2.1 PROJECT-BASED LEARNING
2.1.3 Types of Projects
As Heyhood (2005) observed, there are various ways of classifying [engineering] projects, but no one is entirely satisfactory. The reason, the author believes, might be that different classifications are made from different perspectives.
2.1.3.1 Classification by Individual and Group/team
In project-based learning, projects can mean individual projects or group projects. However, most of the recent research focuses on projects which are group-based. A major reason for this is the increasing social demand for graduates’ teamwork ability (Heywood, 2005).
In group projects, the team size varies from project to project and ranges from 2 students to the entire class, with group sizes of three, four and five most frequently mentioned in literature (Duston et al., 1997; Helle et al., 2006) It is argued that small teams may “run the risk of losing a large portion of its task force if one student drops the class”, while large groups may have the problem that some members do not contribute to the project (Duston et al., 1997) Generally speaking, it is believed that groups of 2-5 students are feasible for most purposes (Helle et al., 2006).
2.1.3.2 Classification by the Aim of Project
The aim of projects can be different. It is usually to “enable students to apply knowledge and techniques already acquired to an academic issue in a subject area already familiar to them”. This type of project usually represents the most traditional or conventional kind of independent activity in British universities, which Morgan termed as “project exercise” (Morgan, 1984, p222).
The aim of projects can also be broaden to “develop problem-solving abilities and a capacity for independent work”. This type of project, which Morgan termed as “project component”, is usually of interdisciplinary nature, and “does not necessarily build hierarchically upon knowledge and skills already acquired”, and usually “in parallel with other more conventionally taught course components” (Morgan, 1984, p222-223).
Concerning the purpose of project-based learning application, Hell et al. (2006) summarized three kinds of purposes and their corresponding types of projects:
! Provide the students with a very concrete and holistic experience regarding a certain process (eg: the construction process, the management of a project, etc.). When PBL is used in this sense, it is usually as an introduction to something (eg: the beginning of studies in a certain field or as a transition to working life);
! Promote the integration of subject material (and the ability to apply it as circumstances dictate), eg, the capstone experience at the end of a course or curriculum;
! Use as a method of guided discovery learning with the intention of promoting self-regulated deep-level learning (in this sense, the project is embedded in the course structure).
Morgan (1984) put forwarded an interesting dimension which he termed as project intention, which refers to “the main emphasis and aims of a particular project topic”. He classified two types of project topics: academic topics and real world issues. He held that in project-based learning, the aim of the real world issues is to derive some social benefit, and the difference between these two types of projects is similar to the distinction between pure and applied science (Morgan, 1984).
2.1.3.3 Classification by Student or Teacher control
Project-based learning is characteristic of student-centredness, yet “the relative influence of teachers and students is likely to vary considerably from activity to activity” (Morgan, 1984, p225).
1) Control of project selection
this classification, Ansell (1998) distinguished three types of projects in the engineering education context: professor-driven, student-driven, and client-driven projects. Professional driven projects refers that the teacher assigns the project; student-driven projects are those chosen by students; client-driven projects may be students themselves in the collegiate situations, or companies or industries in the industrial situations.
According to Heywood (2005), the advantages of the professor-driven project is that it can be a valuable aid to what is learnt in class, and can also be used to integrate what students have learned in several courses. By comparison, the student-driven project is likely to stimulate students’ motivation because of its likelihood to be within students’ interest area, and may raise the level of self confidence. However, for the less able students, they may have difficulties such as providing realistic alternative solutions and selecting the proper level of difficulty. Client-driven projects, on the other hand, are more likely to involve realistic constraints and pressures, and usually require work that “cuts across subject boundaries” (Heywood, 2005). In client-driven projects, students may be well motivated and have a great sense of responsibility (Duston et al. 1997). However, one potential limitation of client-driven projects is that, if the targets are not met, it may affect more parties involved (Heywood, 2005).
The choice, as Heywood (2005) suggested, ultimately depends on the objectives to be achieved in project-based earning.
2) Team formation
The ways of team member selection are also various. Broadly speaking, it ranges from students selecting their own team members to teacher allocating the team members (Dutson et al., 1997; Heywood, 2005). Allocated teams can either be randomly selected or “engineered to create teams containing a range of experience and abilities (Tucker and Rollo, 2006).
Self selecting groups can “minimize personal conflict and reduce the need for teacher intervention in disputes” (Tucker and Rollo, 2006). However, there is a danger that “like might group with like”, and that “too much cohesion in groups may lead to over-conformity in group
thinking” (Ramirez et al., 1998; Schultz, 1998). In addition, it was found difficult to get a good mix of skills in each group or to avoid groups that are all leaders or followers (Schultz, 1998).
The teacher allocated groups are more like in reality, for example, simulating what happens in the engineering industry. The allocation can be on the basis of student academic background, prior experience, mixed academic years of students, mixed disciplines of students, mixed personality types, etc. (Clayton, 2000; Gates et al., 2000; Oakes et al., 2000; Ramirez et al., 1998; Tucker and Rollo, 2006).
Brickell et al. (1994) compared five ways of group allocation. They are: heterogeneous GAP and heterogeneous interest, heterogeneous GAP and homogeneous interest, homogeneous GAP and heterogeneous interest, homogeneous GAP and homogeneous interest, and self-select. They found that overall group selection had only slight effects on group performance, but generally the mixed perform better than self-selected groups (Brickell et al., 1994).
3) Control of project learning process
Here the control of project learning process refers to “whether students or teachers decide what is studied in project work and how it is studied” (Morgan, 1984, p225). Based on this classification, Kolmos (1996) classified three types of projects:
a) Assignment project or task project, which is characterized by considerable planning and control by the teachers / supervisors, and the problem and the subject as well as the methods are chosen beforehand;
b) Subject project, in which the students have a free choice “either of problem within the subject” or the problem will be given and the students have a free choice among a number of desired methods. The subjects are chosen beforehand;
c) Problem project, in which the problem will determine the choice of disciplines and methods.
In engineering science, Heywood (2005) argued that some work labeled as projects is actually an experimental investigation in that both are open ended and involve students’ freedom of
choosing what investigations they want to do. In contrast, he termed a similar project approach as guided project-based learning because it is highly structured and in the guided discovery mode (Heywood, 2005).
4) Control of project assessment
The feature of student-centredness in project-based learning makes its assessment subjective and difficult, especially in group projects, because the individual effort and individual achievement are often difficult to identify and reward (Duston et al., 1997).
The assessment of project-based learning can be made by the teacher, the student, such as self and peer assessment/review, or an outsider, such as the industrial panel members (Heywood, 2005; Leifer and Sheppard, 1997).
Besides the classifications discussed above, there are further other classifications such as project duration, course content, faculty involvement, etc.