Skip to main content

Project-Based Learning in Higher Education

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Technology Supported Active Learning

Abstract

Many Higher Education Institutions are implementing Project-based Learning (PBL) as a part of their curriculum. As there are a lot of different definitions and perceptions of PBL, we first define it. We analyze the main reasons for implementing PBL in higher education curriculum. Further on we discuss the phases of PBL implementation and its pedagogical values. For successful PBL implementation teachers need to follow essential project design elements: starting with challenging problem or question designed by the student or group of students, enabling time for sustained inquiry where students can ask, explore, search and engage materials in meaningful way, encouraging authenticity, giving students voice and choice in designing their project, encouraging reflection during and at the end of the process of PBL, critiquing and revisioning through feedback for project improvements and finally making the product of PBL public. Considering that PBL is happening in a technology-rich environment, we explore options to support learning by technology, so we describe Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition (SAMR), Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK), Technology Integration Matrix (TIM) and DIGCOMP. We distinguish between PBL and doing small projects and highlight the pedagogical value of PBL as framework for collaborative and/or interdisciplinary teaching and learning. We conclude the chapter with assessment methodology in PBL settings and examples of successful implementations of PBL in higher education curriculum from our own practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Amigues, R. (1988). Peer interaction in solving physics problems: Sociocognitive confrontation and metacognitive aspects. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 45(1), 141–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, H. (1997). Conversation, language and possibilities: A postmodern approach to therapy. Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson Koenig, J. (2011). Assessing 21st century skills. The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Azmitia, M. (1988). Peer interaction and problem solving: When are two heads better than one. Child Development, 59, 87–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barron, B. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 403–436.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barron, B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). How can we teach for meaningful learning? In L. Darling-Hammond, B. Barron, P. D. Pearson, A. H. Schoenfeld, E. K. Stage, T. D. Zimmerman, G. N. Cervetti, & J. L. Tilson (Eds.), Powerful learning. What we know about teaching for understanding (pp. 11–70). Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, D., & Koney, K. (2000). Strategic alliances among health and human services organizations: From affiliations to consolidations (Abr ed.). Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, S. A., Cummins, M., Davis, A., Freeman, A., Hall, C. G., & Ananthanarayanan, V. (2017). NMC horizon report: 2017 higher education edition (pp. 1–60). The New Media Consortium.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The Clearing House, 83, 39–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berg, O. (2015). Collaborating in a social era: Ideas, insights and models that inspire new ways of thinking about collaboration. Intranätverk, GB.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumenfeld, P. C., Fishman, B. J., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (2000). Creating usable technology—Embedded project-based science in urban schools. Educational Psychologist, 35, 149–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (1996). Learning with peers: From small group cooperation to collaborative communities. Educational Researcher, 24(8), 37–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3 & 4), 369–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bologna Process. (2009). The Bologna Process 2020: The European higher education area in the new decade. The Bologna Process.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borrego, M., & Newswander, L. (2008). Characteristics of successful cross-disciplinary engineering education collaborations. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(2), 123–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bos, M. C. (1937). Experimental study of productive collaboration. Acta Psychologica, 3, 315–426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandes, D., & Ginnis, P. (1986). A guide to student centred learning. Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. S. (1996). The culture of education. Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calvani, A., Fini, A., & Ranieri, M. (2010). Digital competence in K-12. Theoretical models, assessment tools and empirical research. Anàlisi: Quaderns de Comunicacio i Cultura, 40, 157–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carretero, S., Vuorikari, R., & Punie, Y. (2017). DigComp 2.1: The digital competence framework for citizens with eight proficiency levels and examples of use (No. JRC106281). Joint Research Centre (Seville site).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, E. (1998). Using explanatory knowledge during collaborative problem solving in science. Journal of Learning Sciences, 7(3-4), 387–427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, N. J., Salas, E., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Stout, R. (2000). Measuring team knowledge. Human Factors, 42, 151–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Condliffe, B., Quint, J., Visher, M. G., Bangser, M. R., Drohojowska, S., Saco, L., & Nelson, E. (2017). Project based learning: A literature review.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cone, T. P., Werner, P., Cone, S. L., & Woods, A. M. (1998). Interdisciplinary teaching through physical education. Human Kinetics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coyle, E. J., Jamieson, L. H., & Oakes, W. C. (2006). 2005 Bernard M. Gordon prize lecture*: Integrating engineering education and community service: themes for the future of engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(1), 7–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, C. (2014). Teacher created prescriptive interactive content (TCPIC), SAMR, and modernizing remediation in social science education. The International Society for the Social Studies Annual Conference Proceedings, 1, 37–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curzon, P., & McOwan, P. W. (2017). The power of computational thinking: Games, magic and puzzles to help you become a computational thinker. World Scientific Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darling-Hammond, L., Barron, B., Pearson, P. D., Schoenfeld, A. H., Stage, E. K., Zimmerman, T. D., Cervetti, G. N., & Tilson, J. L. (2008). Powerful learning: What we know about teaching for understanding. Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Du Toit, A., Van der Walt, M., & Havenga, M. (2016). Project-based learning in higher education: New skills set for consumer studies teacher education. Journal for New Generation Sciences, 14(3), 54–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, M. S. (1959). Dewey on Education: Selections, no. 3. Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey, B. B., Lohmeier, J. H., Lee, S. W., & Tollefson, N. (2006). Measuring collaboration among grant partners. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(3), 383–392.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gajda, R. (2004). Utilizing collaboration theory to evaluate strategic alliances. American Journal of Evaluation, 25(1), 65–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, D. B. (1998). Effects of conflict types and power style use among health professionals in interdisciplinary team collaboration. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 59(1-B), 0157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, R. (1998). Balancing real-world problems with real-world results. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 390–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, M. M. (2002). Getting a grip on project-based learning: Theory, cases, and recommendations. Meridian: A Middle School Computer Technologies Journal, 5, 65–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greeno, J., & Engeström, Y. (2014). Learning in activity. In R. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology (pp. 128–148). Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, E. R., Rosenberg, J. M., & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). The substitution augmentation modification redefinition (SAMR) model: A critical review and suggestions for its use. TechTrends, 60(5), 433–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1991). Sharing cognition through a collective comprehension activity. In R. L. Resnick, J. Levine, & S. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 331–348). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinemann, G. D., & Zeiss, A. M. (2002). Team performance in health care: Assessment and development. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, J. R., & Hannafin, M. J. (2001). Teaching and learning in digital environments: The resurgence of resource-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(3), 37–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilton, J. T. (2016). A case study of the application of SAMR and TPACK for reflection on technology integration into two social studies classrooms. The Social Studies, 107(2), 68–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogue, T. (1993). Community-based collaboration: Community wellness multiplied. Chandler Center for Community Leadership. https://www.uvm.edu/crs/nnco/collab/wellness.html. Accessed 21 May 2019.

  • Iborra, A., Garcia, D., Margalef, L., & Pérez, V. (2010). Generating collaborative contexts to promote learning and development. In E. Luzzatto & G. DiMarco (Eds.), Collaborative learning: Methodology (Chapter 2, pp. 47–80). Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Istance, D., & Kools, M. (2013). OECD work on technology and education: Innovative learning environments as an integrating framework. European Journal of Education, 48(1), 43–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1994). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Holubec, E. (1988). Cooperation in the classroom. Interaction Book Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, B. F., Rasmussen, C. M., & Moffitt, M. C. (1997). Real-life problem solving: A collaborative approach to interdisciplinary learning. American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Juvan, N., Nančovska Šerbec, I., & Žerovnik, A. (2016). Modeliranje dimenzij digitalne kompetence študentov prvega letnika izbranih pedagoških smeri. Andragoška Spoznanja, 22(4), 29–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, A. (1990). Facilitating elaborative learning in the classroom through reciprocal questioning. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 664–687.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredericks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3 & 4), 313–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krajcik, J., & Shin, N. (2014). Project-based learning. In R. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology (2nd ed., pp. 275–297). Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larmer, J., & Mergendoller, J. R (2015). Gold standard PBL: Essential project design elements. Buck Institute for Education. www.bie.org. Accessed 21 May 2019.

  • Larmer, J., Mergendoller, J., & Boss, S. (2015). Setting the standard for project based learning: A proven approach to rigorous classroom instruction (p. 34). VA, USA: ASCD, Alexandria.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson, L. C., & Miller, T. N. (2011). 21st century skills: Prepare students for the future. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 47(3), 121–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Machemer, P. L., & Crawford, P. (2007). Student perceptions of active learning in a large cross-disciplinary classroom. Active Learning in Higher Education, 8(1), 9–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maclellan, E., & Soden, R. (2004). The importance of epistemic cognition in student-centred learning. Instructional Science, 32(3), 253–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mergendoller, J. R. (2018). Defining high quality PBL: A look at the research. Buck Institute for Education. https://hqpbl.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Defining-High-Quality-PBL-A-Look-at-the-Research-.pdf. Accessed 8 May 2019.

  • Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Notari, M., Baumgartner, A., & Herzog, W. (2013). Social skills as predictors of communication, performance and quality of collaboration in project-based learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(2), 132–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, W., Soibelman, L., & Elvin, G. (2003). Collaborative design processes: An active-and reflective-learning course in multidisciplinary collaboration. Journal of Construction Education, 8(2), 78–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olivares, O. J. (2008). Collaborative vs. cooperative learning: The instructor’s role in computer supported collaborative learning. In K. L. Orvis & A. L. R. Lassiter (Eds.), Computer-supported collaborative learning: Best practices and principles for instructors. Hershey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2007). PISA 2006 science competencies for tomorrow’s world. OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (1998). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues (3rd ed.). Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2007). Building online learning communities: Effective strategies for the virtual classroom (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, N. L. (1991). Interagency collaboration under Part H: The key to comprehensive, multidisciplinary, coordinated infant/toddler intervention services. Journal of Early Intervention, 15(1), 89–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phelps, E., & Damon, W. (1989). Problem solving with equals: Peer collaboration as a context for learning mathematics and spatial concepts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(4), 639–646.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1973). To understand is to invent: The future of education. Grossman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poldoja, H., Väljataga, T., Laanpere, M., & Tammets, K. (2014). Web-based self- and peer-assessment of teachers’ digital competencies. World Wide Web, 17(2), 255–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puentedura, R. (2006). Transformation, Technology, and Education. Retrieved 27 May 2018, from http://hippasus.com/resources/tte/puentedura_tte.pdf.

  • Puentedura, R. (2013). SAMR: A contextualized introduction 2013. https://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/000112.html. Accessed 17 May 2019.

  • Ravitz, J. (2010). Beyond changing culture in small high schools: Reform models and changing instruction with project-based learning. Peabody Journal of Education, 85(3), 290–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robin, B. R. (2008). Digital storytelling: A powerful technology tool for the 21st century classroom. Theory into practice, 47(3), 220–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In J. Roschelle & S. D. Teasley (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–97). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaffer, S. P. (2010). Cross-disciplinary team learning. In R. Watkins & D. Leigh (Eds.), A handbook of improving performance in the workplace (Chapter 25, 2nd ed.). Pfeiffer Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaffer, S. P., Lei, K., & Reyes Paulino, L. (2008). A framework for cross-disciplinary team learning and performance. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 21(3), 7–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoenfeld, A. H. (1989). Ideas in the air: Speculations on small group learning, environmental and cultural influences on cognition, and epistemology. International journal of Educational research, 13(1), 71–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of the research on project-based learning (pp. 1–45). The Autodesk.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, J. W., Mergendoller, J. R., & Michaelson, A. (1999). Project-based learning: A handbook for middle and high school teachers. The Buck Institute for Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tien, L. T., Roth, V., & Kampmeier, J. A. (2002). Implementation of a peer-led team learning instructional approach in an undergraduate organic chemistry course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 606–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsang, E., Van Haneghan, J., Johnson, B., Newman, E., & Van Eck, S. (2001). A report on service-learning and engineering design: Service-learning’s effect on students learning engineering design in introduction to mechanical engineering. International Journal of Engineering Education, 17(1), 30–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, A., & Leary, H. (2009). A problem based learning meta-analysis: Differences across problem types, implementation types, disciplines, and assessment levels. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 3(1), 12–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M., & Palincsar, A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (p. 841–873). Macmillan Library Reference USA; Prentice Hall International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M., Troper, J. D., & Fall, R. (1995). Constructive activity and learning in collaborative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 406–423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welsh, J., Harmes, J. C., & Winkelman, R. (2011). Florida’s technology integration matrix. Principal Leadership, 12(2), 69–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wurdinger, S., Haar, J., Hugg, R., & Bezon, J. (2007). A qualitative study using project-based learning in a mainstream middle school. Improving Schools, 10(2), 150–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wurdinger, S., & Qureshi, M. (2014). Enhancing college students’ life skills through project based learning. Innovative Higher Education, 40, 279–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Žerovnik, A., Žnidarič, L., & Rugelj, J. (2016). Project based learning evaluation of multidisciplinary post-graduate course “ICT in education”. In K. Aškerc Veniger et al. (Eds.), Improving the quality of teaching and learning in higher education: From theory to practice, from practice to theory (pp. 191–201). Center RS za mobilnost in evropske programe izobraževanja in usposabljanja.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zierer, K. (2019). Putting learning before technology!: The possibilities and limits of digitalization. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alenka Žerovnik .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Žerovnik, A., Nančovska Šerbec, I. (2021). Project-Based Learning in Higher Education. In: Vaz de Carvalho, C., Bauters, M. (eds) Technology Supported Active Learning. Lecture Notes in Educational Technology. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2082-9_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2082-9_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-16-2081-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-16-2082-9

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics