Main Features of Project-based Learning

As one of the constructivist approaches, project-based learning has some characteristic features which distinguish it from traditional lecture based approach, and, to some extent, from other

constructivist approaches.

2.1.2.1 Problem Orientation

Problem orientation is generally believed to be one of the distinctive features of project-based learning (Blumenfeld et al., 1991; Helle et al., 2006), and the use of problems as the driver of activities is also one decided difference between project-based learning and traditional/conventional activities in which students learn information without a driving question (Blumenfeld et al., 1991). In some definitions listed above, it can be found that tasks replace problems, so it is necessary to differentiate the two terms: tasks and problems.

1) Task and problem

By comparison, the term tasks is more general than problems in that tasks are regarded to be “the basic instructional unit in classrooms” (Blumenfeld et al., 1991). Blumenfeld et al. (1991) classified tasks into low-level tasks and high-level tasks: the former refers to low-level facts and skills, which “afford students few opportunities to represent knowledge in a variety of ways, pose and solve real problems, or use their knowledge to create artifacts”; the latter means “more cognitively complex tasks, which provide opportunities for solving real problems”.

In project-based learning, problems are used to organize and drive activities in that students are placed in realistic, contextualized problem solving environments and investigate and seek solutions to problems. Thus, the problems used in project-based learning should fall into the category of high-level tasks.

In project-based learning, one key principle is that the outcomes of the problems should not be predetermined so that students could be left with sufficient room to develop their own approaches to the problem solutions (Blumenfeld et al., 1991). This principle reflects the nature of the problems encountered by professionals which is often ill-defined and wicked with multiple, non-guaranteed solutions (Helle et al., 2006; Ormerod, 2005; Schraw et al., 1995). Thus, in project-based learning, the problems should be open-ended so that students can take some responsibility for designing their own studies and construct their knowledge in this

process (Blumenfeld et al., 1991; Morgan, 1984).

2) The issue of real/authentic problems

Concerning the issue of real problems in project-based learning, there are also some related arguments. First, benefits in using real problems have been discussed from different perspectives.

Savery and Duffy (1995) emphasized that “problems must be real” from the perspective of student engagement and motivation: “real problems tend to engage learners more” because “there is a large context of familiarity with the problem”, and “students want to know the outcome of the problem”.

Blumenfeld et al. (1991) argued this issue from the perspective of knowledge construction: “learners construct knowledge by solving complex problems in situations in which they use cognitive tools, multiple sources of information and other individuals as resources”. Helle et al. (2006) expressed the similar opinion by holding that “getting students to solve real life problems during their studies, and to reflect in action and on action, presumably promotes the important process of knowledge restructuring for the development of expertise.”

Prince and Felder (2006) analyzed the benefits of real problems from the perspective of knowledge and skill transfer: cognition research showed “the likelihood that knowledge and skills acquired in one course will transfer to real work settings is a function of the similarity of the two environments”. Therefore, “organizing learning around authentic problems, projects and cases help improve the likelihood of subsequent transfer”.

However, how authentic the problem should be is still a vague issue. As Heywood (2005) observed, the extent of the authenticity varies in real teaching practice due to people’s different preferences or the constraints of environments. Barab et al. (2000) also pointed out that authenticity “is most often poorly defined and definitely lacks a solid base of empirical research”. Likewise, Blumenfeld et al. (1991) found that there is “little systematic empirical

information about what problems students actually found valuable, interesting, or useful enough to work for long period”. Furthermore, “because students are open to explore all dimension of the problem, there is real difficulty of creating a rich problem with a consistent set of information” (Savery and Duffy, 1995).

Honebein et al. (1993) and Savery and Duffy (1995) suggested using the authentic learning environment to settle this problem. They defined the authentic learning environment at cognitive level and argued that “an authentic learning environment is one in which the cognitive demands, ie. the thinking required, are consistent with the cognitive demands in the environment for which we are preparing the learner”, thus the learner should be provided with the scientific activities which “present the same type of cognitive challenges”. However, learners’ cognitive demands are hard to quantify and to measure as well, thus difficult for practitioners to implement in project-based learning.

2.1.2.2 An end or final product

In project-based learning, a concrete final product which addresses the driving question is always required. It could be written work like essays or reports, oral work like presentations, or hands-on artifacts.

This feature of project-based learning is regarded as one of the differences between project-based learning and problem-based learning in that the latter does not necessarily require an end product or a clear and bound solution (Savin-Baden, 2003).

Concerning the function of the final product in project-based learning process, Helle et al. (2006) argued from the cognitive perspective that “the concrete artifact can serve as a boundary object facilitating continuous task-oriented interaction among students and teachers or among peers”. In addition, the process of learning while preparing the product can “serve to prevent the formation of misconceptions” (Blumenfeld et al., 1991). Furthermore, artifacts can be “rich enough to promote both depth and breadth of knowledge in their creation as well as demonstrate student mastery of the content” (Blumenfeld et al., 1991).

A boundary object is a concept in sociology to describe information used in different ways by different communities. This idea was introduced by Star, J.R. in 1989.

2.1.2.3 Student centredness in the learning process

Student centred learning can be said to be a key feature of the constructivist learning and teaching approaches, especially project-based learning, problem-based learning and other enquiry based methods of learning (Brown, 2004; Helle et al., 2006). Brown (2004) summarized three essential features of student centred learning: freedom of choice, students’ responsibility for their own learning and the creation of a supportive environment in which students can develop their potential. Thus, compared with students in the traditional lecture-based teaching environment, students in student centred learning environment have more control of their learning by having more free choices and more responsibilities, and the role of teachers is to guide and facilitate learning with less control over students.

Student-centredness is generally believed to be a strength of project-based learning as well as other similar constructivist approaches (Helle et al., 2006). Brown (2004) held that student-centred learning is distinct from teacher-centred learning in that the emphasis of the former is on the student as a person to develop while the emphasis of the latter is on the student as an individual to train. Such distinction reflects the humanistic point of view in education which aims at the development of the whole person, that is, both feelings and knowledge of learners are regarded as important in the learning process.

In project-based learning, students have the opportunity to “exercise choice and control regarding what to work on, how to work, and what products to generate” (Blumenfeld et al., 1991). Seen from the cognitive perspective, choice and control are critical to enhance students’ motivation in their learning (Blumenfeld et al., 1991; Deci and Ryan, 1987; Lepper, 1988), and learner control also provides students with the opportunity to utilise their prior knowledge and experience (Helle et al., 2006; Prince and Felder, 2006).