European Journal of Engineering Education

ISSN: 0304-3797 (Print) 1469-5898 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceee20

The impact of project-based learning on improving

student learning outcomes of sustainability
concepts in transportation engineering courses

Elham H. Fini, Faisal Awadallah, Mahour M. Parast & Taher Abu-Lebdeh

To cite this article: Elham H. Fini, Faisal Awadallah, Mahour M. Parast & Taher Abu-Lebdeh
(2018) The impact of project-based learning on improving student learning outcomes of
sustainability concepts in transportation engineering courses, European Journal of Engineering
Education, 43:3, 473-488, DOI: 10.1080/03043797.2017.1393045

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2017.1393045

Published online: 28 Oct 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 111

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ceee20
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION, 2018
VOL. 43, NO. 3, 473–488
https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2017.1393045

The impact of project-based learning on improving student

learning outcomes of sustainability concepts in transportation
engineering courses
Elham H. Finia, Faisal Awadallaha,b, Mahour M. Parastc and Taher Abu-Lebdeha
a
Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, North Carolina A&T State University, Greensboro,
NC, USA; bDepartment of Civil Engineering, Birzeit University, Birzeit, Palestine; cDepartment of Applied Engineering
Technology, North Carolina A&T State University, Greensboro, NC, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This paper describes an intervention to enhance students’ learning by Received 14 January 2016
involving students in brainstorming activities about sustainability Accepted 5 October 2017
concepts and their implications in transportation engineering. The paper
KEYWORDS
discusses the process of incorporating the intervention into a Project-based learning;
transportation course, as well as the impact of this intervention on sustainability; self-efficacy;
students’ learning outcomes. To evaluate and compare students’ cognitive skills; teamwork
learning as a result of the intervention, the Laboratory for Innovative
Technology and Engineering Education survey instrument was used. The
survey instrument includes five constructs: higher-order cognitive skills,
self-efficacy, ease of learning subject matter, teamwork, and
communication skills. Pre- and post-intervention surveys of student
learning outcomes were conducted to determine the effectiveness of
the intervention on enhancing students’ learning outcomes. The results
show that the implementation of the intervention significantly improved
higher-order cognitive skills, self-efficacy, teamwork, and communication
skills. Involving students in brainstorming activities related to
sustainability concepts and their implications in transportation proved to
be an effective teaching and learning strategy.

1. Introduction
According to the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Report Card, the overall grade for the
nation’s infrastructure is D+, which shows no improvement from the D+ in the previous report
four years ago. The group estimates that the U.S. needs to invest $3.6 trillion by 2020 to upgrade
bridges, roads, dams, and schools (ASCE 2013, 2017). Of this amount, $930 billion is related to trans-
portation (roads and bridges). This level of investment calls for a huge number of well-trained pro-
fessionals who specialise in the transportation and construction fields (ASCE 2013). This industrial
demand for transportation professionals who are well aware of the impact of their solutions in a sus-
tainable global context calls for updating instructional materials to incorporate the concepts and
practices of sustainability throughout the engineering curriculum.
Industry demand for engineers and managers with multidisciplinary skills calls for teaching method-
ologies that can incorporate hands-on skills throughout the course materials. The idea to pursue a career
in engineering to make a difference in the world is often an important factor motivating high school
students (especially women and minorities) to major in science, technology, engineering, and math-
ematics (STEM) (Pierce and Yochum 2010). Providing students with real-life projects and challenges

CONTACT Mahour M. Parast mahour@ncat.edu; mahour.parast@gmail.com

© 2017 SEFI
474 E. H. FINI ET AL.

related to their majors can therefore be instrumental in fostering and maintaining their interest in STEM.
Being exposed to real projects and brainstorming about society’s current challenges provides students
with a broader perspective related to the social, economic, and environmental aspects of the application
of the basic concepts they learn in the classroom (Pierce and Yochum 2010).
Currently, many institutions use a pedagogical philosophy (the study and practice of the best
methods of teaching) to implement project-based courses at the beginning and end of the under-
graduate engineering curriculum. Project-based learning (PBL) allows different groups of students
in a course to work together to solve practical problems and to present and defend their approaches
and solutions. This promotes the intellectual and social development of students; it requires them to
actively participate in the process of acquiring knowledge, improves communication and interperso-
nal/social skills, enhances leadership skills, and increases creativity. First-year engineering courses
introduce students to the basic design process and its role in an engineering career. Senior capstone
courses aim to connect technical knowledge to solve a problem with an emphasis on professional
skills (Kotys-Schwartz, Knight, and Pawlas 2010). However, when PBL classes are only offered in
the freshman and senior years, it is not clear whether the students’ technical skills are well developed
and retained (Kotys-Schwartz, Knight, and Pawlas 2010).
In this study, students worked in groups on a brainstorming activity related to transportation sus-
tainability. Students worked together on a specific problem by gathering a list of ideas spontaneously
and then discussing the practicality and feasibility of the ideas. This was followed by a lecture and
discussion about four aspects of sustainable transportation: planning, design, operation, and main-
tenance. The effects of the intervention on students’ learning outcomes were evaluated using an
exam specifically designed to evaluate students’ knowledge about transportation sustainability;
the exam was given before and after students were exposed to the intervention. In addition, to evalu-
ate students’ learning as a result of the intervention, the Laboratory for Innovative Technology and
Engineering Education (LITEE) survey instrument (http://www.litee.org/site) was used. It was found
that implementation of the proposed intervention improved students’ ease of learning of sustainabil-
ity concepts in the context of transportation.
The rest of the paper is organised as follows. First, we review the relevant literature and theoretical
perspectives on PBL. We discuss and describe the intervention for the implementation of sustainabil-
ity concepts using PBL, along with the pre- and post-intervention survey that was specifically
designed to measure students’ understanding about sustainability. Finally, we develop our hypoth-
eses, present the results, discuss the findings of the study, and provide recommendations for inte-
grating the project into basic courses in transportation engineering.

2. Literature review
The relevant literature is reviewed in three sections: (1) conceptual frameworks and learning theories
in technology education and their impact on programme development, (2) PBL, and (3) sustainability
in transportation engineering education.

2.1. Conceptual frameworks and learning theories

Two theories are reviewed in order to understand their suitability for the implementation of sustain-
ability concepts in undergraduate transportation engineering courses.

2.1.1. Constructivism
There has been a very strong debate on the development of new educational methodologies (Kosch-
mann 2000). Due to the rapid rate of change in the environment, traditional methods of education
cannot meet the needs of the workplace environment (Molebash and Fisher 2003). It has been
suggested that constructivist theory can provide some useful insight and direction to address
such needs (Cooper, Basson, and Schaap 2006).
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION 475

Constructivism is a theory of learning that claims that students construct knowledge rather than
merely receive and store knowledge transmitted by a teacher. It can create an environment for lear-
ners to develop their skills for thinking, communication, and social interaction, and subsequently use
those skills in the real world (Orentürk, Göktas, and Bulu 2004). There are two forms of constructivism:
psychological constructivism, a theory about the way an individual learns; and social constructivism, a
theory that the content of scientific theories is actually learned and developed by social factors.
It has been shown that the application of constructivist theory can have a positive impact on stu-
dents’ learning (Quevedo-Torrero 2009). The use of a constructivist-based approach can also provide
a firm mental model for weaker students and help them to better understand conceptual matters (Liu
et al. 2009). Wang and Liu (2010) argued that China’s accounting education needs should be
designed based on constructivist theory to be able to train qualified accountants to address problems
associated with China’s rapid economic and social development (Wang and Liu 2010). Cognitive skills
such as critical thinking, decision-making, and creativity can be well addressed through the construc-
tivist theory of learning (Koschmann 2000).

2.1.2. Modes of learning

The modes of learning theory emphasises three modes of learning: accretion, structuring, and tuning
(Rumelhart and Norman 1978). Accretion refers to the addition of new knowledge to the student’s
existing knowledge about the subject. This is followed by structuring, which is the formation and
development of new conceptual models or frameworks. Tuning involves the adjustment of the
knowledge to a task, which usually happens through practice. The classical example of this theory
is learning Morse code (Norman 1982).
With reference to a transportation design course, students learn a variety of new topics and con-
cepts (accretion stage). Due to the modular structure of the course, they need to understand the
interrelationship among different concepts so that they can develop a holistic conceptual model
of sustainable transportation. Throughout the semester, students become familiar with terminolo-
gies, tools, techniques, and concepts of transportation and would be able to develop conceptual
models of transportation design (structuring). Tuning would not happen until students got the
opportunity to practice transportation design (the project). This could be achieved through
working on a project.
From the perspective of constructivism, the proposed intervention enables students to continu-
ously build a better (or a more accurate) mental model of the reality of sustainable transportation
while brainstorming and discussing various aspects of the course in the context of sustainability. Edu-
cating students in institutions of higher learning on environmental management practices and sus-
tainable development can lead to a better understanding of sustainability concepts (Nyirenda and
Ngwakwe 2014).

2.2. Project-based learning

Several scholars have integrated PBL into course curricula in order to improve students’ learning and
motivation towards the subject matter (Huang 2010). It has been shown that PBL is a more effective
education methodology compared to traditional pedagogies. It promotes a collaborative learning
environment that can in turn enhance students’ social and problem-solving skills (Martinez,
Herrero, and De Pablo 2010). It also has been documented that not only can PBL methodology
foster teamwork in the classroom, but also, in some cases, use of PBL results in an enhancement
of students’ confidence and an increase in the employment rate (Huang 2010). Team members in
active teams not only shared information, they also identified the areas of disagreement and clarified
goals and strategies. They also conducted some negotiations, which in turn affected their learning
outcomes (Kotys-Schwartz, Knight, and Pawlas 2010). PBL with a team approach was used in under-
graduate aerospace and mechanical engineering courses to teach structural and materials failure
mechanisms (Lanning, Lestari, and Waterhouse 2010). University students working in teams on
476 E. H. FINI ET AL.

projects could adopt one of three major learning patterns: individual-led, group-led, or individual-
group hybrid-led (Wang 2010). Team performance reflects the collaboration attitude, competence,
and culture of team members (Wu and Chen 2014).
It was found that a group-led framework could create a supportive environment to enhance
knowledge building (Wang 2010). PBL was incorporated in teaching various engineering courses;
all such experiences showed the method was helpful in enhancing students’ understanding of the
basic concepts. In addition, many students found it exciting and rewarding, and they were able to
produce original and innovative concepts (Chen et al. 2010; Echempati and Dippery 2010; Tsai
et al. 2010). PBL was also incorporated to promote effective learning in biotechnology courses,
where students began to take the initiative to start conversations with each other, thereby
opening discussions that contributed to a higher level of understanding by sharing of results; this
allowed students to piece together their individual perspectives into a unified collective understand-
ing with an authentic purpose (Farahnaz et al. 2012). Incorporation of the PBL method into course
material was shown to help students achieve a higher level of development in the cognitive
domain and in social skills (Ahmet, Filiz, and Goktepe 2015), which in turn enhanced higher-order
thinking skills and learning (Prayoonsri et al. 2015).
It has been shown that combining theory with practical projects can enhance students’ learning
and their satisfaction in a course (Friesel 2010). Participation of undergraduate students in hands-on
projects has been found to be significantly effective in encouraging students to pursue advanced
degrees and careers in STEM fields (Russell et al. 2007).
Research is an important component of PBL. There have been many studies on the effects of
undergraduate research experience on engineering students’ learning and self-efficacy (Antoine,
Hutchison, and Follman 2006; Slaughter et al. 2009; Fitzsimons 2017; Johnson and Ulseth 2017).
Bandura ( 1994) defined self-efficacy as one’s belief in his or her own ability to produce a
desired effect. These beliefs influence how the individuals feel, think, and motivate themselves;
self-efficacy not only affects how an individual feels, but also influences an individual’s actions
(Corie, Heidi, and Bonnie 2014). Undergraduate research has been shown to increase students’
retention; this was found to be even more significant for underrepresented groups (Orentürk,
Göktas, and Bulu 2004). Undergraduate research has also been shown to be an effective tool to
motivate students to pursue a graduate degree in engineering (Desai, Parrish, and Williams
2008). A common finding is that students’ attitude and general knowledge about research improves
with time (Corie, Heidi, and Bonnie 2014). In addition, it has been shown by several researchers that
hands-on research increases students’ understanding, confidence, and awareness of the subject
matter (Gregerman 2003; Gaddam, Fidan, and Barger 2016). It has been documented that instilling
enthusiasm is the key to encourage students towards STEM, and that greater attention should be
given to providing research opportunities for undergraduate students (Bauer and Bennett 2008). In
order to improve student performance in the real-world work environment, practices such as
enhancing students’ decision-making skills and higher-level cognitive skills have been emphasised.
Therefore, many educators have strived to provide students with the education necessary to
become qualified managers (King 2000). Students benefit from working on real-world problems
that require the synthesis of skills that they have acquired and refined during their study (Sankar
and Raju 2006; Venson et al. 2016).

2.3. The significance of transportation sustainability in education

A study at Clarkson University evaluated classroom units developed for high school environmental
science classes and college industrial ecology classes to introduce life-cycle perspectives and
systems analysis of transportation fuel/vehicle systems. The quantitative assessment showed that
the units helped students to significantly raise their knowledge about energy and change their atti-
tudes. Anecdotal information from the students indicated that increased awareness about the ser-
iousness of energy issues caused the students to be more conservative and conscientious about
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION 477

their energy consumption behaviour (Powers, DeWaters, and Venczel 2011). It was shown how a
series of lecture materials on tire reuse in numerous courses is more effective than one elective
waste management class. The outcome has shown that the lectures greatly enhanced the students’
knowledge on using waste tires in civil engineering applications and transportation (Cheng et al.
2009).
It was noted in a recent survey by the ASCE that there is a major need for rebuilding the critical
components of the nation’s aging infrastructure, such as roads and water-supply systems. A course is
needed to educate future civil engineers on concepts and techniques of protecting natural resources
and planning for sustainable development and construction in an environmentally friendly manner.
The course should instill environmental awareness in the students’ minds, so that the environment is
considered in any decision-making process in the practice of civil engineering (Mallick, Mathisen, and
FitzPatrick 2002).
Traditional urban planning consists of two main components: land use regulations and transpor-
tation facilities. However, the perception of transportation facilities has changed in the past few
decades from accommodating traffic (especially vehicular traffic) to mobility and accessibility. Mobi-
lity implies movement of people or goods, not movement of vehicles; an example of more efficient
movement of people is via public transit rather than private vehicles. In addition, movement or travel
in itself is not an objective by almost all travellers; the objective is accessibility to work, shopping,
schools, meetings, etc. However, many of these trip purposes could be accommodated without
motor-vehicular travel if the trip destinations are within walking or bicycling distance. Other trip pur-
poses such as business meetings and some shopping could be totally avoided via gaining accessibil-
ity online. Therefore, urban planners and more significantly the educators of urban planners need to
have sustainable approaches throughout the process of urban planning and design. Wootton (1999)
stressed that a long-term strategy is needed to address the issues of traffic congestion, pollution, sus-
tainability, and safety. The strategy should include education to encourage changes in behaviour,
reshaping towns and cities by improving public transport and reducing the need for mechanised
transport to gain personal mobility (Wootton 1999).
Some highway officials and politicians advocate private vehicle dependency, citing that motor
vehicle travel is growing due to increased population, wealth, and suburban lifestyles, resulting in
increased traffic congestion. They argue that failing to expand roadways and parking capacity,
along with efforts to constrain motor vehicle use, contradict consumer preferences, stifle economic
growth, and reduce personal freedom. In contrast, advocates of transportation sustainability rec-
ommend high users’ charges to curb automobile traffic growth, citing the high economic, social,
and environmental costs associated with motor vehicle use. Transportation sustainability requires
efficient, diverse, and cleaner-emissions modes of transport. Public transportation, walking, and bicy-
cling are the main options for sustainable urban transportation (Litman and Laube 2002).
More information sharing, education, and outreach are needed to create a best-practice guide for
sustainable transportation (Helmer and Gough 2010). The role of universities in innovation and sus-
tainable development is most valuable for the private and public sector in five main areas: (a) con-
tributing to fundamental research; (b) combining existing knowledge; (c) education and training
(curriculum development); (d) creating space for open exploration of ideas; and (e) community invol-
vement (Vidican 2009). Thus, private–public partnerships in the areas of sustainability are essential.
Schrijen (2005) states that effective sustainable policies often arise from intensive forms of collabor-
ation between people working in different policy domains.
Alternative methods of road rehabilitation are being used, particularly with emphasis on sustain-
ability aspects. A study examined the sustainability of using recycled asphalt materials in road reha-
bilitation. This study illustrated that recycled materials, when applied within a framework of
engineering mechanics, can be used effectively in sustainable road construction (Haichert, Foth,
and Guenther 2011). Mann indicated how perspectives of urban planning should be changed,
especially the usage of bicycles. For example, the Oxford City Council has adopted a policy for
cycling that changes from fitting bikes into streets designed for cars, to fitting cars into streets
478 E. H. FINI ET AL.

designed for bikes. This evolved from the desire to define a complete cycle network for the city
(Mann 1998). This is an excellent example of a paradigm for students; thus, traditional approaches
to engineering education should be challenged and students should learn the significance of sus-
tainability in engineering practices and should have the opportunity to challenge practices and be
innovative.
The Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology (ABET) criteria requires that all engineer-
ing students develop an understanding of sustainability in a global context (ABET 2012). Thus, there is
a need for developing innovative teaching approaches to incorporate sustainability concepts into
undergraduate courses.

3. Variables and measures

In this study, five constructs were used to assess student learning outcomes of sustainability con-
cepts. These constructs have been emphasised in prior studies (Walls 2000; Banning 2003; Green-
halgh 2007; Parast 2010).

3.1. Higher-order cognitive domain of learning

This construct measures higher-order skills such as decision-making and problem-solving, along with
understanding the concepts and applying them (Walls 2000; Banning 2003; Parast 2010).
Ease of learning subject matter. This construct measures the level of difficulty of the subject matter
for the students (Böcker 1987; Parast 2010).
Self-efficacy. This construct measures the improvement in self-confidence and a higher level of
accomplishments of the students (Weil, Oyelere, and Rainsbury 2004; Parast 2010).
Teamwork. This construct measures students’ skills such as interpersonal skills, listening to others,
and interactions with team members (Desiraju and Gopinath 2001; Loewenstein, Thompson, and
Gentner 2003; Parast 2010).
Communication skills. This construct measures skill sets such as writing, presentation, and informal
communication (Desiraju and Gopinath 2001; Lyons 2008; Parast 2010).

3.2. Intervention description

The innovation of this intervention is to use real case studies in conjunction with PBL methodology to
improve students’ learning of sustainability topics in undergraduate transportation courses. This
intervention consists of brainstorming about national societal problems related to transportation sus-
tainability followed by a lecture and discussion to engage students’ involvement and interest in the
subject. Our approach/methodology is expected to improve the following students’ learning out-
comes: higher-order cognitive domain of learning (HC), self-efficacy (SE), ease of learning subject
matter (EL), impact on teamwork (TW), and communication skills (CS).
We argue that PBL improves student learning outcomes. Due to the interdisciplinary nature of sus-
tainability (economy, environment, and equity), there are two reasons we thought that using a case
study in a PBL approach would improve students’ learning outcomes. First, the case study integrates
and relates a variety of concepts that have been covered in several chapters. Second, the case study
serves as a vehicle to demonstrate the application of sustainability concepts in civil engineering appli-
cations. PBL has been shown to improve student learning and motivation towards the subject matter
(Huang 2010), students’ social and problem-solving skills (Martinez, Herrero, and De Pablo 2010), col-
laboration attitude, competence, and team culture (Wu and Chen 2014), and students’ understanding
of the basic concepts (Chen et al. 2010; Echempati and Dippery 2010; Tsai et al. 2010). Finally, Pinho-
Lopes and Macedo (2014) showed that using PBL can enhance the problem-solving skills and higher-
order thinking skills of graduate students in civil engineering. Therefore, using the above five con-
structs, we have the following hypotheses:
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION 479

H1: Implementing the intervention will significantly improve students’ higher-order cognitive domain of learning.

H2: Implementing the intervention will significantly improve students’ ease of learning the subject matter.

H3: Implementing the intervention will significantly improve students’ self-efficacy.

H4: Implementing the intervention will significantly improve students’ teamwork.

H5: Implementing the intervention will significantly improve students’ communication skills.

The two required transportation engineering courses in the civil and environmental engineering
undergraduate curriculum at North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University (NC A&T
State University) stress mainly design and traffic operation. There are limits to what could be included
in the courses, due to the extensiveness of the transportation engineering field and the time limit-
ations of the courses. This research does not address the optimum content of those courses; the
main concern of this research is how to introduce the concepts of sustainability in an attractive
and interesting manner to students.
All subjects introduced to students focus on various forms of sustainability and environmental
compatibility. Sustainable development is defined as the ability to ‘meet the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (United Nations
Report 1987). To achieve a sustainable development, three aspects must be suitably addressed:
ecology, economy, and equity (Elkington 1998). An essential part of the transportation learning
process for students is to develop a critical thinking approach that recognises sustainability concerns
and local and global environmental concerns as critical issues. Therefore, transportation engineers
must be aware of the selection of materials for construction, maintenance, and operation of transpor-
tation systems in order to avoid depletions of essential natural resources (non-renewable materials)
or/and harming the environment.
The essential need to address sustainability and environmental concerns in transportation courses
stems from the seriousness of the effects of the transportation sector on the environment, the
society, and the economy. Transportation sources contributed approximately 27% of the total U.S.
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Transportation is the fastest-growing source of U.S. GHG emissions,
accounting for 47% of the net increase in total U.S. emissions since 1990 (EPA Report 2006). Trans-
portation is the largest end-use source of CO2. With the rapidly growing world fleet of motor vehicles,
which was about one billion in 2010 (Davis, Diegel, and Boundy 2010) and is estimated to reach two
billion in 2035 (Voelcker 2014), the environmental concerns of transportation sustainability must not
only be addressed in the civil engineering curricula, but must be stressed and taught in an innovative
and interesting manner.

3.3. Implementation of the project

The targeted undergraduate course for this study was Transportation Design, which is a required
course for civil engineering undergraduates at NC A&T State University. Due to the context sensitivity
of sustainability aspects (environment, economy, and equity), having an appropriate context for
implementation of the concepts is very important to help students relate the concepts to the
context. The transportation context was found to be appropriate because of the significant impli-
cations of sustainability in the transportation sector and due to the tangible nature of the transpor-
tation system. The intervention was implemented within 6 h of class time during the spring semester
of 2012, with an additional 8 h of student teamwork time beyond the official class time. The interven-
tion taught various concepts of sustainability as they relate to highway design, operation, and
maintenance.
A quiz of 20 multiple-choice questions was specifically designed to measure students’ understand-
ing about sustainability. This quiz was administered before and after the intervention. Data analysis of
the pre-intervention quiz showed that students did not have adequate knowledge of concepts
480 E. H. FINI ET AL.

related to sustainability. This was reflected in the student’s average scores on the aforementioned
quiz: 8.90/20.00, sample size 25, standard deviation 2.40. Through the intervention, discussion and
brainstorming were conducted to increase the students’ awareness about societal problems
related to transportation sustainability. In addition, a case study comparing transportation sustain-
ability between Germany and the U.S. was conducted in class. Discussions covered three aspects
of sustainability in transportation: environment (e.g. carbon footprint of construction materials,
and vehicle noise), equity (e.g. accessibility and public transit), and economy (including costs
related to highway agencies and consumers – the total cost concept). The topics discussed included
the three aspect of sustainability (environment, economy, and equity). The ecology aspects empha-
sised the carbon footprint of highway infrastructure (including pavement construction) as it relates to
materials recycling and optimised hauling distance, as well as construction and maintenance. Stu-
dents learned how recycling and reuse of construction materials can help reduce the carbon footprint
while they practiced implementing sustainability metrics. Students further learned how government
forces and market forces can promote clean technologies and reduce the carbon footprint of trans-
portation sections. They learned about the concepts of carbon tax and emissions trading (cap and
trade) as well as how fuel tax and government incentives can incentivise energy efficient engines
as well as use of bio-fuels and electric engines. In terms of social aspects, the discussion focused
on traffic management, as well as providing enhanced real time traveller information and incident
management, for improving safety and ride quality. In terms of economics aspects, students
learned about cost-analysis techniques and how the application of recycled materials along with
enhanced traffic management can reduce costs.
The discussion led to increasing students’ engagement and interest in the topic. Following the
case study, the class was divided into teams; each team was asked to conduct research on sustain-
ability measures for concrete and asphalt pavements. The necessary discussions of peer review in
class were used to help students begin to identify themselves as researchers and begin to
develop their plan for research related to sustainable transportation. Incorporating research into
the classroom led to a more interactive class while students practiced working with related databases
and journals to perform their assigned project. To implement the intervention, emphasis was placed
on increasing students’ awareness about sustainability and the nation’s societal problems related to
transportation. It was expected that students who became aware of the issue would be more motiv-
ated towards self-learning. After the intervention, students’ knowledge of sustainability was evalu-
ated using the quiz that was specifically designed to evaluate students’ understanding of
sustainability concepts.

3.4. Design and structure of the project

To evaluate the effect of the intervention on students’ learning outcomes, a questionnaire was admi-
nistered before and after students were exposed to the intervention. The questionnaire used was
from the LITEE (www.litee.org), developed through NSF grant #0442531. In addition, a quiz was
given before and after the intervention. These quizzes were not announced; the students were
informed that the quizzes would not count for a grade in the course.

4. Methodology
Two questionnaires were used to evaluate students’ feedback on the intervention method. Each
evaluation consisted of 23 items. Students were asked to evaluate the effectiveness of the study
on a 5-point Likert scale (1 indicating an extremely negative rating and 5 an extremely positive
rating). The questionnaire included items to measure five constructs: higher-order cognitive skills,
self-efficacy, ease of learning subject matter, teamwork, and communication skills (Table 1). Students
completed the questionnaires, included their comments, and submitted them along with their pro-
jects. Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS (Hair, Black, and Babin 2010; Treacy 1985).
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION 481

Table 1. Constructs and items used to measure learning outcomes.

Construct
Higher-order cognitive
domain of learning (HC)
Self-efficacy (SE)
Ease of learning (EL)
Impact on teamwork (TW)
Communication skills (CS)
Items
Instructional materials improved my problem-solving skills and helped me to identify
engineering tools that will assist me in decision-making, how to inter-relate important topics
and ideas, how to identify various alternatives/solutions to a problem, and how to sort relevant
from irrelevant facts.
This engineering course improved my confidence in applying engineering concepts to real
situations, made my learning easier, emotionally engaged me in learning the course topics,
increased my self-confidence, helped me achieve a sense of accomplishment in learning, and
helped me assume a greater responsibility for personal learning.
I get frustrated going over engineering tests in class. I am under stress during engineering
classes. Learning engineering requires a great deal of discipline.
The instructional materials helped me improve my team-building and interpersonal skills, listen
carefully to other’s statements and ideas, arrive at decisions based on consensus building,
share ideas with others, enhance my interactions with my classmates.
My writing skills improved; my presentation skills improved, and my informal communication
skills improved.

4.1. Descriptive statistics

Descriptive statistics were computed from the samples. The mean and standard deviation for each
construct are provided in Table 2 for the before and after study data. It should be noted that with
the exception of ease of learning (EL), a higher mean score is an indication of improvement in the
corresponding learning outcome. A review of the descriptive statistics suggests improvement in
the mean score (point estimate) for all other constructs, providing initial evidence for the positive
effect of the intervention on student learning outcomes. In the next section, a more detailed analysis
is performed to examine significant improvement in the mean scores.
The mean, standard deviation, and a measure of skewness for each variable are presented in Table
2. Measures of skewness and the result of the Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Shapiro–Wilk tests indicated
that the requirements of normality are met (Hair, Black, and Babin 2010). Because these tests are
argued to be biased by the sample size (Field 2009), we plotted the Q–Q plots for additional assess-
ment (Wilk and Gnanadesikan 1968). Overall, we concluded that the data are coming from a normal
distribution.

4.2. Factor analysis

Because the survey instrument had already been developed and tested in various educational set-
tings for measuring student learning outcomes, construct validity was already established. Neverthe-
less, we conducted factor analysis to examine the validity of the survey instrument in measuring
sustainability outcomes. Using principal component analysis as the extraction method, the results
identified five distinct learning outcomes, providing support for the validity of the survey instrument
(Hair, Black, and Babin 2010).

4.3. Reliability assessment

Table 3 presents Cronbach’s coefficient alpha for the five constructs considered in the study. The
Cronbach’s alpha is used to measure the internal consistency of the instrument, and assesses the
reliability of the instrument (Cronbach 1951; Nunally 1978). Most of the constructs have a coefficient
value of 0.7 or higher, which is an acceptable value (Hair, Black, and Babin 2010).
A review of the reliability measures for the constructs reveals some concerns regarding ease of
learning subject matter (EL). The construct has a relatively low reliability both before and after the
case study. Since there are only three questions for EL, it is not practical to remove any question.
Therefore, the construct was kept with the original items.
482 E. H. FINI ET AL.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics.

Before the case study After the case study
Construct N Mean S.D. Mean S.D.
Higher-order cognitive domain of learning (HOC) 25 3.44 1.05 4.45 0.53
Ease of learning of subject matter (EL) 25 3.33 0.93 3.12 0.73
Self-efficacy (SE) 25 3.34 0.93 4.08 0.64
Impact on team working (TW) 25 3.42 1.11 4.01 0.72
Communication skills (CS) 25 2.87 0.93 3.71 0.92

Table 3. Reliability.
Cronbach’s alpha
Construct Number of items Before the case study After the case study
Higher-order cognitive domain of learning (HOC) 5 0.842 0.968
Ease of learning subject matter (EL) 3 0.423 0.432
Self-efficacy (SE) 6 0.801 0.923
Impact on team working (TW) 4 0.888 0.967
Communication skills (CS) 3 0.867 0.794

4.4. Assessment of students’ learning outcomes

A t-test was used to compare students’ perception of the effectiveness of the case study in improving
their learning outcomes (Hair, Black, and Babin 2010). Table 4 presents the result of the t-test. An
important consideration in conducting a t-test is the equality of variances between groups. To
examine this, Levene’s test for equality of variances was conducted (Levene 1960). The results do
not suggest any significant difference between groups at α = 0.05 level of significance.
The p-values are used to determine significant change in each learning outcome; a p-value below
5% (α = 0.05) suggests significant improvement. We find a significant difference on the mean average
for higher-order cognitive domain of learning (HOC) before and after the intervention (p < .05). There-
fore, H1 is supported. No significant improvement in mean score for ease of learning (EL) is observed;
therefore, H2 is not supported. Nevertheless, we notice that the point estimate for the mean of EL
dropped from 3.30 in the pre-test to 3.12 in the post-test. Because EL is reverse-coded (i.e. a
higher value of EL represents more learning difficulty), we can conclude that the point estimate
for the mean for ease of learning (EL) was reduced as the result of the intervention. Thus, using
PBL can help students in terms of ease of learning the sustainability concepts in transportation engin-
eering. However, this change is not statistically significant.
The mean score for self-efficacy (SE) after the intervention is significantly greater than that of the
pre-intervention (p < .01). Therefore, H3 is supported. We also find significant improvement in the
mean score of impact on teamwork (TW) after the intervention (p < .05), which supports H4.

Table 4. Independent samples test.

Levene’s test for
equality of variances t-test for equality of means
Construct F Sig. t Sig.
HOC Equal variance assumed 3.658 .062 4.299 .0001
Equal variance not assumed 4.299 .0001
EL Equal variance assumed 1.435 .237 −0.905 .370
Equal variance not assumed −0.905 .370
SE Equal variance assumed 1.049 .311 3.266 .002
Equal variance not assumed 3.266 .002
TW Equal variance assumed 2.892 .095 2.201 .033
Equal variance not assumed 2.201 .033
CS Equal variance assumed 0.023 .879 3.224 .002
Equal variance not assumed 3.224 .002
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION 483

Finally, there is significant improvement in the mean score of communication skills (CS) after the
intervention (p < .01); therefore, H5 is supported. Based on the results of the t-test, we can conclude
the intervention study has significant effects on higher-order cognitive domain of learning (HOC),
self-efficacy (SE), impact on teamwork (TW), and communication skills (CS).

5. Discussion
5.1. Contributions to theory and practice
The results of the study have several important contributions to the theory and practice of sustain-
ability in education, which we address below.
Our study’s first contribution pertains to the applicability and validity of the LITEE survey for
capturing learning outcomes pertaining to sustainability in transportation engineering. Using
both pre-test and post-test data, our empirical findings suggest that the LITEE survey is a reliable
construct for assessment of student learning outcomes (Parast 2010). In that regard, we further
reexamined the application of LITEE in measuring student learning outcomes in the context of
sustainability.
The second contribution of the study pertains to the impact of PBL on the improvement of key
dimensions of student learning outcomes. While previous studies have shown improvement in
student learning outcomes by using PBL in civil engineering courses (Blumenfeld et al. 1991;
Pinho-Lopes and Macedo 2014), we were able to show the effect of PBL in the context of sustainabil-
ity. Our empirical findings show significant improvement in student learning outcomes in the cogni-
tive domain of learning (HOC), self-efficacy (SE), impact on teamwork (TW), and communication skills
(CS). This could help educators and instructors to more effectively utilise PBL in conjunction with
other pedagogical practices to enhance student learning outcomes. More specifically, in the
context of sustainability in transportation, we showed that using PBL can improve several key learn-
ing outcomes such as the higher-order cognitive domain of learning. Because learning sustainability
concepts requires understanding the interaction between social, economic, and environmental
dimensions within the context of the technical domain of transportation engineering, improvement
in the higher-order cognitive domain of learning through using PBL emphasises the importance of a
hands-on, project-driven, and practice-oriented approach to teaching sustainability to transportation
and civil engineering students.
For our study’s third contribution, our review of the standard deviation for the constructs for the
pre-test and post-test provides an important insight into the impact of PBL on improving students’
learning about sustainability. We realise that for all constructs, there is a reduction in the point esti-
mate for standard deviation. That is significant because it shows that using PBL has led to more
homogeneous learning outcomes for the entire class. Because individuals differ in their learning
styles (Willingham, Hughes, and Dobolyi 2015), it can be argued that using PBL in the context of sus-
tainability has led to a more homogeneous class in terms of learning outcomes. This suggests that as
a result of using PBL, students have been able to get a better understanding of the learning outcomes
of the course. These findings would have broader implications for creating a more effective learning
environment in the classroom, where using PBL can provide a more homogeneous classroom in
terms of student learning of the subject matter.

5.2. Integrating the project into the course

The aforementioned intervention of introducing topics related to sustainability and environmental
concerns into the transportation design course was just an educational experiment. The authors
plan to work with the department to recommend various improvements to the transportation engin-
eering required courses at the undergraduate level. These recommendations are suitable for any
undergraduate civil engineering programme. The material for transportation sustainability should
484 E. H. FINI ET AL.

not be concentrated in just a few lectures; it should be an integrative component of each lecture.
Sustainability and environmental concerns should be part of every transportation topic, using
various teaching/learning methods. PBL is an effective method that is highly recommended. It is
most important to interest students in the subject matter through brainstorming and to follow up
with related course projects. These actions proved to stimulate students’ critical thinking and inno-
vation. In addition, teamwork interactions and competition among teams are a catalyst for critical
thinking and innovative ideas.
Feedback from the students indicated that it is important to assign grades for the various forms of
evaluation. Students’ incentives are mainly grade-driven. Hence, the difference between the pre-
intervention and post-intervention quizzes is expected to be even higher, if quizzes are part of the
students’ class grade.

5.3. Limitations and future research

One of the limitations of the study is the sample size; thus, future studies should use a larger sample
size to examine the impact of such an intervention in improving student learning outcomes.
Although the t-test is not sensitive to sample size, we recommend conducting similar studies with
larger samples. While increasing the sample size may not be practical due to the limitation on the
number of students in a class, increasing the sample size through administering the survey to
several courses or over several semesters could provide the required sample size to conduct a
more robust statistical analysis. However, differences in the results between such samples could
be a consequence of inconsistency in students’ interest in various subjects or differences in instruc-
tors’ styles and effectiveness.
The differences between the before and after results of this study proved to be statistically signifi-
cant and substantial in some learning outcomes. One important result of this study is the positive
impression of the students and the stimulation of their interest in sustainability, which has
become an important subject for engineers. Hence, it is highly recommended to be considered in
various engineering courses.
In addition, future studies can examine the impact of contextual and demographic variables such
as course context, instructor, gender, race, and student GPA on the improvement of student learning
outcomes after implementing PBL. It is possible that students with higher GPA’s may not benefit as
much from PBL compared to students who are struggling with their grades. Another interesting
research study could be to address the effect of student learning style on improving their learning
outcomes as a result of PBL.
Finally, future studies should develop survey instruments that assess student learning outcomes in
the specific dimensions of sustainability (environment, economy, and equity). We were not able to
assess improvement in each dimension of sustainability using the LITEE survey. Thus, future studies
should develop specific questions to examine improvement in each dimension of sustainability.

6. Conclusion
This study was designed to assess the improvement in students’ learning outcomes in the area of
transportation sustainability by using PBL combined with real-world case studies. Educators can
use the proposed platform to improve students’ learning, which enhances content coverage. Further-
more, working together on the project improves students’ teamwork skills. This suggests that PBL is
an effective teaching and learning method that helps students relate course materials to practice
while improving their level of understanding about the subject matter. In addition, PBL is a tool
that increases students’ interest and their awareness of a subject. An important observation was
the positive and confident mood of students during the PBL intervention. Finally, instilling in engin-
eering students an awareness of the concepts of environmental concerns and sustainability will not
only help them in their careers, it will benefit everyone.
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION 485

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This research is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) [grant number 1238852] (Tar-
geted Infusion Project Grant: Incorporation of Sustainability Concepts into Undergraduate Civil Engineering Curriculum
Using Project-Based Learning).

Notes on contributors
Elham (Ellie) Fini, Ph.D., P.E. is the Director of the Sustainable Infrastructure Materials lab, Associate Professor, J. W. Fulb-
right Scholar at North Carolina A&T State University. She received her Ph.D. from University of Illinois at Urbana-Cham-
paign in 2008 on characterizing interfacial properties of adhesives and sealants. Her achievements were recognized via
multiple awards including NSF CAREER award, 2017 BEYA STEM Innovation award, and nomination for 2017 BioNight
Entrepreneurial Excellence Award. She has successfully incorporated project-based learning into her classroom, and
guided numerous student teams to develop novel and sustainable solutions to our society’s challenges in the areas
of materials, construction and transportation.
Faisal Awadallah, Ph.D., P.E. is a Professor of Transportation Engineering at the Department of Civil Engineering at Birzeit
University, Palestine. He obtained his B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Maryland. He is a registered
professional engineer in the State of Maryland. He was a visiting professor at Penn State University in 1997–1998 and
at North Carolina A&T State University in 2011–2012. A consultant for many projects in the Middle East, Europe and
USA. Dr. Awadallah supervised several master and Ph.D. theses and has numerous journal and conference publications
in the areas of traffic engineering and urban planning.
Mahour Mellat Parast, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor of Technology Management at North Carolina A&T State University.
His current research is focused on supply chain risk and resilience management, education and training in technological
innovation, and process and product innovation, which are supported by grants from the National Science Foundation
(NSF) and the US Department of Transportation. He teaches courses in supply chain management, new product devel-
opment, and statistics. His scholarly works have appeared in several peer-reviewed journals such as Journal of Operations
Management, International Journal of Production Research, International Journal of Production Economics, International
Journal of Logistics Management, and Production Planning & Control. He is a member of Decision Sciences Institute (DSI),
Production and Operations Management Society (POMS), and Academy of Management (AOM). Mahour received his
Ph.D. in Industrial & Management Systems Engineering from University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
Taher Abu-Lebdeh, Ph.D., P.E. is an Associate Professor with the department of Civil, Architectural, and Environmental
Engineering, R&D Chair of the Advanced Manufacturing Consortium, and Associate Editor for the American Journal of
Applied Sciences. He received his Ph.D. in Civil Engineering from Louisiana State University in 1992. His endeavors in
the area of teaching have earned him two teaching awards. His work and research involvement resulted in over $3.5
million of funding for educational research, and student mentoring funding. He has successfully incorporated project-
based learning and research-based learning into his civil engineering courses.

References
ABET (Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology). 2012. “Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs.”
Accessed February 29, 2013. http://www.abet.org/eac-current-criteria.
Ahmet, S., O. Filiz, and Y. Goktepe. 2015. “The Effect of Project Based Learning in ‘Ratio, Proportion and Percentage’ Unit
on Mathematics Sources and Attitude.” European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 3 (1): 1–13.
Antoine, D., M. Hutchison, and D. Follman. 2006. “The Undergraduate Research Experience as It Relates to Research
Efficacy Beliefs and the Imposter Phenomenon.” American Society for Engineering Education, 113th Annual ASEE
Conference and Exposition, Chicago, IL June 18–21.
ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers). 2013. “Report Card for America’s Infrastructure.” Accessed March 19. http://
www.infrastructurereportcard.org.
ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers). 2017. “Report Card for America’s Infrastructure.” Accessed July 13. http://
www.infrastructurereportcard.org.
Bandura, A. 1994. “Encyclopedia of psychology.” In Self-efficacy. 2nd ed, Vol. 3., edited by R. J. Corsini, 368–369. New York:
Wiley.
Banning, K. 2003. “The Effect of the Case Method on Tolerance for Ambiguity.” Journal of Management Education 27 (5):
556–567.
486 E. H. FINI ET AL.

Bauer, K. W., and J. S. Bennett. 2008. “Evaluation of the Undergraduate Research Program at the University of Delaware: A
Multifaceted Design.” In Creating Effective Undergraduate Research Programs in Science: The Transformation from
Student to Scientist, edited by R. Taraban, and R. L. Blanton, 81–111. New York: Teachers College Press.
Blumenfeld, P. C., E. Soloway, R. W. Marx, J. S. Krajcik, M. Guzdial, and A. Palincsar. 1991. “Motivating Project-based
Learning: Sustaining the Doing, Supporting the Learning.” Educational Psychologist 26 (3–4): 369–398.
Böcker, F. 1987. “Is Case Teaching More Effective than Lecture Teaching in Business Administration? An Exploratory
Analysis.” Interfaces 17 (5): 64–71.
Chen, R., D. Goodman, A. Izadian, and E. Cooney. 2010. “Teaching Renewable Energy Through Hands-on Project-based
Learning for Engineering Technology Students.” ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, June 20–23. American
Society for Engineering Education.
Cheng, D., P. Hicks, R. Gary, and A. Johnson. 2009. “Promoting Sustainability Through Educating Undergraduate Students
on Applications of Waste Tire Products in Civil Engineering and Transportation.” TRB 88th Annual Meeting
Compendium of Papers DVD. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Cooper, J., J. Basson, and P. Schaap. 2006. “A Training Programme Based on the Principles of Social Constructivism and
Focused on Developing People for the Future World of Work: An Evaluation.” Human Resource Development
International 9 (4): 467–483.
Corie, H., S. K. Heidi, and Ahn Bonnie. 2014. “Facilitating Research Self-efficacy Through Teaching Strategies Linked to Self-
efficacy Theory.” American International Journal of Social Science 3 (1): 44–50.
Cronbach, L. J. 1951. “Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.” Psychometrika 16 (3): 297–334.
Davis, S., S. Diegel, and R. Boundy. 2010. Transportation Energy Data Book. 30th ed. Oak Ridge, TN: ORNL-6986, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, 59.
Desai, S., L. Parrish, and M. Williams. 2008. “Improving Retention and Continuing Education Through Undergraduate
Research Program.” ASEE annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings. June 22–24.
Desiraju, R., and C. Gopinath. 2001. “Encouraging Participation in Case Discussions: A Comparison of the MIC and the
Harvard Case Method.” Journal of Management Education 25 (4): 394–408.
Echempati, R., and R. Dippery. 2010. “Teaching and Assessment Experiences of an Undergraduate Mechanical
Engineering Design Course.” ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, June 23. American Society for Engineering
Education.
Elkington, J. 1998. Carnival with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. Stony Creek, CT: New Society.
EPA Report. 2006. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the U.S. Transportation Sector 1990–2003. Office of Transportation and
Air Quality (6401A) EPA 420 R 06 003, March.
Farahnaz, M., P. Ryan, E. R. Jenna, and G. Trinidad. 2012. “Project-Based Learning to Promote Effective Learning in
Biotechnology Courses.” Education Research International 1–9.
Field, A. 2009. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. p. 143.
Fitzsimons, C. H. 2017. “Role of Project Based Learning in Education: Case Study of Young Enterprise Northern Ireland.”
Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing 544: 282–285.
Friesel, A. 2010. “Encouraging Students to Study Theory Through Interdisciplinary Projects, Teamwork and E-learning,
2010.” Proceedings – 2010 IEEE Region 8 International Conference on Computational Technologies in Electrical
and Electronics Engineering, 364–368. SIBIRCON-2010; ISBN-13: 9781424476268.
Gaddam, V., I. Fidan, and B. Barger. 2016. “Hands-on Entrepreneurial Engineering Management Course and Its
Experiential Learning.” ASEE annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings, American Society for
Engineering Education,New Orleans, LA.
Greenhalgh, A. M. 2007. “Case Method Teaching as Science and Art: A Metaphoric Approach and Curricular Application.”
Journal of Management Education 31 (2): 181–194.
Gregerman, S. 2003. Improving the Academic Success and Retention of Diverse Students Through Undergraduate Research.
Arlington, VA: NSF. Accessed June 20, 2010. http://urc.arizona.edu/gregerman.cfm.
Haichert, R., M. Foth, and D. Guenther. 2011. “Case Study Evaluation of the Sustainability of Recycled Aggregate Road
Structure.” TRB 90th Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers DVD. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Hair, J. F., W. C. Black, and B. J. Babin. 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis. 7th ed. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Education.
Helmer, J., and J. Gough. 2010. “Best Practices in Sustainable Transportation.” Institute of Transportation Engineers, ITE
Journal 80 (3): 26–35.
Huang, J. 2010. “Improving Undergraduates’ Teamwork Skills by Adapting Project-based Learning Methodology.” 5th
International Conference on Computer Science & Education. ISBN-13: 978-1-4244-6002-1. doi:10.1109/ICCSE.2010.
5593527.
Jennifer, L.-G. 2009. “Five Ways to Increase Civic Engagement.” Social Studies and the Young Learner 22 (1): 15–18.
Johnson, B., and R. Ulseth. 2017. “Student Experience for the Development of Professional Competencies in a Project-
based Learning Curriculum International.” Journal of Engineering Education 33 (3): 1031–1047.
King, N. 2000. “Preparing high school students for the new millennium and beyond.” Education 121 (1): 4–7.
Koschmann, T. 2000. “The Future of Work.” Journal of the Learning Sciences 9 (4): 501–503.
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION 487

Kotys-Schwartz, D., D. Knight, and G. Pawlas. 2010. “First-year and Capstone Design Projects: Is the Bookend Curriculum
Approach Effective for Skill Gain?” ASEE annual Conference and Exposition Conference Proceedings, June 20–23.
American Society for Engineering Education.
Lanning, D., W. Lestari, and A. Sh. Waterhouse. 2010. “Unique Undergraduate Laboratory-based Course in Engineering
Failure.” ASEE annual Conference and Exposition Conference Proceedings, June 20–23. American Society for
Engineering Education.
Levene, H. 1960. “Contributions to Probability and Statistics: Essays in Honor of Harold Hotelling.” In Robust Tests for
Equality of Variances, edited by I. Olkin, 278–292. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.
Litman, T., and F. Laube. 2002. Automobile Dependency and Economic Development, Victoria Transport Policy Institute,
Victoria, BC, Canada.
Litman, T., and F. Laube. 2012. “Automobile Dependency and Economic Development. Victoria Transport Policy Institute.”
Accessed December 2015. http://www.vtpi.org/ecodev.pdf.
Liu, D., S. Ma, Q. Ru, and Z. Guo. 2009. “Design of Multi-strategic Learning Environment Based on Constructivism.”
Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Education Technology and Computer Science, 3:226–228. ISBN-
13: 9780769535579.
Loewenstein, J., L. Thompson, and D. Gentner. 2003. “Analogical Learning in Negotiation Teams: Comparing Cases
Promotes Learning and Transfer.” Academy of Management Learning and Education 2 (2): 119–127.
Lyons, P. 2008. “Case-based Modeling for Learning Management and Interpersonal Skills.” Journal of Management
Education 32 (4): 420–443.
Mallick, R., P. Mathisen, and M. FitzPatrick. 2002. “Opening the Window of Sustainable Development to Future Civil
Engineers.” Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice 128 (4): 212–216.
Mann, R. 1998. “Recycling Our Cities, Policy, Planning and Sustainability.” Proceedings of seminar C held at AET European
Transport Conference, 1–9. Loughborough University, England, September 14–18.
Martinez, F., L. C. Herrero, and S. De Pablo. 2010. “Project-based Learning and Rubrics in the Teaching of Power Supplies
and Photovoltaic Electricity.” IEEE Transactions on Education 54: 87–96. doi:10.1109/TE.2010.2044506.
Molebash, P., and D. Fisher. 2003. “Teaching and Learning Literacy with Technology.” Reading Improvement 40 (2): 63.
Norman, D. 1982. Learning and Memory. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.
Nunnally, J. C. 1978. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill.
Nyirenda, G., and C. C. Ngwakwe. 2014. “Environmental Management Practices for Sustainable Development Agenda for
Harmonization.” Environmental Economics 5 (1): 76–85.
Orentürk, B., Y. Göktas, and S. Bulu. 2004. “What Construct Constructivism: Moving from the Theory to Application.”
Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Information, Istanbul, Turkey.
Parast, M. M. 2010. “Effectiveness of Case Study in Enhancing Student Learning in Operations Management.” Operations
and Supply Chain Management 3 (1): 49–58.
Pierce, R., and H. Yochum. 2010. “Engaging Engineering Students in a Design-based Service Learning Course Emphasizing
Connections Between Technology and Society.” ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings,
June 20–23. American Society for Engineering Education.
Pinho-Lopes, M., and J. Macedo. 2014. “Project-based Learning to Promote High Order Thinking and Problem Solving
Skills in Geotechnical Courses.” International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy 4 (5): 20–27.
Powers, S. E., J. E. DeWaters, and M. Z. Venczel. 2011. “Teaching Life-cycle Perspectives: Sustainable Transportation Fuels
Unit for High-school and Undergraduate Engineering Students.” Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education
and Practice 137 (2): 55–63.
Prayoonsri, B., S. Tatsirin, D. Suntorapot, and C. Jariya. 2015. “Factors Affecting Higher Order Thinking Skills of Students: A
Meta-analytic Structural Equation Modeling Study.” Educational Research and Reviews 10 (19): 2639–2652.
Quevedo-Torrero, J. 2009. “Decidability and Constructivism.” ITNG – 6th International Conference on Information
Technology: New Generations, 1711–1714.
Rumelhart, D., and D. Norman. 1978. “Accretion, Tuning and Restructuring: Three Modes of Learning.” In Semantic Factors
in Cognition, edited by J. W. Cotton, and R. Klatzky, 37–53. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Russell, S. H., M. P. Hancock, H. Susan, and J. McCullough. 2007. “Benefits of Undergraduate Research Experiences.” Science
316 (5824): 548–549.
Sankar, C., and P. K. Raju. 2006. “National Dissemination of Multi-media Case Studies That Bring Real-World Issues into
Engineering Classrooms: Pilot Study.” ASEE Annual Conference, Auburn University.
Schrijen, P. 2005. “Educating Transport Engineers for Collaborative Planning.” Proceedings of ETC 2005 – Transport Policy
and Operations: Planning For Sustainable Land Use and Transport – Skills and Decision Processes. Strasbourg, France,
September 18–20.
Slaughter, G., T. Harris, K. Ngandu, K. Williamson, and K. Adom. 2009. “Undergraduate Research Experience: A Tool for
Students Pursuing a Graduate Degree in Engineering.” American Society for Engineering Education, June 14–17.
Treacy, M. 1985. “An Empirical Evaluation of a Causal Model of User Information Satisfaction.” Proceedings of the Sixth
International Conference on Information Systems, Indianapolis, IN, 285–287.
Tsai, W.-T., W. Li, J. Elston, and Y. Chen. 2010. “Collaborative Learning Using Wiki Web Sites for Computer Science
Undergraduate Education: A Case Study.” IEEE Transactions on Education 54: 114–124. doi:10.1109/TE.2010.2046491.
488 E. H. FINI ET AL.

United Nation Report. 1987. The World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. New York:
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
Venson, E., R. Figueiredo, W. Silva, and L. C. M. Ribeiro. 2016. “Academy-industry Collaboration and the Effects of the
Involvement of Undergraduate Students in Real World Activities.” 46th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference,
October 12–15, 2016, American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE).
Vidican, G. 2009. The Role of Universities in Innovation and Sustainable Development. Sustainable Development and
Planning IV, Vol. 1. Southampton: Wessex Institute of Technology (WIT) Press. 131–139.
Voelcker, J. 2014. 1.2 Billion Vehicles on World’s Roads Now, 2 Billion By 2035: Report. Retrieved from Green Car Report on
September 12, 2017. http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1093560_1-2-billion-vehicles-on-worlds-roads-now-2-
billion-by-2035-report.
Walls, M. E. 2000. “Case Studies for Teaching Technology: Contexts for Course Content.” Journal of SMET Education 1 (1):
33–36.
Wang, Y.-M. 2010. “Group Learning for Different Major Undergraduate Students in Public Selective Course.” Proceedings
of the 2010 International Conference on Educational and Information Technology (ICEIT 2010). doi:10.1109/ICEIT.
ISBN-13: 978-1-4244-8033-3.
Wang, Y., and G. Liu. 2010. “China Accounting Education Change in the Knowledge Society: The Constructivism
Education.” 2nd International Workshop on Education Technology and Computer Science, Vol. 3, IEEE Computer
Society, 542–545.
Weil, S., P. Oyelere, and E. Rainsbury. 2004. “The Usefulness of Case Studies in Developing Core Competencies in a
Professional Accounting Programme: A New Zealand Study.” Accounting Education 13 (2): 139–169.
Wilk, M. B., and R. Gnanadesikan. 1968. “Probability Plotting Methods for the Analysis of Data.” Biometrika 55 (1): 1–17.
Willingham, D. T., E. M. Hughes, and D. G. Dobolyi. 2015. “The Scientific Status of Learning Styles Theories.” Teaching of
Psychology 42 (3): 266–271.
Wootton, J. 1999. “Replacing the Private Car.” Transport Reviews 19 (2): 157–175.
Wu, M. C., and Y. H. Chen. 2014. “A Factor Analysis on Teamwork Performance – An Empirical Study of Inter-instituted
Collaboration.” Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 55: 37–55.