Project-Based Learning

Project-Based Learning
How to Approach, Report,
Present, and Learn from ­
Course-Long Projects

Harm-Jan Steenhuis and Lawrence Rowland

Project-Based Learning: How to Approach, Report, Present, and Learn from
Course-Long Projects

Copyright © Business Expert Press, LLC, 2018.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,

stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any
means—electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or any other
except for brief quotations, not to exceed 400 words, without the prior
permission of the publisher.

First published in 2018 by

Business Expert Press, LLC
222 East 46th Street, New York, NY 10017
www.businessexpertpress.com

ISBN-13: 978-1-63157-475-7 (paperback)

ISBN-13: 978-1-63157-476-4 (e-book)

Business Expert Press Portfolio and Project Management C

­ ollection

Collection ISSN: 2156-8189 (print)

Collection ISSN: 2156-8200 (electronic)

Cover and interior design by Exeter Premedia Services Private Ltd.,

Chennai, India

First edition: 2018

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Printed in the United States of America.

 Abstract
Project-based learning is different from traditional lectures and requires
students to behave different from the traditional classroom. This book
provides students guidance on how to deal with the project-based
­instruction form.
Different types of projects such as projects that contribute to ­theory
and projects that contribute to practice are covered, to explain to ­students
what to expect, how to approach the project, how to interact with
­students in groups, and how to interact with the instructor. The discus-
sion includes many useful examples.

Keywords
client report, effective presentations, experiential learning, groups,
instructor feedback, iterative process, pedagogy, problem-based learning,
­professional report, project management, project-based learning, p
­ rojects,
research paper, service learning, teaching
 Contents
Chapter 1 Problematic Higher Education����������������������������������������1
Chapter 2 Laying the Foundation: Education����������������������������������7
Chapter 3 Laying the Foundation: Projects������������������������������������21
Chapter 4 Project-Based Learning�������������������������������������������������31
Chapter 5 Project Teams����������������������������������������������������������������47
Chapter 6 The Research Process in Projects�����������������������������������65
Chapter 7 Projects that Contribute to Practice������������������������������79
Chapter 8 Projects that Contribute to Theory�����������������������������109
Chapter 9 Communicating Project Results����������������������������������135
Chapter 10 Conclusion�����������������������������������������������������������������155
Appendix A Examples of Team Agreements������������������������������������159
Appendix B Example Form Student Waiver�����������������������������������169
Appendix C Examples of Nondisclosure Agreements����������������������173
Appendix D Example of Team Charter�������������������������������������������183
Appendix E Example of a Project Management Plan����������������������187
Appendix F Example Model Application���������������������������������������199
Appendix G Example of a Progress Report��������������������������������������207
Appendix H Examples of Lessons Learned��������������������������������������213
Appendix I Example Literature Review�����������������������������������������223
Appendix J Example Methodology Discussion������������������������������233
Appendix K Example Conclusion of a Project that Contributes
to Theory��������������������������������������������������������������������241
Appendix L Example Reflection on Project that Contributes
to Theory��������������������������������������������������������������������245
viii Contents

References�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������249
About the Authors�������������������������������������������������������������������������������257
Index�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������259
 CHAPTER 1

Problematic Higher
Education
With the high cost of a college degree, it is not surprising that the ques-
tion often asked is: Does it pay to go to college? Although studies have
clearly established that there is an economic value of going to college, the
reasons why college matters are complex. While, when looking at the time
period from 1992 to 2012, young adults who did not attend college were
approximately 2.5 times more likely to be unemployed than those who
finished college, when recently looking at how college graduates do in
the labor market, the results are disappointing (Arum and Roksa 2014).
For instance, Arum and Roksa (2014) found that two years after gradu-
ation, over half of the graduates not re-enrolled full-time in school were
either unemployed or underemployed, and for those that were employed,
many of them were in low-paying jobs. Furthermore, 25 percent of col-
lege graduates were still living at home and parental support went consid-
erably beyond simply providing a place to sleep and instead parents were
covering many of their living expenses (Arum and Roksa 2014).
Arum and Roksa (2014) found that the performance on critical
thinking, complex reasoning, and written communication (as measured
by the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) is significantly associated
with the likelihood of experiencing unemployment. This means that
graduates with low CLA scores might have greater difficulties with secur-
ing employment opportunities, and if employment was secured, then
employers determined that these graduates were unable to perform at
adequate levels, and thus, they lost their jobs (Arum and Roksa 2014).

Limited Student Learning

Arum and Roksa (2011) did an extensive study based on the CLA to
measure student learning. The CLA was designed to assess core outcomes
2 Project-Based Learning

espoused by all of higher education: critical thinking, analytical reason-

ing, problem-solving, and writing. They found that students on average
had little improvement from their freshman entrance to the end of their
sophomore year. An average-scoring incoming freshman (50 percent)
would reach a level equivalent to the 57th and 68th percentile of the
incoming freshman class, respectively, toward the end of the sophomore
year and senior year. In the 1990s and 1980s, the gains were much higher.
Furthermore, at least 45 percent of the students did not make statistically
significant gains in critical thinking, complex reasoning, and writing skills
(Arum and Roksa 2011).1

The Role of Educational Preparation

There are several factors that contribute to Arum and Roksa’s (2011) dis-
couraging findings of limited improvement during undergraduate pro-
grams. For instance, the background of students when they enter college
plays a role. Students in the top 10 percent of the sample improved their
CLA performance considerably more. If these freshmen entered higher
education at the 50th percentile, they would reach a level equivalent to
the 93rd percentile of an incoming freshman class by the end of their
sophomore year (Arum and Roksa 2011).
Another factor is parents’ education. Students whose parents held
graduate or professional degrees had a notable advantage over first gen-
eration students, that is, whose parents had no college experience (Arum
and Roksa 2011).
Another contributing factor is the approach students take toward
homework in college. Arum and Roksa found that students are not
spending a great deal of time outside of the classroom on their course-
work. On average, they report spending only 12 hours per week studying,
and 37 percent of the students reported spending less than five hours

1
  Interestingly, despite limited gains on the objective CLA measure of critical
thinking, complex reasoning, and writing, when students were asked how much
they believed they had developed on their skills in these areas, students overall
believed that they had substantially improved their skills in these areas (Arum
and Roksa 2014, p. 38).
 Problematic Higher Education 3

per week preparing for their courses (Arum and Roksa 2011). Only 20
percent of students reported devoting more than 20 hours per week on
studying, whereas, in 1961, this was 67 percent (Arum and Roksa 2011).
Despite the limited amount of time spent on studying, students seem
to do well in terms of grades. On average, students were academically
evaluated as relatively successful by the instructors of the courses they had
chosen. The average collegiate grade point average of students was 3.2.
Furthermore, national research has highlighted the extent to which grade
inflation is rampant not only throughout higher education, but particu-
larly at elite colleges and universities. For example, in 1997, the median
GPA at Princeton was 3.42, and the proportion of course grades that were
A or A-minuses was 45 percent at Duke, 44 percent at Dartmouth, and
46 percent at Harvard.
What happens in the classroom is of course also important. Lecturing
remains the pre-eminent method of teaching (Ramsden 2003, p. 147).
However, a drawback of the lecture is that it is often teacher-­directed
(Ramsden 2003). Research has shown that the traditional lecture mode
of teaching is only effective for low-level factual material, often only
dealing with factual recognition or recall (Gardiner 1994, p. 39) and
where students typically employ surface, rather than deep approaches to
learning (Ramsden 1994; Biggs 2003). Therefore, it has been observed
that the lecture style, where students only devote minimal time to intel-
lectual work yet with apparent ease pass through the American colleges
and ­universities, is partly to blame for the poor performance of gradu-
ates (Gardiner 1994; Arum and Roksa 2011). Instead, approaches such
as where students are active, work in teams, and apply material may be
more effective (Michaelsen, Davidson, and Major 2014; Wallace et al.
2014). The overall feel for a class in that case is one about learning to do
something, as opposed to learning some facts so that one can pass a test
(Michaelsen, Davidson, and Major 2014).

The Setup of this Book

This book discusses an alternative approach to the lecture mode of instruc-
tion, that is, where students are active, work in teams, and apply material
through project-based learning. Figure 1.1 illustrates the topics that are
4 Project-Based Learning

Chapter 10:

Conclusion

IMPLEMENT
Chapter 9:

Communicating project results

Chapter 7: Chapter 8:
Projects that contribute to Projects that contribute to
practice theory

Chapter 6:

Research process in projects

Chapter 5:

Project teams

THEORY
Chapter 4:

Project - based learning

Chapter 2: Chapter 3:

Laying the foundation: Laying the foundation:

education projects

Chapter 1:

Problematic higher education

Figure 1.1  Topic coverage

covered in this book. The first three chapters lay the theoretical base for
understanding project-based learning. Chapters 2 and 3 start by build-
ing the foundation. These chapters provide what can be considered back-
ground information, but this information is important to understand the
context in which project-based learning takes place and why this approach
is a better alternative than the lecture-based approach. Chapter 2 explains
how education works and Chapter 3 provides information on projects.
Chapter 4 combines aspects from education and projects and explains
the concept of project-based learning. The next five chapters discuss the
implementation of project-based learning. Classroom projects are typi-
cally conducted in groups; therefore, Chapter 5 discusses project teams.
Chapter 6 describes some general characteristics related to the research
 Problematic Higher Education 5

component of projects and Chapters 7 and 8 discuss more details for two
different types of projects, that is, those that contribute to practice and
those that contribute to theory. While both types of projects have simi-
larities, there are also some differences. These chapters also include advice
on how to go about doing a project. Chapter 9 provides information on
how to report on projects through writing as well as for presentations.
Some information is already provided in Chapters 6 and 7 as examples,
but Chapter 8 provides more clarification. Finally, the book ends with
Chapter 10, which provides a conclusion on project-based learning.
 Index
Agile/adaptive approach
business-case questions, 103–104
implications, 105–106
product backlog, 104–105
purpose, 103
retrospectives and planning, 105
sprint backlog, 105
sprint/iteration, 104
Agile lifecycle, projects, 27
Association to Advance Collegiate
Schools of Business (AACSB),
7 lecture-based learning
Bloom’s taxonomy, 7–10
Business analysis body of knowledge
(BABOK), 81
Capsim’s TeamMATE, 61–62
Case method classroom, 33
Change control system, 191
Classroom projects
characteristics, 35–36
discovery of theory, 44–45
types, 39
utilization of theory, 41–43
Collegiate learning assessment (CLA)
educational preparation, 2–3
limited student learning, 1–2
Commitment stage, project team
performance, 48
Communications management plan,
196
Conceptual knowledge, 9
Constructivism, 18, 20
Context, projects
organizational strategy, 22
portfolio projects, 22–23
Descriptive statistics, 239
Design sciences approach
criteria for, 74
reflective cycle, 74
regulative cycle, 72–74
Detailed nondisclosure agreement,
176–181
Discipline project, 39–40
Educational projects, 47
Educational system
goals and objectives
Bloom’s taxonomy, 8–9
learning-centered approach, 18, 19
course design, 10
deep approach, 17
outcomes, 13, 14
surface approach, 17
undergraduate education, 16
teacher-oriented approach, 18, 19
Factual knowledge, 9
Forming phase, project team, 47
Gantt chart, 91, 193
Goal clarification stage, project team
performance, 48
High-performance stage, project team
performance, 48
Implementation stage, project team
performance, 48
Incremental lifecycle, projects, 26–27
Inductive teaching, 32
Interpersonal conflicts, 57
Iterative lifecycle, projects, 26
Iterative nature, research project
problem-project type, 75
student confidence levels, 76
Knowledge dimension, 9
260 Index
Learning-centered approach, 18, 19
Lifecycle, projects
agile lifecycles, 27
incremental lifecycles, 26–27
iterative lifecycles, 26
predictive lifecycles, 25–26
and process groups, 29–30
simple environment, 25
uncertainty, 25, 26
Metacognitive knowledge, 9
Mutual nondisclosure agreement
confidential information, 176–178
disputes, 181
export restrictions, 179–180
maintenance of confidentiality, 178
miscellaneous, 180–181
no license, 179
nonuse and nondisclosure, 178
no obligation, 179
no warranty, 179
purpose, 176
remedies, 180
return of materials, 179
term, 180
Natural sciences approach
data collection, 70
empirical cycle, 70
interview surveys, 70
researcher and research object, 69
survey questions, 71
Network diagram, 193, 194
Nondisclosure agreements
detailed nondisclosure agreement,
176–181
medium length nondisclosure
agreement, 174–175
short confidentiality agreement,
173
Norming phase, project team, 47
Orientation stage, project team
performance, 48
Performing phase, project team, 48
Phenomenography, 18
Practice-oriented projects
agile/adaptive approach
business-case questions, 103–104
implications, 105–106
product backlog, 104–105
purpose, 103
retrospectives and planning, 105
sprint backlog, 105
sprint/iteration, 104
closing process
approach, 101
implications, 101–102
lessons learned form, 102, 103
purpose, 101
execute process
appropriate tool selection, 95
assumptions, 97
conclusion, 97
data collection, 94–95
explanation, 95
internet-based administrative
system, 94
progress report, 93–94
purpose, 94
tool application, 96
formatting guidelines, 140–141
general writing guidelines,
141–142
initiation
approach, 81–82
charter sample, 84, 85
implications and practical tips,
83–84
progressive elaboration, 86–87
project objectives, 85–86
purpose, 81
monitor and control process
business case example, 99–100
external stakeholders, 98
implications, 100
internal stakeholders, 98
progress report, 98–99
purpose, 98
standard format, 98
tracking Gantt chart, 99
planning
change process, 92
easy-to-edit system, 92
 Index 261
general plan outline, 93
purpose, 87
work breakdown structure (see
Work breakdown structure)
purpose, 136
report structure, 137–139
scaffolding, 79–80
skill sets, 79, 80
target audience, 136–137
theory and citing and referencing,
140
Predictive lifecycles, projects, 25–26
Problem-based learning, 33–34
Problem project, 40
Procedural knowledge, 9
Product backlog, 104–105
Progress report
budget, 208–211
project/task update, 207
schedule, 208
Project-based learning
anchored instruction, 38
case method classroom, 33
classroom projects
characteristics, 35–36
discovery of theory, 44–45
types, 39
utilization of theory, 41–43
customer type, 37–38
discipline project, 39–40
problem-based learning, 33–34
problem project, 40
problem-solving approaches, 34–35
project duration, 38
role of knowledge, 36–37
task project, 38–39
Project management body of
knowledge (PMBOK), 81
Project management plan
background, 187
beneficiaries, 188
budget, 194–196
change control system, 191
goal, 188
method, 188
organization chart, 191
outputs, 189
problem, 187
purpose, 188–189
responsibility matrix, 187
roles and duties, 191–192
schedule, 193–194
solution, 187
subsidiary management plans,
196–197
work breakdown structure,
189–190
Project manager, 191
Projects
budget, 215–219
closing process, 28–29, 216
context, 22–23
contribute to practice (see ­
Practice-oriented project)
contribute to theory (see
Theory-oriented project)
end of project status, 213
environment
challenging project
environments, 25
complex environment, 25
methodological uncertainty, 24
requirements uncertainty, 24
Stacy Complexity Model, 23
straight-forward homework
assignment, 24
tangible things, 23
execution, 28, 216
follow-up, 221
impact, 213–214
initiation process, 27–28, 216
lifecycle
agile lifecycles, 27
incremental lifecycles, 26–27
iterative lifecycles, 26
predictive lifecycles, 25–26
and process groups, 29–30
simple environment, 25
uncertainty, 25, 26
management (see also Project
management plan)
communications, 221
cost and quality, 220
human resources, 220
integration, 219
risk and procurement, 221
262 Index
scope and time, 220
modern project management, 21
monitoring and controlling process,
28
planning, 28
presentations
formatting guidelines, 152–153
general guidelines, 153
purpose, 148–149
structure, 150–152
target audience, 149–150
theory, and citing and
referencing, 152
project-based industries, 21
purpose, 213
recommendations, 214
schedule, 214–215
Project teams
communication
energy, 58
engagement, 58
exploration, 58
conflicts, 57
effective team work
peer evaluation, 60–61
team conflict, 59–60
forming phase, 47
group forming
cohesive subgroups, 50
heterogeneous composition,
49–50
homogeneous groups, 50
ideal team size, 49
instructor assigns students, 50
student’s team selection, 50–51
team expectations agreement, 55
team policies, 54
norming phase, 47
performance model, 48–49
performing phase, 48
storming phase, 47
work dividing
class project, 51–52
parallel work, 56
Project type
task project, 38–39
discipline project, 39–40
problem project, 40
Regulative cycle, 72–74
Renewal stage, project team
performance, 49
Research approaches
empirical cycle, 70–71
regulative cycle, 72–73
reflective cycle, 73–74
Research project
critical thinking
classroom project, 66, 68
design sciences approach, 72–74
iterative nature, 75–77
mission creep, 77–78
natural sciences approach, 69–71
social sciences approach, 71–72
undergraduate and graduate
projects, 65–66
Responsibility assignment matrix
(RAM), 90
Responsibility matrix, 187
Risk management plan, 197
Short confidentiality agreement, 173
Social sciences approach, 71–72
Sprint backlog, 105
Stacy Complexity Model, 23
Stakeholder analysis, 82, 186
Storming phase, project team, 47
Student waiver form, 169–171
Task project, 38–39
Teacher-oriented approach, 18, 19
Teaching
learning-centered approach, 18, 19
teacher-oriented approach, 18
Team agreement example, 159–167
Team charter example, 183–186
Team expectations agreement, 55
Theory-oriented project
abstract section
approach, 109–110
implications and practical tips,
110
purpose, 109
conceptual framework
approach, 123
implications and practical tips,
124
 Index 263

purpose, 123 purpose, 126

data collection paper structure, 144–145
approach, 128 purpose and research questions,
implications and practical tips, 114–118, 143–144
128–129 reflection, 132–133, 245–248
purpose, 128 target audience, 144
formatting guidelines, 146 theory, and citing and referencing,
general guidelines, 146–147 145
introduction section Trust-building stage, project team
approach, 111–112 performance, 48
implications and practical tips,
112 Work breakdown structure (WBS)
purpose, 111 business case, 88–89
literature review session components, 90–91
approach, 119–120 dictionary, 89
implications and practical tips, hierarchical listing, 87–88
120–122 oral presentation, 88
purpose, 118–119 proposed product development
target, 121 project, 88
methodology section responsibility assignment matrix,
approach, 126–127 90
implications and practical tips, schedule, 90
127 top-down approach, 88