Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Project-Based Learning in Post-Secondary Education - Theory
Project-Based Learning in Post-Secondary Education - Theory
DOI 10.1007/s10734-004-6386-5
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.
Introduction
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
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
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).
Discussion
Acknowledgments
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
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.*