See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/329754724

Professors’ and Students’ Perception of the Advantages and Disadvantages of

Project Based Learning

Article in International Journal of Engineering Education · July 2017

CITATIONS READS

37 13,654

2 authors, including:

Matej Mihić
University of Zagreb
27 PUBLICATIONS 185 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Matej Mihić on 28 August 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 IJEE 3520 PROOFS

International Journal of Engineering Education Vol. 33, No. 6(A), pp. 1–14, 2017 0949-149X/91 $3.00+0.00
Printed in Great Britain # 2017 TEMPUS Publications.

1
2
Professors’ and Students’ Perception of the Advantages and 1
2
3
4
Disadvantages of Project Based Learning* 3
4
5 5
6 Matej Mihić and Ivica Završki 6
University of Zagreb, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Kačićeva 26, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia.
7 7
E-mail: mmihic@grad.hr, zavrski@grad.hr
8 8
9 9
10 10
11 Requirements of the job market have substantially changed in the recent years while the teaching methods have remained
11
12 largely the same. Employers find the graduates lacking in teamwork, communication and other soft skills as well as in 12
13 engineering thinking, engineering intuition and higher order thinking and problem solving skills. Project based learning 13
14 (PBL) appears to provide an alternative teaching process capable of addressing these employers’ needs. The problem arises 14
15 with implementation of PBL into existing engineering curricula, which are not flexible and easily changeable. Therefore, if 15
16 full scale implementation of PBL courses is difficult, most significant advantages and barriers to implementation should be 16
17 sought out. Goal of the paper was to discover the most significant advantages and disadvantages of PBL from the students’ 17
18 and professors’ point of view. To that end, both students and professors were questioned on their perception of PBL from 18
19 their own personal experience on a complex interdisciplinary student project. Taking into account the difference in sample 19
20 sizes of the two groups, the students’ opinions were collected through an online survey and the professors’ through semi- 20
structured interviews and an ABC method questionnaire. Research findings from this paper may be used to determine
21 21
which aspects of PBL are most suited for engineering education and conversely, which should be focused on the most. On
22 the other hand, it is useful to know which disadvantages and barriers to implementation are the most significant and which
22
23 need to be overcome first to enable PBL implementation. 23
24 24
Keywords: project based learning; engineering education; advantages; disadvantages and implementation barriers; student perception;
25 faculty perception 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 1. Introduction lifetime employability instead of lifetime employ- 29
30 ment [2, 3]. Students must be prepared for jobs and 30
31 Traditional learning approaches seem to be less challenges that possibly do not even exist today and 31
32 compliant with modern industry requirements, be equipped with problem solving skills which 32
33 compared to the requirements of the previous cen- enable them to find the solution regardless of the 33
34 tury. Employers seek different types of skills from specifics of the problem they face [1]. 34
35 their prospective employees, in addition to the Additionally, the increased information avail- 35
36 technical skills taught at the Faculties. This situa- ability has caused a shift from the need for memor- 36
37 tion is comparable across the entire Science, tech- ization to learning information retrieval and to 37
38 nology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) field. creating new information based on observation 38
39 Project based learning (PBL), according to the and analysis [1]. Moreover, constant automatiza- 39
40 research reviewed and presented in the paper, tion and robotization has decreased the need for 40
41 appears to provide an alternative teaching process unskilled labour making it vital that students know 41
42 capable of addressing the employers’ need for a how to apply concepts instead of merely under- 42
43 modern workforce. The term itself denotes a type standing them [1]. 43
44 of learning where students acquire knowledge Despite these changes in requirements, the pre- 44
45 through purposely designed project exercises and dominant model of engineering education remains 45
46 not through the traditional lectures. PBL will be similar to the one practiced since the 1950’s with 46
47 defined more extensively in the following section. large classes and lecture-based delivery, particularly 47
48 in the early years of study [4]. The traditional 48
49 1.1 Need for a change in learning methods lecture-based pedagogy models that treat students 49
50 The requirements for a successful career have chan- as passive recipients with linear and fragmented 50
51 ged substantially from the requirements of the 20th teaching presentations have often been criticized 51
52 century [1]. Technological and organisational for not teaching the students the holistic nature of 52
53 advancement, which are a daily occurrence, are the discipline [5] and the resulting engineering 53
54 steadily making more and more professions obso- graduates are thereby oft perceived by both the 54
55 lete, while new problems and needs create new job industry and the academia as unable to take part 55
56 opportunities. Since the job environment is rapidly in the industry without on-the-job training due to 56
57 changing, students should be encouraged to seek the needed focus shift from theory to practice [6]. 57

* Accepted 15 July 2017. 1

 2 Matej Mihić and Ivica Završki

1 To tackle these growing concerns, an engineering For this reason, during the 1990s a number of first 1
2 education reform ‘‘Systemic Engineering Education year design courses, named cornerstone courses, 2
3 Reform: An Action Agenda’’ [7] emphasized, were introduced to expose the students to the 3
4 among other things, teamwork, project-based design process through doing project work [11] 4
5 learning and close interaction with the industry. and thus introducing project based teaching in 5
6 Another report [8] identified the need for high- engineering education. Moreover, in the last two 6
7 level skills in communication, computation, tech- decades, a number of design contests have emerged 7
8 nological literacy, and information retrieval that as an aspect of project based learning in engineering 8
9 would enable individuals to gain and apply new education which often generate a lot of publicity 9
10 knowledge and skills, as well as be able to arrive at [12]. 10
11 informed judgments by effectively defining pro- 11
12 blems, to gather and evaluate information related 1.3 Research goal and paper structure 12
13 to those problems, and to develop solutions. Goal of the paper is to identify the most significant 13
14 Considering the aforementioned discussion, advantages and disadvantages of PBL from the 14
15 there is a definite need for a change in the engineer- point of view of both groups of participants in the 15
16 ing curricula which would result in a workforce that learning process, the professors and the students, 16
17 is better equipped to tackle the challenges of a since the research review presented in [13] revealed 17
18 rapidly transforming job market and give them the that the majority of articles published on the topic of 18
19 competences needed in their future careers. PBL are merely descriptions of PBL implementa- 19
20 tion in the curricula. The term teacher is often 20
21 1.2 Development of Project based learning and mentioned in the literature review sections of the 21
22 implementation into engineering education paper and refers to the teaching staff at various 22
23 Beginnings of PBL are oft cited to be in the late 19th levels of education. However, the general principles 23
24 and early 20th century and first introduced into behind the teaching profession mentioned in the 24
25 public elementary schools by Francis Parker and reviewed literature are also applicable to the teach- 25
26 John Dewey, who adapted the idea of a project ing staff at the higher education level. In the context 26
27 based classroom from agriculture and the industrial of this paper the term faculty members include both 27
28 arts [9]. After the initial application to the elemen- the professors and teaching assistants, while the 28
29 tary schools, the idea of project based teaching (then terms students and learners refer to undergraduate 29
30 called the project method) gradually spread to all and graduate students at the engineering faculties. 30
31 grade levels, including higher education institutions Results presented in the paper could serve as a 31
32 [9]. stepping stone to implementation of PBL into engi- 32
33 However, the idea originally grew out of the neering curricula by determining the most significant 33
34 architectural and engineering education movement disadvantages and barriers to PBL implementation. 34
35 that began in Italy in the late 16th century and can Moreover, if PBL cannot be implemented in its 35
36 be divided into five phases [9, 10]: entirety, the results present which aspects of PBL 36
37 are deemed the most important and therefore 37
 1590–1765: The beginnings of project work at
38 could be implemented to achieve maximum impact 38
architectural schools in Europe.
39 with as few changes to the curricula as possible. 39
 1765–1880: The project as a regular teaching
40 he paper is structured to first give a brief introduc- 40
method and its transplantation to America.
41 tion into the concept and meaning of PBL, followed 41
 1880–1915: Work on projects in manual training
42 by a more in depth analysis of PBL in Section 2, and 42
and in general public schools.
43 of its advantages and disadvantages in Section 3, as 43
 1915–1965: Redefinition of the project method
44 identified through the literature review. Section 4 44
and its transplantation from America back to
45 describes the methodology of the research for both 45
Europe.
46 parts, the survey and the interviews, while first 46
 1965–today: Rediscovery of the project idea and
47 presenting the student project used as the basis for 47
the third wave of its international dissemination.
48 the conducted research. The fifth section both pre- 48
49 In this last time period, the engineering curricula has sents and discusses the results of the research, while 49
50 been based on an ‘‘engineering science’’ model [11] the final section provides the conclusion. 50
51 where the engineering focused classes are taught 51
52 only in the later years of undergraduate education, 2. Project based learning 52
53 after focusing primarily on the basic sciences in the 53
54 first years of study. This shows a large disconnect 2.1 Definitions 54
55 between what students learn at the beginning of Project based learning can be defined as an inter- 55
56 their study programmes and what they actually do disciplinary pedagogical learning approach that is 56
57 after graduating. student centred and focuses on real world issues [5, 57
 Professors’ and Students’ Perception of the Advantages and Disadvantages of Project Based Learning 3

1 14]. PBL teaches a multitude of skills critical for engineers [24]. During PBL classes the students are 1
2 success in the 21st century [15] and can include both exposed to all phases of the design process, from the 2
3 vertical and horizontal learning, with vertical learn- initial requirements to the completed product [25]. 3
4 ing being the accumulation of the subject matter The problems they will face are also mostly all ill- 4
5 knowledge and horizontal learning being the gen- structured with many paths to a viable solution, 5
6 eric skills such as project management [13]. since unlike in many mathematical problems taught 6
7 Frequently organized around the driving ques- at the faculties, there is no unique solution, only 7
8 tion [16], it shifts away from traditional classroom those which meet the defined constraints and those 8
9 practices of the teacher centred instructional model which do not. Those solutions that meet the con- 9
10 and instead focuses on learning activities that are straints can then be compared based on the defined 10
11 long-term, interdisciplinary, student-centred, and criteria [1], as are the students’ projects in the PBL 11
12 integrated with real-world issues and practices. classes. 12
13 The most distinctive feature of PBL is its problem Another differentiating characteristic is the tea- 13
14 orientation [13], its focus on resolving purposely ill- chers’ role in PBL. The role shifts from being a 14
15 defined problems in a way that it encourages learn- ‘‘provider of facts’’ to the role of a mentor, facil- 15
16 ing in both individual and collaborative settings itator and a mediator for learning [25]. A common 16
17 where students will acquire knowledge [17], develop misconception is that the teachers have a lesser 17
18 critical thinking skills, creativity [18], and a number workload, when in fact the teacher is more active 18
19 of essential soft skills such as leadership and com- than in most teacher-centred, didactic, presenta- 19
20 munication [19]. tion-styled instruction [26]. 20
21 It is important to note that projects in this context Differences between the PBL and traditional 21
22 are defined as [20, 21]: complex tasks, based on teaching methods are of course far more numerous 22
23 challenging questions or problems, that involve than the two largest mentioned above. A more 23
24 students in design, problem-solving, decision complete list can be found in the paper by Capraro 24
25 making, or investigative activities; give students and Jones [27]. 25
26 the opportunity to work relatively autonomously 26
27 over extended periods of time; and culminate in 2.3 Differences between Project and Problem based 27
28 realistic products or presentations. learning 28
29 A similar concept to the Project based learning is Project and Problem based learning share quite a 29
30 Problem based learning, both of which are often few underlying principles. They are both based on 30
31 abbreviated as PBL. For the purposes of this paper, self-direction and collaboration, have a multidisci- 31
32 Problem based learning will be abbreviated as pBL, plinary approach [9] and both are oriented around a 32
33 to avoid further confusion. The differences between driving question. However, they are only similar, 33
34 the two terms will be described in one of the not interchangeable. 34
35 following subsections. Burlaw [9] states that the essential difference is 35
36 that the project provides something to organize, 36
37 2.2 Defining characteristics investigate or accomplish, rather than to just stimu- 37
38 As it was mentioned in the previous subsection, the late thought. A project may also be a problem, a 38
39 focus of PBL and perhaps its most differing char- part of a problem or encompass problems and 39
40 acteristic separating it from traditional teaching simply being categorised as a project does not 40
41 methods is the use of ill-structured problems. Pro- necessarily carry with it additional merit over a 41
42 blems faced during education are often very differ- simple problem [9]. The second feature that differ- 42
43 ent from the ones faced during professional careers. entiates PBL from pBL is the construction of a 43
44 In class, students face mostly well-structured pro- concrete artefact, be it a draft of a design, a com- 44
45 blems which are convergent to a single solution, pleted design or even an end product [13]. 45
46 have a prescribed procedure on how to solve and Other authors [28] note that the differences lie in 46
47 have a defined set of skills needed to for the problem the fact that project tasks are closer to professional 47
48 to be accomplished. Ill-structured problems may reality, take a longer period of time and are more 48
49 contain several solutions and multiple paths to directed to the application of knowledge whereas 49
50 each solution [22]. They therefore require the devel- pBL is more directed to the acquisition of knowl- 50
51 opment of higher order thinking skills, such as edge. Regardless of those distinctions, since tea- 51
52 critical thinking and the skills to first identify and chers are inclined to argue what constitutes a 52
53 define the problem and set parameters of the pro- project and what does not [9], Douglass [29] sees 53
54 blem’s solution [23]. the classification of a given activity as a project or 54
55 Engineering students have even greater benefits problem something that teachers shouldn’t spend 55
56 from implementing PBL into their curricula, since it time on. 56
57 trains them for the tasks they will perform as For the purposes of the paper, even though the 57
 4 Matej Mihić and Ivica Završki

1 PBL and pBL themselves are not interchangeable, interdisciplinary learning [35]; PBL on a student 1
2 due to their similarities their perceived advantages competition [36]; and opinions of both teachers [37] 2
3 and disadvantages across the literature review will and students [37–39] on PBL courses they partici- 3
4 be viewed as applicable to both approaches. pated in are also current research topics in the field 4
5 of engineering education. 5
6 2.4 Recent PBL research 6
7 7
This section describes some of the recent research 3. The advantages and disadvantages of
8 8
9
topics in the field of project and problem based Project based learning 9
learning. Both Project- and Problem based learning
10 3.1 Advantages of PBL 10
are evolving continually, with new research being
11 11
conducted and published in conference proceedings To obtain a list of possible benefits of PBL and its
12 12
and journal articles. The field is so propulsive that advantages over traditional curricula, a literature
13 13
there are tens of thousands of bibliographical hits review was conducted. The initial search was con-
14 14
for the search term ‘‘Project based learning’’ on ducted through the Google Scholar search engine
15 15
major academic publisher databases such as Else- using ‘‘Project based learning’’ and ‘‘Problem based
16 16
vier [30], Taylor and Francis [31], Wiley [32], SAGE learning’’ as search terms. The search yielded a large
17 17
[33] and Springer [34]. Therefore, since this paper number of references citing the advantages and
18 18
investigates the advantages and disadvantages of disadvantages of PBL. After a certain number of
19 19
PBL in the context of an engineering project on reviewed bibliographic units, no new advantages or
20 20
engineering faculties the review was focused on disadvantages appeared and it was determined that
21 21
papers and other literature sources specialised in a sufficient number of advantages have been identi-
22 22
higher education in engineering. fied through the literature review.
23 23
The review has shown that most of the recent PBL Most of the advantages apply to students, with a
24 24
research includes: focusing on development of a total of 31 distinct advantages identified. To enable
25 25
particular skill or competence; describing processes a clearer overview, the advantages of Project based
26 26
of introducing PBL into a faculty course; and learning to students are listed in the format of a
27 27
comparison of traditional and PBL courses. How- table, along with the cited sources and presented in
28 28
ever, topics researched in this paper such as: PBL in Table 1. It is important to note that while the
29 29
30 30
Table 1. Advantages of PBL
31 31
32 Advantage Reference 32
33 Enhances critical thinking [27, 41, 42] 33
34 Enhances analytical thinking [41, 43] 34
35 Develops engineering thinking and intuition [25] 35
Promotes and encourages collaboration and teamwork [1, 4, 23, 40, 41, 44–46]
36 Increases communication skills [1, 4, 27, 41, 45] 36
37 Develops higher order thinking [1, 23, 46, 47] 37
38 Develops problem solving skills [1, 4, 23, 27, 41, 46] 38
Develops inquiry skills [23]
39 Develops data collecting skills [48] 39
40 Develops presenting skills [48] 40
41 Develops organization, time management and planning skills [45] 41
Teaches decision making [46]
42 Fosters creativity, and develops visual and fine arts skills [1, 27, 42] 42
43 Provides design experiences [24, 25, 45] 43
44 Provides knowledge application and contextualization of learning [1, 4, 13, 15, 46] 44
Provides knowledge transfer (from one context to another) [1, 49]
45 Has higher knowledge retention [46, 50] 45
46 Enables deeper and integrated understanding [15, 40] 46
47 Builds conceptual understanding [15, 27] 47
Combines the use of interdisciplinary knowledge in different forms [13]
48 Eliminates fragmented learning and makes connections between subject areas [47, 51] 48
49 Creates a flexible curriculum [51] 49
50 Enables ownership over, and control of the learning process [1, 13, 52] 50
Promotes self-directed learning [23, 41, 46]
51 Promotes independent learning [15, 40, 48] 51
52 Is developmentally appropriate/suited to individual needs of students [40, 48, 51, 53] 52
53 Enhances motivation and interest [1, 4, 15, 25, 48, 54] 53
Has higher student satisfaction than traditional curricula [55]
54 Develops work habits and discipline [42, 54] 54
55 Increases responsibility and introduces accountability to peers [25, 40, 54] 55
56 Makes students better informed about their profession and gives them a sense of belonging and [25] 56
identification with the faculty
57 57
 Professors’ and Students’ Perception of the Advantages and Disadvantages of Project Based Learning 5

1 advantages listed in Table 1 are primarily focused  Teacher’s content knowledge [27] and possible 1
2 on PBL, the cited literature in some cases attributes inability to supervise a project in their field [25]; 2
3 those advantages to pBL or to cornerstone courses.  Shift from the role of ‘‘provider of facts’’ to the 3
4 Since we have established similarities between PBL role of a mentor and facilitator of learning [58]; 4
5 and pBL in their core principles and guidelines the  Group grading and assessment [13, 56, 59], along 5
6 Authors conclude that same advantages (and con- with who should do the assessing [59], and 6
7 versely disadvantages) should apply to both. Simi- measuring the contribution of each team 7
8 larly, since cornerstone courses are PBL courses, member [13, 59]. 8
9 their advantages are at the same also the advantages 9
10 of PBL. Institutional and organizational challenges from 10
11 Advantages of PBL for the teachers, even though the literature review and the Authors’ personal 11
12 significant, are not as nearly as numerous as are the experience include: 12
13 advantages to students. Advantages discovered  PBL requires simultaneous changes in curricula 13
14 during the literature review include [40]: [60]; 14
15  Focus on a too large number of goals [25]; 15
16  The teacher may find the project based work  Raised cost of education [11]; 16
17 more enjoyable, interesting and motivating;  Possible problems with long term sustenance of 17
18  The teacher continually receives new ideas PBL courses [11]; 18
19 through supervising different projects every year  Faculty resistance to changes [4]; 19
20 with new groups of students and thus also becom-  Shortage of faculty members for implementing 20
21 ing a lifelong learner; such teaching methods; 21
22  Classroom management is simplified when stu-  Requirement of interest, cooperation and institu- 22
23 dents are interested and involved in the subject. tional support from various stakeholders in edu- 23
24 cation; 24
25 3.2 Disadvantages of PBL  Teacher may not be in contact with the industry 25
26 Disadvantages are generally less numerous than the and cannot transfer practical knowledge to stu- 26
27 advantages and are more related to teachers and dents. 27
28 faculty administration than to students. Student 28
29 centred disadvantages include higher time demands 4. Methodology 29
30 [25], less rigorous understanding of engineering 30
31 fundamentals [4], hierarchical knowledge structure Goal of the paper was to discover the most signifi- 31
32 [4] and problems with team members who give less cant advantages and disadvantages of PBL from the 32
33 effort in group work [4]. students’ and professors’ point of view. To that end, 33
34 Disadvantages not pertaining to students can be both students and their professors were questioned 34
35 divided into two groups: institutional and organisa- on their perception of PBL from their own personal 35
36 tional challenges, and teacher-centred disadvan- experience. Taking into account the difference in 36
37 tages. All disadvantage types were collected sample sizes of the two groups, it was chosen that 37
38 through the literature review using the same meth- since the student group is significantly larger, their 38
39 odology used for the advantages of PBL, as opinions will be collected via an online survey, and 39
40 described in the previous section. The institutional since the number of professors is smaller, it was 40
41 and organisational challenges, however, also more appropriate to conduct semi-structured inter- 41
42 include a few of the disadvantages the authors views. 42
43 themselves have encountered through their com- Students chosen to participate in the research 43
44 bined 30 years of experience in teaching in higher were participants in a student competition Solar 44
45 education, their experience on the project in ques- Decathlon Europe, and the professors (including 45
46 tion and through attempting to include PBL and the authors of this paper) were their mentors on the 46
47 aspects of PBL into curricula at the Faculty of Civil project. The project, called Concept MemBrain, 47
48 Engineering. included the design and construction of a prefabri- 48
49 Disadvantages of PBL related to teachers are: cated, smart, low-energy house and was the largest 49
50 student project in Croatia in recent years. There- 50
51  Time constraints for developing, implementing fore, their experience and the authors’ familiarity 51
52 and administrating PBL curricula [13, 27, 56]; with the project makes them most appropriate 52
53  Difficulties in planning and execution [27, 46] and respondents for this research. 53
54 increased effort in these activities [57]; This section will first give a brief overview of 54
55  Student’s lack of experience in more active learn- current application of Project based learning in 55
56 ing roles and their negative reactions to change the University of Zagreb’s technical faculties 56
57 [25, 27]; included in the research. Secondly, the section will 57
 6 Matej Mihić and Ivica Završki

1 describe the project itself and both the students’ and project, as they would in a project component type 1
2 the professors’ role in it, proving their relevance to PBL course. 2
3 take part in this research. Finally, the design of the 3
4 survey and the interviews will be described in their 4.2 Project background 4
5 respective subsections. The MemBrain [62] project was the prototype of a 5
6 smart, low-energy, prefabricated and modular 6
7 4.1 Current level of application of Project based wooden house designed and constructed exclusively 7
8 learning in University of Zagreb’s technical by the students from various faculties of University 8
9 faculties of Zagreb. The house was designed and built for the 9
10 Morgan [61] has described three general types of Solar Decathlon Europe [63] competition, an inter- 10
11 conducting Project based learning: project exercise, national competition in building passive, smart, 11
12 project component and project orientation. The first energy efficient and ecologically friendly houses. It 12
13 is the most traditional and has students applying the is a student competition whose goal is to educate 13
14 already acquired knowledge to practical problems. future engineers of the need for environmental 14
15 The second type features a PBL based course taught protection and as such requires that the all work is 15
16 in parallel to traditional course, while in the third carried out by students with support from their 16
17 type, the entire curriculum is project based. Techni- mentors and with institutional support from their 17
18 cal faculties included in the research are: Faculty of universities. 18
19 Civil Engineering, Faculty of Architecture, Faculty The house itself (shown in Fig. 1 (a)) has a bearing 19
20 of Electrical Engineering and Computing, and structure made of cross laminated timber floor and 20
21 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval roof slabs, and glued laminated timber columns and 21
22 Architecture. No faculty in University of Zagreb walls. North facing wall is made of wood and 22
23 included in this research features the third type, insulated with sheep wool, while the remaining 23
24 some feature the second type and all feature the walls consist of interior double-glazed and exterior 24
25 first type. triple-glazed glass panels. Heating, ventilation and 25
26 Almost all engineering focused courses in all four air conditioning system are comprised of an air to 26
27 faculties feature small elements of project based water heat pump, ventilation system and of phase- 27
28 learning in the form of a project task similar to the change materials. The roof houses photovoltaic 28
29 one they would perform in the real world. Project (PV) panels on a single axis tracker that is shaped 29
30 component type PBL is present in the Faculty of like an accordion and can extend and contract 30
31 Architecture as a mandatory course once per seme- depending on the angle of the Sun to maximise the 31
32 ster on the later years of study. Faculty of Mechan- energy producing efficiency. 32
33 ical Engineering and Naval Architecture and The spatial layout, as shown in the Fig. 1(b) is 33
34 Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computing defined by the distance between the load bearing 34
35 both feature project component type courses in columns which amounts to 1.2 meters. Total area of 35
36 some of the specialisations on the master pro- the house is 7.2  9.6 meters, with useful living area 36
37 gramme. Faculty of Civil Engineering does not being just over 60 m2. The house is modular and can 37
38 feature a project component type course in its be widened horizontally by adding more modules 38
39 curricula. The students can, however, choose to and/or vertically by adding up to three stories. One 39
40 focus their master thesis on a particular real world large open living place contains the bedroom, living 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 Fig. 1. (a) MemBrain house, South-East façade, (b) MemBrain house floor plan. 57
 Professors’ and Students’ Perception of the Advantages and Disadvantages of Project Based Learning 7

1 room and kitchen, while the bathroom and engine 4.4 Survey 1
2 rooms are separate rooms in the northern part of the The student team, through the two year duration of 2
3 house. the project, consisted of more than 60 students from 3
4 14 different faculties. The number has fluctuated 4
5 4.3 Research design 5
since some of the students graduated or could not
6 The research was conducted in stages phases. The participate further in the project for various rea- 6
7 first stage was the review of available literature on sons. During the final project stage, the team had 60 7
8 PBL with a specific focus on its advantages and members, of which, 42 were from engineering facul- 8
9 disadvantages to both students and the professors, ties. Those 42 students were asked to fill an online 9
10 as was described in the previous section. The second survey which consisted of 22 questions divided into 10
11 stage included a questionnaire survey sent out to the four categories: basic questions about the intervie- 11
12 students of Faculty of Civil Engineering, Faculty of wee, questions related to personal growth through 12
13 Architecture, the Faculty of Electrical Engineering the project, students’ opinions on PBL and their 13
14 and Computing, and the Faculty of Mechanical experiences with their mentors. 14
15 Engineering and Naval Architecture participating The questions were chosen to compare the stu- 15
16 in the MemBrain project. The third stage was partly dents’ view of PBL’s advantages and disadvantages 16
17 prompted by the students’ responses to the ques- to those found in the literature review, to determine 17
18 tionnaire survey and consisted of five interviews whether students have noticed the benefits and 18
19 with their mentors from the aforementioned facul- disadvantages of PBL themselves, what their per- 19
20 ties. ception on PBL itself is and to determine how well 20
21 The primary aim in collecting data is to maximise the mentors have managed in their new roles. 21
22 the amount and accuracy of transfer of meaning Overall, 18 students completed the survey, 22
23 from the respondent to the researcher with success making the response rate 42.9%. The survey was 23
24 depending on the appropriateness of the method originally conducted in Croatian language. 24
25 chosen [64]. Most common methods for gathering 25
26 data from respondents are surveys and interviews. 26
27 The surveys may give the answers to the researchers 4.5 Interview with the faculty members 27
28 predetermined questions, are easier to administer, Altogether, over 30 faculty members participated as 28
29 can be filled out by a larger number of respondents. faculty advisors (mentors) in the project, with how- 29
30 Moreover, their answers can be analysed in a more ever, extremely varying degree of involvement. Five 30
31 structured manner since the questions posed in the professors, who were mentors to their student teams 31
32 survey have precisely defined order, flow and possi- and were most involved in the project, were chosen 32
33 ble answers. They cannot, however, offer additional to be interviewed. They were the mentors of the 33
34 insight into the answers given. Interviews on the Architectural team, Construction management 34
35 other hand, enable the researcher to ask virtually team, Electrical engineering team, Mechanical engi- 35
36 any question and to steer the conversation into any neering team, and Structure and construction mate- 36
37 possible avenue of interest. The main disadvantage rials team. Due to a smaller number of respondents 37
38 is the time required to conduct the interview and a and more complex questions, a semi-structured 38
39 more complicated analysis of the answers. Both interview was chosen as the data gathering 39
40 methods have their merits, where surveys are more method. The interviews were, as well as the survey, 40
41 oriented to data gathering and interviews enable the conducted in the Croatian language. The interviews 41
42 transfer of meaning and additional background were recorded and the answers to interview ques- 42
43 information. A combination of both methods may tions were extracted from the recordings. The 43
44 therefore offer the benefits of having a larger data answers were given in such a way so that transcrib- 44
45 sample and an in-depth view of the researched topic. ing the interviews was not necessary. 45
46 A total of 42 students were identified as potential Along with the interview, the professors were also 46
47 respondents, and since conducting interviews is a asked to rank the advantages of PBL and the 47
48 more labour intensive task, a survey was chosen as barriers to PBL implementation using the ABC 48
49 the data gathering method. The professors chosen method. The ABC method is a type of multiple 49
50 to participate in the research were the student team criteria decision analysis where the respondents 50
51 mentors as they were the most qualified to both are asked to compare two by two alternatives and 51
52 assess the advantages and disadvantages of PBL determine which of each pair they deem is more 52
53 and to comment on the students’ answers. Such important. Each alternative has an assigned letter, 53
54 information could only be gathered through semi- and the respondents are asked to write the letter of 54
55 structured interviews. More detail on both the the more important alternative in the answer sheet. 55
56 survey and the interview is given in the following After all the individual comparisons have been 56
57 subsections. made, the occurrence of each letter is tallied and 57
 8 Matej Mihić and Ivica Završki

1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
8 8
9 9
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 Fig. 2. Answer sheet for the advantages of PBL. 21
22 22
23 23
24 the alternatives are ordered from most to least answers to the first set of questions (questions 1 24
25 significant based on the number of occurrence of through 11) which are related to the students’ 25
26 their assigned letters. An answer sheet for the ABC opinion of PBL’s influence on development of 26
27 method is shown in Fig. 2. various skills and competences. The students pre- 27
28 For this research, since the goal was to determine dominantly agree that PBL has improved their 28
29 the most significant advantages and disadvantages, teamwork skills, soft skills and has provided them 29
30 two separate ABC questionnaires were performed. with interdisciplinary knowledge and insight into 30
31 Due to the limitations of the method, it would not be the work of other professions, with only a small 31
32 practical to compare all the advantages listed in number neither agreeing nor disagreeing. Students 32
33 Table 1. Therefore, some similar advantages were however are in slightly less accord when it comes to 33
34 grouped together and some were excluded if they are the questions of development of critical thinking 34
35 covered by or implied by the ones included in the and engineering intuition, and particularly in regard 35
36 ABC method. Similarly, the same procedure was to increased motivation for studying. Since only 36
37 used for the disadvantages of PBL. 22.3% of the students disagree or strongly disagree, 37
38 the results are still in favour of PBL increasing the 38
39 5. Results and discussion motivation for studying, just not as much as would 39
40 be expected from the number of citations for that 40
41 5.1 Survey particular advantage. To a lesser extent, the same 41
42 As it was mentioned in the previous section, the can be stated for developing engineering intuition. 42
43 students’ answers were collected by a survey, while A large agreement is then again present for 43
44 the professors were interviewed. The survey ques- improving the sense of responsibility and informa- 44
45 tions were structured in such a way that the answers tion retrieval, with only a small number of respon- 45
46 could be given on a Likert scale where possible dents strongly disagreeing and neither agreeing nor 46
47 answers were: Strongly agree, Agree, Neither disagreeing, respectively. Unexpected answers, 47
48 agree nor disagree, Disagree and Strongly disagree. which may give raise to concern, were given for 48
49 The results, displayed in the results charts in Figs. 3 the last two questions presented in this chart. A 49
50 and 4, present the answers to each of the questions in reasonably large number of students believes that 50
51 percentages. A similar survey was already con- the knowledge gained during the project is not 51
52 ducted by the Authors [65], however with a smaller useful to their college classes. This may be the 52
53 survey sample. Somewhat unexpected results from projects fault, where the project itself had failed to 53
54 the first survey motivated the Authors to extend the provide meaningful knowledge, or the fault of the 54
55 research not only to a larger student population, but current curriculum which puts a larger emphasis on 55
56 also to their professors. theoretical instead of practical knowledge. Large 56
57 The first chart (shown in Fig. 3) contains the dissipation of answers to the last question may 57
 Professors’ and Students’ Perception of the Advantages and Disadvantages of Project Based Learning 9

1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
8 8
9 9
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
Fig. 3. Results chart #1, survey responses to first set of the questions.
22 22
23 23
24 perhaps be attributed to the fact that almost all working in the industry and that the knowledge 24
25 students were in their final years of study and their acquired in the project is more applicable to the 25
26 learning skills were already developed and relatively work in the industry than the knowledge acquired in 26
27 unchangeable. class. Moreover, students overwhelmingly believe 27
28 Similar results were found in the original survey that PBL classes wouldn’t be too time consuming 28
29 [65] by the Authors which in turn warranted further and would not result in worse basic engineering 29
30 investigation presented in this paper. knowledge. They also favourably look to increasing 30
31 Answers to the second set of questions are pre- the number of PBL courses in engineering curricula. 31
32 sented in the second chart (Fig. 4). As in the previous The perception of knowledge gained through 32
33 chart, most results are favourable to PBL, while traditional and PBL courses is covered by four 33
34 others raise cause for further investigation. Students questions through which the students’ perception 34
35 therefore agree that PBL better prepares them for of traditional courses seems worrisome. A signifi- 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
39 39
40 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
44 44
45 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 Fig. 4. Results chart #2, survey responses to second set of the questions. 57
 10 Matej Mihić and Ivica Završki

1 cant number believes that the knowledge acquired in fact the mentors were waiting for the students to 1
2 in class is not applicable to their work on the project come to them with questions and problems to 2
3 and their future work in the industry. To a lesser answer and solve. 3
4 extent, some respondents also believe that knowl- Students received help from their mentors in 4
5 edge gained through the project is inapplicable to many different forms, however most commonly it 5
6 their further education. These results could be was the consultations about specific issues the 6
7 interpreted as disappointment with traditional students faced. Some of the mentors have granted 7
8 learning methods, or worse, complete dissatisfac- the use of laboratories and other faculty resources, 8
9 tion with the current curricula. participated in fundraising activities, made intro- 9
10 Students also had surprising opinions on their ductions and given contact to the relevant experts in 10
11 mentors in the project. While they are generally the industry and academia. It therefore seems that 11
12 satisfied with the mentors’ knowledge of subject the mentors have helped the students to the best of 12
13 matter, they are mostly neither satisfied nor dissa- their abilities, however, only in what was asked of 13
14 tisfied with the help they received. Those questions them since the students were the ones driving both 14
15 prompted the Authors to question the mentors on the project and the learning process. 15
16 their view of their relationship with the students and Mentors, on the other hand, were extremely all 16
17 their view on Project based learning. satisfied with their students. They are extremely 17
18 satisfied with what they were able to accomplish, 18
19 5.2 Interview with the knowledge they gained during the project 19
20 For the interview portion of the research five and the previously gained knowledge (at the earlier 20
21 mentors were interviewed, each one a main years of study) applied to the work on the project. 21
22 mentor to a student team. Two mentors are profes- Again, this is in contradiction to the belief of some 22
23 sors at the Faculty of Civil Engineering, while the students that the knowledge gained through tradi- 23
24 remaining three are professors at the Faculty of tional classes is not applicable to the work on the 24
25 Architecture, the Faculty of Electrical Engineering project and it the industry. The answer perhaps lies 25
26 and Computing, and the Faculty of Mechanical in different perceptions of what is and isn’t useful, 26
27 Engineering and Naval Architecture, altogether particularly since most students do not have prac- 27
28 from the University of Zagreb. Interview questions tical working experience and cannot accurately 28
29 were mostly related to the unexpected results of the judge what knowledge will be useful and when. 29
30 survey conducted amongst the students, particu- Remaining questions were related to the men- 30
31 larly their relationship with the students. They tors’ opinion on PBL and its implementation in 31
32 were also questioned about their experience with engineering curricula on their respective faculties. 32
33 and opinions about PBL. Lastly, they were given a All agree that it should be implemented, since it is a 33
34 questionnaire on the advantages and disadvantages learning method, equal to all others. Some knowl- 34
35 of PBL, where they were asked to rank them using edge and skills are gained through traditional 35
36 the ABC method. lectures, some in the laboratories, on the field or 36
37 Firstly, the mentors were asked how they became by independent work and each teaching method is 37
38 involved with the project. Most of them were asked more or less appropriate for a certain aspect. Since 38
39 to participate by the students themselves because of PBL is a learning method with no prerequisite 39
40 their previous collaboration in class or other student student experience needed it some interviewees 40
41 projects. Only one of the mentors was asked to consider that it can be applied as early as it is 41
42 participate by the University vice-chancellor. All feasible, bearing in mind that not all courses are 42
43 of the interviewees have said that their involvement suited to be taught by PBL. Other mentors believe 43
44 with the project was not time consuming or difficult, that PBL should only implemented on later years 44
45 even those without previous experience with project of study when the students already have some 45
46 based learning. They spent as much time as the engineering knowledge and now need to focus on 46
47 students needed them to, with varying intensity learning its application. There is no concern among 47
48 through the project phases. Some mentors were the interviewees that the students would have less 48
49 most involved in the design phase, while others in rigorous understanding of engineering fundamen- 49
50 the preconstruction phase. A potential discord may tals. 50
51 have arisen from the fact that the students were not As for the frequency, it should be carefully 51
52 prepared for this type of learning, since it wasn’t up weighed in the context of other existing courses 52
53 to the professors to constantly monitor their pro- and the ECTS system present in most of the 53
54 gress and give them assignments, but up to students European higher education system. There is no 54
55 themselves to determine the activities needed to be general consensus on how many and how often 55
56 carried out. Students may have therefore had an should students be exposed to PBL focused classes 56
57 impression of a lesser professor involvement, when with answers ranging from only once on graduate 57
 Professors’ and Students’ Perception of the Advantages and Disadvantages of Project Based Learning 11

1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
8 8
9 9
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 Fig. 5. Answer sheet for the disadvantages of PBL. 15
16 16
17 17
18 level, to as once per year, or as much as it needed to indeed have a small sample size but should however 18
19 most benefits the students. still be indicative of a general view of PBL from the 19
20 professors’ point of view. To gain more comprehen- 20
21 5.3 Advantages and disadvantages questionnaire sive results, the research should be expanded to 21
22 For the last part of the interview the professors include a larger number of participants. 22
23 were asked to rate the advantages and disadvan- Results will be shown in a series of tables which 23
24 tages of PBL based on their importance using the will feature the letters assigned to individual 24
25 ABC method, whose results will be summarised advantages and disadvantages. The assigned letters 25
26 and discussed in this subsection. A total of 5 can most appropriately be shown in the examples 26
27 professors have completed the questionnaire of the answer sheets. Answer sheet for the advan- 27
28 regarding the advantages of PBL and only 3 have tages was already shown in the previous section in 28
29 completed the disadvantages questionnaire. Of the Fig. 2 and the answer sheet for disadvantages is 29
30 remaining two, who could not complete the ques- shown in Fig. 5. 30
31 tionnaire due to other obligations, one did however First, the tables containing the results from each 31
32 indicate that the most significant disadvantages of the respondents will be shown for both the 32
33 were the possible lack of professor’s contact with advantages and disadvantages (Table 2 and 33
34 the industry, the role shift from the ‘‘provider of Table 3). Afterwards, the results will be tallied for 34
35 facts’’ to mentor, faculty resistance to changes, and each of the advantages and disadvantages, and 35
36 the requirement of interest, cooperation and insti- ordered by frequency of occurrence, from most to 36
37 tutional support from various relevant stake- least often mentioned. The aggregate scores are 37
38 holders in education. shown in Table 4. 38
39 This fragment of the presented research does The results are interesting since the first four 39
40 40
41 41
Table 2. ABC method results for the advantages of PBL
42 42
43 Advantage: A B C D E F G H I J K L M 43
44 Prof. #1 1 4 6 2 6 1 6 8 10 8 12 3 11 44
45 Prof. #2 4 7 6 9 6 2 7 6 5 10 8 2 6 45
46 Prof. #3 5 9 3.5 4 10.5 10 0 12 1.5 4 6 7 5.5 46
Prof. #4 2 6 6 1 6 1 6 6 8 9 12 4 11
47 Prof. #5 4 12 3 7 9 9 9 0 5 5 0 10 5 47
48 Total: 16 38 24.5 23 37.5 23 28 32 29.5 36 38 26 38.5 48
49 49
50 50
51 Table 3. ABC method results for the disadvantages of PBL 51
52 52
53 Disadvantage: A B C D E F G H I J K 53
54 Prof. #1 5 3 4 1 0 5 8 6 10 4 9 54
55 Prof. #2 3 5 2 0 1 6 5 9 10 8 6 55
Prof. #3 5 2 0 3 7 5 10 1 8 9 5
56 56
Total: 13 10 6 4 8 16 23 16 28 21 20
57 57
 12 Matej Mihić and Ivica Završki

1 Table 4. Aggregate scores of PBL’s advantages and disadvantages 1

2 Rank Advantage Score Rank Disavantage Score 2
3 3
1 M 38.5 1 I 28
4 2 B 38 2 G 23
4
5 3 K 38 3 J 21 5
6 4 E 37.5 4 K 20 6
5 J 36 5 F 16
7 6 H 32 6 H 16
7
8 7 I 29.5 7 A 13 8
9 8 G 28 8 B 10 9
9 L 26 9 E 8
10 10 C 24.5 10 C 6
10
11 11 D 23 11 D 4 11
12 12 F 23 12
13 A 16
13 13
14 14
15 15
16 rated advantages are all similarly scored, with only research into this area could use the same metho- 16
17 one point between the first and fourth rated advan- dology presented in the paper on a larger sample. 17
18 tage. These most important advantages from the 18
19 professors’ point of view are, from first to fourth 6. Conclusion 19
20 place: design experiences, increased motivation, 20
21 development of engineering thinking, and knowl- Objective of the research presented in this paper was 21
22 edge application and contextualisation. Least to determine what are the professors’ and students’ 22
23 important advantage, according to the respon- perceptions of PBL and more specifically their 23
24 dents, is the student control and ownership over perceptions of its advantages and disadvantages. 24
25 the learning process, while the rest are evenly For this purpose, a comprehensive literature review 25
26 distributed with approximately 2 points between was carried out, through which the Authors identi- 26
27 each. The results can help determine which aspects fied and synthesized a large number of potential 27
28 of PBL should be focused on the most, especially if advantages and disadvantages. Research was then 28
29 only small and incremental changes to the curricu- continued in two distinct phases. First, the students 29
30 lum are possible. It would therefore be optimal to were questioned about their experience with PBL 30
31 first include those advantages of PBL which have and their perception of PBL. Secondly, after review- 31
32 the most benefit for the students. Other advantages ing the students’ answers, interviews with five of the 32
33 could be introduced at a later stage when PBL has mentors were conducted to gain further insight on 33
34 been proven as successful to gradually phase out PBL from their point of view. 34
35 some of the traditionally held courses. This research has shown that students mostly 35
36 Disadvantages show which of the potential pro- acknowledge all of the benefits of PBL. Their 36
37 blems are most severe and should be dealt with to responses to questions related to the usefulness of 37
38 enable the implementation of PBL and which traditional courses and their relative dissatisfaction 38
39 should perhaps be modified to improve PBL with mentors were however somewhat surprising. 39
40 itself. This research has shown that by far the The final stage of the research, the interview, has 40
41 most significant disadvantage is the shortage of produced a ranking of advantages and disadvan- 41
42 faculty members while other important disadvan- tages of PBL, presented the mentors’ view on the 42
43 tages are faculty resistance to changes, requirement project and provided possible clarifications of stu- 43
44 of interest cooperation and institutional support dents’ dissatisfaction. 44
45 and hierarchical knowledge structure. Least impor- Research findings from this paper may be used to 45
46 tant are the professors inability to supervise the determine which aspects of PBL are most suited for 46
47 project and difficulties with group grading. As well engineering education and conversely, which 47
48 as with the advantages, it would be optimal to should be focused on the most. Moreover, if the 48
49 focus first on the most significant disadvantages present curriculum is already well defined with not 49
50 to enable implementation of PBL courses as fast as enough room for full implementation of PBL, the 50
51 it would be feasible. findings may be used to determine which aspects to 51
52 The most significant limitation of the conducted implement in order to gain maximum positive effect 52
53 research is the sample size. While there arguably on students’ knowledge and skills. On the other 53
54 may be enough respondents to the survey to be able hand, it is useful to know which disadvantages 54
55 to form meaningful conclusions, not enough pro- and barriers to implementation are the most sig- 55
56 fessors were interviewed and asked to complete the nificant and which need to be overcome first to 56
57 ABC method questionnaire. Therefore, further enable PBL implementation. 57
 Professors’ and Students’ Perception of the Advantages and Disadvantages of Project Based Learning 13

1 21. J. W. Thomas, J. R. Mergendoller and A. Michaelson, 1

2 References Project Based Learning: A Handbook for Middle and High
2
School Teachers, Buck Institute for Education, Novato, CA,
3 1. J. R. Morgan, A. M. Moon and L. R. Barroso, Engineering 1999. 3
4 Better Projects, In R.M. Capraro, M.M. Capraro and J.R. 22. C. Chin and L.-G. Chia, Problem-based learning: Using ill- 4
Morgan (eds), STEM Project-Based Learning: An Integrated structured problems in biology project work, Science Educa-
5 Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics tion, 90(1), 2006, pp. 44–67.
5
6 (STEM) Approach, Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, 2013, 23. S. Özel, W3 of Project-Based Learning, In R.M. Capraro, 6
7 pp. 29–39. M.M. Capraro and J.R. Morgan (eds), STEM Project-Based 7
2. R. M. Kanter, The new managerial work, Harvard Bus. Rev., Learning: An Integrated Science, Technology, Engineering,
8 89(6), 1989, pp. 85–92. and Mathematics (STEM) Approach, Sense Publishers,
8
9 3. C. Handy, The Age of Unreason, Arrow Business Books, 1995. Rotterdam, 2013, pp. 41–49. 9
10 4. J. Mills and D. Treagust, Engineering education—Is pro- 24. M. Frank, Engineering Systems Thinking—Characteristics 10
blem-based or project-based learning the answer?, Australa- and Learning Processes, Department of Education in Tech-
11 sian Journal of Engineering Education, 3(2), 2003, p. 15. nology and Science, Technion—Israel Institute of Technol-
11
12 5. P. S. Chinowsky, H. Brown, A. Szajnman and A. Realph, ogy, Haifa, Israel, 1999. 12
13 Developing Knowledge Landscapes through Project-Based 25. M. Frank, I. Lavy and D. Elata, Implementing the Project- 13
Learning, Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Edu- Based Learning Approach in an Academic Engineering
14 cation and Practice, 132(2), 2006, pp. 118–124. Course, International Journal of Technology and Design
14
15 6. A. J. Dutson, R. H. Todd, S. P. Magleby and C. D. Sorensen, Education, 13(3), 2003, pp. 273–288. 15
16 A Review of Literature on Teaching Engineering Design 26. S. W. Slough and J. O. Milam, Theoretical Framework for 16
Through Project-Oriented Capstone Courses, Journal of the Design of STEM Project-Based Learning, In R.M.
17 Engineering Education, 86(1), 1997, pp. 17–28. Capraro, M.M. Capraro and J.R. Morgan (eds), STEM
17
18 7. National Science Foundation, Systemic Engineering Educa- Project-Based Learning: An Integrated Science, Technology, 18
19 tion Reform: An Action Agenda, National Science Founda- Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Approach, Sense 19
tion, NSF98-27, 1997. Publishers, Rotterdam, 2013, pp. 15–27.
20 8. Wingspread Conference, Quality assurance in undergraduate 27. M. M. Capraro and M. Jones, Interdisciplinary Stem Pro-
20
21 education: What the public expects, Education Commission ject-Based Learning, In R.M. Capraro, M.M. Capraro and 21
22 of the States, Denver, CO, 1994. J.R. Morgan (eds), STEM Project-Based Learning: An 22
9. L. M. Burlbaw, M. J. Ortwein and J. K. Williams, The Integrated Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathe-
23 Project Method in Historical Context, In R.M. Capraro, matics (STEM) Approach, Sense Publishers, Rotterdam,
23
24 M.M. Capraro and J.R. Morgan (eds), STEM Project-Based 2013, pp. 51-58. 24
25 Learning: An Integrated Science, Technology, Engineering, 28. J. C. Perrenet, P. A. J. Bouhuijs and J. G. M. M. Smits, The 25
and Mathematics (STEM) Approach, Sense Publishers, Suitability of Problem-based Learning for Engineering Edu-
26 Rotterdam, 2013, pp. 7–14. cation: Theory and practice, Teaching in Higher Education, 26
27 10. M. Knoll, Project method: its vocational education origin 5(3), 2000, pp. 345–358. 27
28 and international development, Journal of Industrial Teacher 29. H. R. Douglass, Modern Methods in High School Teaching, 28
Education, 34(3), 1997, p. 21. Houghton Mifflin, Cambridge, MA, 1926.
29 11. C. L. Dym, A. M. Agogino, O. Eris, D. D. Frey and L. J. 30. Elsevier—search results: Project based learning, http:// 29
30 Leifer, Engineering Design Thinking, Teaching, and Learn- www.sciencedirect.com/search?qs=Project+based+learning 30
31 ing, Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 2005, pp. 103– &authors=&pub=&volume=&issue=&page=&origin=home 31
120. &zone=qSearch, 09 June 2017.
32 12. K. L. Wood, D. Jensen, J. Bezdek and K. N. Otto, Reverse 31. Taylor and Francis—search results: Project based learning, 32
33 Engineering and Redesign: Courses to Incrementally and http://www.tandfonline.com/action/doSearch?AllField=Project 33
34 Systematically Teach Design, Journal of Engineering Educa- +based+learning, 09 June 2017. 34
tion, 90(3), 2001, pp. 363–374. 32. Wiley—search results: Project based learning, http://online-
35 13. L. Helle, P. Tynjälä and E. Olkinuora, Project-Based Learn- library.wiley.com/advanced/search/results, 09 June 2017. 35
36 ing in Post-Secondary Education—Theory, Practice and 33. SAGE—search results: Project based learning, http:// 36
37 Rubber Sling Shots, High. Educ., 51(2), 2006, pp. 287–314. journals.sagepub.com/action/doSearch?AllField=project+ 37
14. G. Baş, Investigating the effects of project-based learning on based+learning, 09 June 2017.
38 students’ academic achievement and attitudes toward Eng- 34. Springer—search results: Project based learning, http:// 38
39 lish lesson, The Online Journal of New Horizons in Education, www.springer.com/gp/search?query=project+based+learning 39
40 1(4), 2011, p. 15. &submit=Submit+Query, 09 June 2017. 40
15. S. Bell, Project-Based Learning for the 21st Century: Skills 35. H.-P. Yueh, Y.-L. Liu and W. Lin, Fostering interdisciplin-
41 for the Future, The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational ary learning in a smart living technology course through a 41
42 Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 83(2), 2010, pp. 39–43. PBL approach, International Journal of Engineering Educa- 42
43 16. P. C. Blumenfeld, E. Soloway, R. W. Marx, J. S. Krajcik, M. tion, 31(1), 2015, pp. 220–228. 43
Guzdial and A. Palincsar, Motivating Project-Based Learn- 36. J. G. Prada, A. Lopez de Sabando, R. Anton and M.
44 ing: Sustaining the Doing, Supporting the Learning, Educa- Martinez-Iturralde, An Analysis of Soft Skills Development 44
45 tional Psychologist, 26(3–4), 1991, pp. 369–398. of A Formula-Student (SAE) Team, International Journal of 45
46 17. Y.-H. Liu, S.-J. Lou, R.-C. Shih, H.-J. Meng and C.-P. Lee, Engineering Education, 31(1), 2015, pp. 209–219. 46
A Case Study of Online Project-Based Learning: The Beer 37. L. Liu, C. Deng and Z. Li, Reconfigurable Computing
47 King Project, International Journal of Technology in Teaching System: A Project-Based Course for Graduate Students 47
48 & Learning, 6(1), 2010, p. 15. International Journal of Engineering Education, 33(2A), 48
49 18. M. Kubiatko and I. Vaculova, Project-based learning: char- 2017, pp. 622–628. 49
acteristic and the experiences with application in the science 38. J. Jordana Barnils and F. J. Sánchez Robert, A course on
50 subjects, Energy Education Science and Technology Part digital electronics based on solving design-oriented exercises 50
51 B-Social and Educational Studies, 3(1), 2011, p. 10. by means of a PBL strategy, International Journal of Engi- 51
19. R. Walters and T. Sirotiak, Assessing the effect of project neering Education, 31(1(B)), 2015, pp. 238–247.
52 based learning on leadership abilities and communication
52
39. B. Dahl, J. E. Holgaard, H. Hüttel and A. Kolmos, Students’
53 skills, 47th ASC Annual International Conference, Omaha, Experiences of Change in a PBL Curriculum, International 53
54 NE., 2011. Journal of Engineering Education, 2016. 54
20. B. F. Jones, M. C. Moffitt and C. M. Rasmussen, Real-life 40. J. Krajcik, C. Czerniak and C. Berger, Teaching Science: A
55 problem solving a collaborative approach to interdisciplinary
55
Project-Based Approach, McGraw-Hill College, New York,
56 learning, American Psychological Association, Washington, 1999. 56
57 D.C., 1997. 41. R. M. Capraro and S. W. Slough, Why PBL? Why STEM? 57
 14 Matej Mihić and Ivica Završki

1 Why now? an Introduction to STEM Project-Based Learn- 53. J. M. Low and S. Wanda, Letting Go—Allowing First- 1
ing, In R. M. Capraro, M. M. Capraro and J. R. Morgan Graders to Become Autonomous Learners, Young Children,
2 (eds), STEM Project-Based Learning: An Integrated Science, 51(1), 1995, p. 85.
2
3 Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) 54. Y. Doppelt, Implementation and Assessment of Project- 3
4 Approach, Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, 2013, pp. 1–5. Based Learning in a Flexible Environment, International 4
42. R. Tretten and P. Zachariou, Learning about project based Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13(3), 2003,
5 learning: Assessment of project based learning in Tinkertech pp. 255–272.
5
6 schools, The Autodesk Foundation, San Rafael, California, 55. G. R. Norman and H. G. Schmidt, Effectiveness of problem- 6
7 1995. based learning curricula: theory, practice and paper darts, 7
43. J. Boaler, Mathematics for the moment, or the millennium?, Medical Education, 34(9), 2000, pp. 721–728.
8 Education Week, 18(29), 1999, p. 5. 56. R. W. Marx, P. C. Blumenfeld, J. Krajcik and E. Soloway,
8
9 44. E. Christophersen, P. S. Coupe, R. J. Lenschow and J. Enacting project-based science: Challenges for practice and 9
10 Townson, Evaluation of Civil and Construction Engineering policy citation, The Elementary School Journal, 97(4), 1997, 10
Education in Denmark, Centre for Quality Assurance and p. 18.
11 Evaluation of Higher Education in Denmark, Copenhagen, 57. L. G. Richards and S. Carlson-Skalak, Faculty Reactions to
11
12 Denmark, 1994. Teaching Engineering Design to First Year Students, Journal 12
13 45. W. C. Oakes, L. H. Jamieson and E. J. Coyle, EPICS: of Engineering Education, 86(3), 1997, pp. 233–240. 13
Meeting EC 2000 Through Service-Learning, American 58. A. M. Hill, Reconstructionism in Technology Education,
14 Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & International Journal of Technology and Design Education,
14
15 Exposition, 2001. 7(1–2), 1997, pp. 121–139. 15
16 46. J. W. Thomas, A review of research on Project-Based Learn- 59. W. Kilpatrik, Dangers and Difficulties of the Project Method 16
ing, San Rafael, CA, 2000. and How to Overcome Them: I. Introductory Statement:
17 47. L. Ivanitskaya, D. Clark, G. Montgomery and R. Primeau, Definition of Terms, Teachers College Record, 22(4), 1921,
17
18 Interdisciplinary Learning: Process and Outcomes, Innova- p. 8. 18
19 tive Higher Education, 27(2), 2002, pp. 95–111. 60. B. J. S. Barron, D. L. Schwartz, N. J. Vye, et al., Doing With 19
48. N. Orevi and R. Dannon, Learning Ecology with Educa- Understanding: Lessons From Research on Problem- and
20 tional Technologies, International Workshop on Science Project-Based Learning, Journal of the Learning Sciences,
20
21 Teachers Education toward the New Millenium, Haifa, 7(3–4), 1998, pp. 271–311. 21
22 Israel, 1999. 61. A. Morgan, Theoretical Aspects of Project-Based Learning 22
49. J. D. Bransford, A. L. Brown and R. R. Cocking, How People in Higher Education, British Journal of Educational Technol-
23 Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School: Expanded ogy, 14(1), 1983, pp. 66–78.
23
24 Edition, National Academy Press, Washington, 1999. 62. MemBrain, http://www.membrain.com.hr/en, 10.09. 2016. 24
25 50. F. Dochy, M. Segers, P. Van den Bossche and D. Gijbels, 63. Solar Decathlon Europe, http://www.solardecathlon2014.fr/ 25
Effects of problem-based learning: a meta-analysis, Learning en/, 10.09. 2016.
26 and Instruction, 13(5), 2003, pp. 533–568. 64. R. F. Fellows and A. M. M. Liu, Research Methods for 26
27 51. A. Hall, Using social studies as a basis for interdisciplinary Construction, Wiley, 2015. 27
28 teaching, State of Reading, 2(1), 1995, p. 6. 65. M. Mihić and I. Završki, Project based learning in an 28
52. T. Duffy and D. Cunningham, Constructivism: Implications interdisciplinary engineering project—project MemBrain,
29 for the design and delivery of instruction, In D. H. Jonassen 12th international conference organization, technology 29
30 (ed), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and management in construction, Primošten, Croatia, 30
31 and Technology, Simon and Schuster, 1996, pp. 170–198. 2015, p. 11. 31
32 32
33 Matej Mihić is a PhD Student at the Faculty of Civil Engineering University of Zagreb. He received his MSc in Civil 33
34 Engineering in 2012 from the same Faculty, where he works as a research and teaching assistant. His previous research 34
works include topics of Integrated Project Delivery, Project based learning, Business Process management and his current
35 35
research is focused on Building Information Modelling and Health and Safety. Most of his teaching experience is with
36 traditional teaching methods in many different fields of construction management, with some experience in PBL as well.
36
37 37
38 Ivica Završki, PhD is a tenured professor at the Faculty of Civil Engineering University of Zagreb. He received his PhD in 38
39 1999 on the topic of construction worker productivity modelling. Since then his research interest included a broad scope of 39
40 topics in the field of construction and project management. His extensive teaching experience includes 30 years of 40
41 undergraduate and graduate teaching, and over 10 years of postgraduate mentoring. Under his supervision over 90 41
42 graduate and undergraduate students have written their theses and he was a supervisor to four PhD candidates who have 42
43 successfully obtained their PhDs. Along with his experience in traditional teaching methods, he also has significant 43
44 experience in Project based learning. Another teaching aspect in his career is his involvement in national lifelong learning 44
45 programmes for civil engineers. 45
46 46
47 47
48 48
49 49
50 50
51 51
52 52
53 53
54 54
55 55
56 56
57 57

View publication stats