992,
10–19.*
Malhotra, N.K., Tashchian, A. and Jain, A.K. (1989). ‘The project method approach:
An integrated teaching tool in marketing research’. Journal of Marketing Education
Summer 1989, 32–40.*
Maynard, M. (1987). ‘An experiential learning approach: Utilizing historical interview
and an occupational inventory’, Physical and Occupational Therapy in Geriatrics
5(2), 51–69.*
Morgan, A. (1983). ‘Theoretical aspects of project-based learning in higher education’,
British Journal of Educational Technology 1, 66–78.***
Morgan, A.R. (1995). ‘Improving student learning in distance education: Theory, re-
search and practice’, European Journal of Psychology of Education 10(2), 121–130.**
Mäkinen, J., Olkinuora, E. and Tynjälä, P. (1999). Growing demands of skills and
knowledge - learning and the development of expertise in information society.
Analytic Teaching 20(1), 19–28.
Newman, H.S. (1980). ‘First year building project: Learning experience and community
service’. Journal of Architectural Education 34(2), 26–28.**
Norman, G.R. and Schmidt, H.G (1992). ‘The psychological basis of problem-based
learning: A review of the evidence’, Academic Medicine 67, 557–565.
Norman, G.R. and Schmidt, H.G. (2000). ‘Effectiveness of problem-based learning
curricula: Theory, practice and paper darts’, Medical Education 34, 721–728.
Nye læringsmetoder i den digitale tidsalder ved Fakultetet for bygg- og miljöteknikk,
NTNU (2000). Sluttrapport for prosjektet ‘‘PBL-strengen’’ 1997–1999 ved Fakultet
for bygg-og miljøteknikk, NTNU.
Peacock, J.R., Bradley, D.B. and Shenk, D. (2001). ‘Incorporating field sites into ser-
vice-learning as collaborative partners’, Educational Gerontology 27, 23–35.*
Peterson, S.E. and Myer, R.A. (1995). ‘The use of collaborative project-based learning
in counselor education’, Counselor Education and Supervision 35(8), 150–158.*
Piaget, J. (1963). Psychology of Intelligence. Paterson, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co.
 PROJECT-BASED LEARNING IN POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION 313

Rogoff, B. (1999). ‘Cognitive development through social interaction: Vygotsky and

Piaget,’ in Murphy, P. (ed.), Learners, Learning and Assessment. London: Paul
Chapman Publishing & Open University, pp. 69–82.
Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2000). ‘Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being’, American Psychologist
January 2000.
Schön, D.A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. How professionals Think in Action. New
York: Basic Books.
Schmidt, H.G., Norman, G.R. and Boshuizen, H.P.A. (1990). ‘A cognitive per-
spective on medical expertise: theory and implications’, Academic Medicine 65,
611–621.
Sexton, C.A. (1990). ‘A comparative analysis of project method and learning project’,
International Journal of Lifelong Education 9(2), 81–98.***
Siegel, C.F. (2000). ‘Introducing marketing students to business intelligence using
project-based learning on the world wide web’, Journal of Marketing Education
22(2), 90–98.*
Springer, L., Stanne, M.E. and Donovan, S.S. (1999). ‘Effects of small-group learning
on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering and technology: A meta-
analysis’, Review of Educational Research 69, 21–51.
Star, S.L. (1989). ‘The structure of ill-structured solutions: boundary objects and het-
erogeneous distributed problem solving. in Glasser, L. and Huhns, M.N. (eds.),
Distributed Artificial Intelligence, Vol. II. London: Pritman, pp. 37–54.
Stefani, L. and Nicol, D. (1997). ‘From teacher to facilitator of collaborative enquiry’.
in Brown, S., Armstrong, G. and Thompson, S. (eds.), Facing up to Radical Change
in Colleges and Universities. London: Kogan Page.
Stites, R. (1998). ‘What does research say about outcomes from project-based
learning’, Web Extension to the Challenge 2000 Multimedia Project. [WWW
document]. URL.
Teasley, S. and Roschelle, J. (1993). ‘Constructing a joint problem space: The computer
as a tool for sharing knowledge’, in Lajoie, S.P. and Derry, S.J. (eds.), Computers as
Cognitive Tools Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 229–257.
Thacher, E.F. and Compeau, L.D. (1999). ‘Project-based learning communities at
Clarkson University,’ in Olesen Jens, H.S. and Højgaard Jensen, J. (eds.), Project
Studies – a Late Modern University Reform? Roskilde University Press, pp. 194–207.
Titus, P.A. and Petronius, S.M. (1993). ‘Bringing consumer behaviour to the
workbench: An experiential approach’, Journal of Marketing Education Spring
1993, 20–30.*
Tucker, M.L., McCarthy, A.M., Hoxmeier, J.A. and Lenk, M.M. (1998). ‘Community
service learning increases communication skills across the business curriculum’,
Business Communication Quarterly 61(2), 88–99.*
Tourunen, E. (1992). ‘Educating reflective system designers by using the experiental
learning model’’ presented at IFIP W.G. Professional development of IT profes-
sionals, Singapore, 13.-17.7.1992. http://www.cs.jyu.fi/eero/eero-pub.html.
Tudge, J. and Rogoff, B. (1989). ‘Peer influences on cognitive development: Piagetian
and Vygotskyan perspectives,’ in Bornstein, H. and Bruner, J.S. (eds.), Interaction in
Human Development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 17–40.
Tynjälä, P. and Tourunen, E. (2002). ‘Three-way partnership assessment in working life
oriented project-based learning,’ in Benton, N. and Benton, R. (eds.), Te Rito o te
314 LAURA HELLE, PÄIVI TYNJÄLÄ AND ERKKI OLKINUORA

Matauranga. Experiential Learning for the Third Millenium. Selected papers from the
Seventh Conference of the International Consortium for Experiential Learning, Vol. 2,
Auckland: James Henare Maori Research Centre, pp. 47–58.
Van der Vorst, R. (1996). ‘The local company project: Involving local companies in
undergraduate environmental engineering education’, European Journal of Engi-
neering Education 21(2), 161–168.*
van Someren, M.W., Reimann, P., Boshuizen, H.P.A and de Jong, T. (eds.) (1998).
Learning with Multiple Representations. Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Vaz, R.F. (2000). ‘Connected learning. Interdisciplinary projects in international set-
tings’, Liberal Education 86(1), 24–31.
Veenman, M.V.J., Wilhelm, P. and Beishuizen, J.J. (2004). ‘The relation between
intellectual and metacognitive skills from a developmental perspective’, Learning and
Instruction 14, 89–109.
Vernon, D.T.A. and Blake, R.L. (1993). ‘Does Problem-based Learning work? A meta-
analysis of evaluative research’, Academic Medicine 68, 550–563.
Verran, J. (1992). ‘A student-centred learning project: the production of leaflets for
‘‘live’’ clients’, Journal of Biological Education 26(2), 135–138.*
Voetmann Cristiansen, F. (1999). ‘Exemplarity and educational planning’ in Olesen
Jens, H.S., Højgaard Jensen, J. (eds.) Project Studies – a Late Modern University
Reform? Roskilde University Press, pp. 57–66.
Von Kotze, A. and Cooper, L. (2000). ‘Exploring the transformative potential of pro-
ject-based learning in university adult education’, Studies in the Education of Adults
32(2), 212–228.***
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological
Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Weaver, N. (1999). ‘The Atelier Principle in Teaching,’ in Olesen Jens, H.S. and
Højgaard Jensen. J. (eds.), Project Studies – a Late Modern University Reform?
Roskilde University Press, pp. 220–232.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice. Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, D.L., Beard, J.D. and Rymer, J. (1991). Team projects: achieving their full
potential. Journal of Marketing Education Summer 1991, 45–53.***
Winn, S. (1995). ‘Learning by doing: Teaching research methods through student
participation in a commissioned research project’, Studies in Higher Education 20(2),
203–214.*
Wynd, W.R. (1989). ‘An experiential approach to marketing education’, Journal of
Marketing Education Summer 1989, 64–71.*