Education for Chemical Engineers 29 (2019) 1–8

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Education for Chemical Engineers

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ece

Project-led-education experience as a partial strategy in first years of

engineering courses
Ana M. Ruiz-Ortega a , Juan J. Gallardo-Rodríguez b,c,∗ , Elvira Navarro-López c ,
María del Carmen Cerón-García c
a
Department of Humanities, Faculty of Education and Social Sciences, Andres Bello University, Chile
b
Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Concepción, Chile
c
Department of Chemical Engineering, Higher Engineering School, University of Almería, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Recently, there has been a growing tendency to substitute or supplement teacher-centered strategies for
Received 31 January 2019 others student-centered. These include problem-based learning or collaborative learning. In certain areas,
Received in revised form 6 May 2019 such as engineering, project-led learning collects some of the benefits of problem-based learning and
Accepted 30 May 2019
integrates others that are of interest to the formation of engineers. More recently, project-led education
Available online 5 June 2019
as an integral strategy has been demonstrated in several European universities with impressive results.
Students have a lower dropout rate, a lower period of adaptation to professional practice and better soft
Keywords:
skills. While this implementation requires a general model change, at least at the faculty level, partial
Project-led education
Problem-based learning
strategies applied in specific courses could pick up some of the positive aspects of these methodologies. In
PBL this paper, obtained results in a second-year Unit Operations course (grade of bioengineering) by applying
Chemical engineering this type of partial strategies are discussed. The student’s acceptance was good, and both motivation and
Engineering teaching academic results improved significantly. It was observed a deeper and wider knowledge acquisition in
Higher education the students. Teacher’s workload increased, although, as there was a maximum of 25 students, it was
manageable. It was concluded that transition from traditional to project-led learning strategies can be
done within a subject without an educational model change at faculty or university level.
© 2019 Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction cesses for the acquisition of new knowledge and problem-solving

At present, many universities are implementing new didac-
tic methodologies based on the acquisition of learning through
the performance of projects. This type of methodology shows
the emphasis on the active role of the student who must give
form to the content given, so that the problem/project will be
solved. This approach can report significant benefits, since deliv-
ers reasoning and communication skills which are needed for the
professional practice (Duch et al., 2001). First of all, it would be
necessary to make a distinction between project-led learning (PLL)
and problem-based learning (PBL), as important differences have
been pointed out (Hanney and Savin-Baden, 2013). Mainly, com-
plexity level of problems/projects. Both the PBL and the PLL are
student-centered strategies where the teacher designs the learning
scenario and plays a role in guiding the learning process. Moreover,
in both cases it is sought to engage the student in research pro-
∗ Corresponding author at: Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engi-
neering, University of Concepción, Chile.
E-mail address: juangallardo@udec.cl (J.J. Gallardo-Rodríguez).
skills. Although some authors consider that the PLL is a type of
PBL (Watson, 2002). Kolmos described PLL (“project-based learn-
ing” in her words) differentiating it from PBL, since in the former
students must acquire management skills and come up with a
common product (Kolmos, 2009). The term Project-Led Education
refers to an educational model where the complete curriculum
is delivered using projects (Warmerdam, 2017). Examples of this
implementation are Twente University, Aalborg University and
Roskilde University (Kolmos, 2009; Warmerdam, 2017). PLL, com-
pared to PBL, tends to be more interdisciplinary, lengthened in time
and tries to solve real-life problems (Kolmos, 2009). It has been
stated that these learning methods can be used in combination and
are complementary (Mettas et al., 2007).
Traditionally, in engineering schools the concept of “project”,
typically carried out in the last year of the grade, has been part
of the education plans. This project consists of an original exer-
cise carried out individually, consisting of a comprehensive work of
any discipline. In these “projects”, the knowledge to be applied had
previously been given to the student in previous courses through
classical pedagogical methodologies. In this way, this learning tool
seeks the student to confront and solve similar problems to those

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2019.05.004
1749-7728/© 2019 Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
2 A.M. Ruiz-Ortega et al. / Education for Chemical Engineers 29 (2019) 1–8
that will solve in his future professional activity, functioning as a
professional validation. It can be stated that the traditional con-
ception of projects and the PBL are mature methodologies. On
the one hand, PBL has been widely applied in medical sciences
for decades (Barrows, 1986). Some authors have emphasized that
PBL, compared to other methodologies, allows greater retention of
knowledge in the long term, improves performance and increases
student satisfaction (Strobel and Van Barneveld, 2009). PBL can
be structured in 3 phase cycles (a) problem and diagnosis, (b)
self-directed study and (c) problem solving, which respond to 3
learning objectives: acquisition of knowledge in an autonomous
manner (related to the problem), acquisition of generic skills and
knowledge and, finally, acquisition of broader professional skills
for problem solving. On the other hand, the traditional project (as a
learning strategy) can be described as a pedagogical method where
the student works on a complex design problem. The project can be
divided in individual questions or problems which should be solved
through a research process, in a relatively autonomous way. Thus,
it does not have a pedagogical planning since contents have been
previously given by teacher-centered strategies. The traditional
understanding could lead to instrumental and superficial learning
since the knowledge acquisition process is not the focus (Kolmos,
1996). In this case, the priority objective is not the acquisition of
new knowledge, but the development of skills. Current conception
of PLL, which has a pedagogical planning, could be considered an
evolution of the traditional methodology involving projects. In both
conceptions, traditional and modern, are valid the characteristics
discussed by Helle et al. (2006), referring in turn, to the defini-
tion given by Adderley et al. (1975). The following ideas about this
learning can be highlighted: (1) involves the solution of a complex
problem requiring knowledge that is part of the curriculum; (2)
requires an active role on the student’s part, where he/she takes
the initiative and carries out very diverse educational activities;
(3) a final product is obtained (e.g. project report); (4) The work is
developed over a long period of time; (5) the teacher takes a role
as counselor/tutor throughout the process.
It has pointed out that, the use of these strategies of active learn-
ing is made much needed in engineering, especially due to the
different technological challenges that need to be solved (Bellmunt
et al., 2006). Moreover, it was affirmed that they are required to
increase student participation and motivation (Smith et al., 2005)
and develop other skills such as leadership (Sancho et al., 2009). In
the case of “modern” PLL, there are additional features. For example,
Powell and Weenk (2003) claim that PLE fosters active learning pro-
cesses since students are to work in teams and face complex -more
or less- open problems. Besides, the group of students must provide
a solution on the agreed date. The p̈roducts̈hows what they have
learned and how they have achieved it. The fundamental difference
with the classic approach is that students make the diagnosis of
what they need to learn and perform activities of self-learning along
with others that the teacher develops as required. In some studies,
teachers and course directors stated that PLE is an appropriate strat-
egy to prevent high dropout rate (highly common in the first year
of engineering), to promote learning and develop new skills in stu-
dents (Powell and Weenk, 2003). Other authors, such as Schachterle
and Vinther (1996) and Helen et al. (2006), also highlighted the
importance of active learning in these project-based approaches.
Therefore, motivation grows along with other positive characteris-
tics. For instance, it is seen as an advantage the fact that students
deal with real and open problems. Moreover, other authors found
that the contents became more interrelated, the motivation of the
students and the teacher job satisfaction increased (Lima et al.,
2007).
Notwithstanding, several authors have been critical on PLL when
creative problems (very open) were used. Since in these cases it is
not possible to design the contents or competences that students
will require, then the process cannot be controlled (e.g., Hanney
and Savin-Baden, 2013). The goal of these strategies is not for the
student to deliver a project, but to learn during the process. How-
ever, in the centres where an integral strategy is used and all the
professors, from different areas of knowledge, form an educational
team it is possible to take this methodology to a good term. In
PLE, as an integral strategy, groups of students work collabora-
tively for a whole semester in the delivery of a project, in which
they must make use of most of the contents of the subject or course
(Powell and Weenk, 2003). As was indicated above, some examples
where these approaches have already been applied with positive
experiences are the University of Twente (Netherlands), where it
was improved the student’s performance and the rate of abandon-
ment (Warmerdam, 2017) and the Aalborg University (Denmark)
(Kolmos, 2009). In the former, classical subjects have been inte-
grated into broader “modules” which are evaluated as a whole. For
these modules, a project led the learning process. The last one uses
“assignment projects” with first- and second-year students. These
projects involve close-ended problems and rely partially in teacher-
controlled learning. After this first stage, students progressively
face open-ended projects. The polytechnic school of the University
of Aveiro (Portugal), adopted a similar model to the Twente Uni-
versity (Huet et al., 2007). Thus, each project has a set of ‘associated
disciplines’ to support the project, which cover the basics scientific
content. The project and the associated disciplines constitute the
so-called “thematic module” which is the core of the semester.
On the other hand, it can be also found examples in engi-
neering where PLL has been used as a partial strategy within a
traditional study plan. In these partial approaches, PLL has its own
objectives within the set of curriculum objectives. (Woods, 1996;
Cawley, 1991). For instance, at the University of Minho (Portugal)
an interdisciplinary approach was carried out in the first year
of a Master program in Engineering and Industrial Management
(Fernandes et al., 2012, 2014). With a similar design to those pre-
viously described (although not every subject participated), these
authors showed an improvement in meaningful learning and stu-
dent’s involvement. Similarly, the University of Brasilia (Brazil),
in its industrial engineering and management program, applied
successfully PLL methodologies (Lima et al., 2017). For advanced
students (last course of the master’s degree in Chemical Engi-
neering) the University of Seville designed a methodology where
a project design and formulation require running experiments
and combine bibliographic and experimental findings (Vega and
Navarrete, 2018). All these studies together, prove the benefits of
PLL in engineering courses and indicate the path to follow.
The objective of this work is to discuss the results obtained
by applying partial PLL strategies in a Unit Operations course in
Bioengineering degree. Only one subject was involved in the strat-
egy. One unit operation of each topic was selected by the students
and used in their projects. Each one was delivered through a PBL
activity. After the intervention with this methodology, both aca-
demic performance and student satisfaction were assessed. The
main reason for adopting the strategy was to increase motivation,
meaningful learning, ’just-in-time’ education, the integrated appli-
cation of interdisciplinary knowledge and learning by doing.
2. Methodology
2.1. University, degree and course
The degree of Bioengineering is offered by the Faculty of Bio-
logical Sciences of the University of Concepción (Chile) having the
Faculty of Engineering an important role in the Curriculum. Four
obligatory courses should be undertaken from the Department of
Chemical Engineering. The Degree Profile highlights the capacity
to carry out basic and applied research and to project the biolog-
 A.M. Ruiz-Ortega et al. / Education for Chemical Engineers 29 (2019) 1–8
Fig. 1. Pedagogical strategy followed in the Unit Operations Course.
ical knowledge to the industrial field. The educational model of
the University of Concepción is based on learning outcomes and
focused on the development of competencies (generic and spe-
cific). The continuous education offer of the University converges
with international trends, specifically with the Guidelines of the
European Higher Education Space after the Bologna process. As it is
known, through this process European institutions of higher educa-
tion have been urged to introduce new methodologies of teaching
and evaluation (Fernandes et al., 2012).
The course Ünit operations in Bioengineering Iäim is to pro-
vide basic fundamentals of engineering sciences, in particular of
fluid mechanics and heat transfer, and their relationship with the
associated unit operations that are presented in the processing of
biomaterials. The course has 4 credits and is imparted in the 2nd
year of a 6-year curriculum. This course tributes to the following
competencies of the degree profile: Äbility to understand, solve and
suggest solutions to problems where exist fluid and heat transfer
in the bioprocess industry¨. The expected learning outcomes are:
1) Identify the main units of measurement and physical proper-
ties related to the description of fluid and heat transfer behavior;
2) Describe the variables used in calculations of matter and energy
balances, applied to fluids and heat transfer; 3) Understand and
apply the fundamental principles of static and fluid dynamics and
the interaction of these fluids with equipments involved in biolog-
ical/bioprocess systems; 4) Understand and apply to real problems
the fundamental principles of heat transfer in biological/bioprocess
systems; 5) Know the main equipments and engineering opera-
tions involved in fluid mechanics and heat transfer; 6) Recommend
separation, mixing, fluid, heat transfer equipment according to the
plant’s operating needs
2.2. Intervention design
The methodology was based on applying a process of PLL (see
Fig. 1) as a partial pedagogical strategy during a course of unit
operations in Bioengineering. Results of a previous course, where
3
Table 1
Examples of theoretical questions.
Topic Theoretical question
Fluid Flow Are gases more or less viscous than liquids? What are
the consequences of this fact on the type of flow they
develop?
Fluid Flow What parameter should I calculate to see if cavitation
damage will occur in pumping equipment? What
values would indicate that there may be damage? If
these values are found what decision should I take to
avoid them?
Fluid Flow Why should a centrifugal pump be primed?
Heat Flow Why is it necessary in a heat exchanger to calculate an
average driving force (Tml )?
Heat Flow In the context of heat flow, can a stationary system be
in contact with another system in a non-stationary
state? Please give an example.
teacher-centered strategies were used, are presented and dis-
cussed. The number of students was 20–25 per year. Theoretical
and practice test grades were used to compare student’s perfor-
mance. Theoretical tests consisted of written assays of 7 questions
that sought to verify the level of understanding of fundamen-
tal knowledge (See Table 1). Six theoretical tests were carried
out, one for each topic, which were exactly the same for all the
courses. Practice tests consisted of 2 problems (See examples in
Table 2) that the students had to solve using mathematical cal-
culation software (Smath Studio). Problems involved basic design
of the different unit operations included in the curriculum of the
course (e.g.: fluid pumping, heat exchange, centrifugation opera-
tion, etc.). This evaluation scheme was the same for traditionally-
and PLL-delivered course. Statistical analysis of the data was car-
ried out using the software Statgraphics centurion XVI. One-way
analysis of variance and multiple range tests (Fisher’s Least Signifi-
cant Difference) were used to compare each data set. A confidence
level of 95% and p values <0.05 were considered to be statistically
significant.
4 A.M. Ruiz-Ortega et al. / Education for Chemical Engineers 29 (2019) 1–8

Table 2 (4), students’ teams faced each unit operation as a problem-based

Examples of practical questions.
activity (Fig. 1). They were required to self-diagnose what knowl-
Topic Practical question edge (physical processes, applied methods, industrial equipment,
Fluid Flow etc.) was required for the design. These contents were then deliv-
Heat Flow A cylindrical oil storage tank has a steel wall ered in class. For the second part of the report, the following parts
(k = 41.8 W/(m·K)) of 20 mm covered with 50 mm of
o
are required: (a) data for the design calculations -To do so stu-
fiberglass insulation (k = 0.027 BTU/(h· F·ft)). If the dents must have undertaken a bibliographic search and/or estimate
temperature of the oil is maintained at 150 ◦ C, a) what
values-; (b) Design algorithm; (c) Unit operation design parame-
is the rate of heat loss per meter of height in summer
(T = 25 ◦ C) and winter (T = 10 ◦ C); b) How much could ters, assuming specific needs for the bioprocess. In this last part,
the heat loss be reduced if the thickness of the the students had to develop charts where the steps involved the
fiberglass insulation was doubled?; c) If the system engineering design process were included.
that keeps the temperature constant on a cold winter
For the report, students were given a Template with the idea
day (T = 5 ◦ C) fails, how long would it take for the
center of the tank to reach 100 ◦ C if it did not have any of normalizing the projects and that all of them, once corrected
insulation? (Discard the losses through the top and the by the teacher, were shared by all the students. The grades were
bottom of the tank). DATA: tank radius =1 m; tank
o
calculated using an evaluation rubric provided at the beginning of
height =25 m; h = 5 W/(m2·K); Cp = 0.7 Kcal/ (kg· C); the course. There is also a percentage of the grades which consid-
o
␳(oil) =700 kg/m3; k(oil) =0.62 kcal/(h·m· C).
ers the performance within the group. This part is qualified by the
project’s team members. In addition, a preliminary survey was car-
Table 3 ried out and another one was completed at the end of the course
Description of the project calendar (Project’s Schedule). with the purpose of obtaining the students’ impressions and sug-
Milestone Week Description gestions regarding the methodology. Thus, students were asked to
indicate on a Yes-NO scale their knowledge about teaching method-
1 1 Methodology presentation
2 4 Submission of brief description of the ologies related to project/problem-based learning. After the course,
project where unit operations are a Likert-type scale was used to obtain their opinion on the method-
identified ology followed.
3 5 Feedback
4 10 Preliminary version of the project
5 11 Peer assessment and Feedback
6 14 Submission of the final project report
3. Results
7 15 Evaluation and Feedback

In the pre-course survey about the problem- and project-based

The proposed project was presented and explained to the
students in the first week of the course. A list of eligible bio-
processes (e.g. insulin or biodiesel production) was provided on
which students will be able to find the necessary information
for the design. Students organized themselves into groups and
chose a bioprocess. The project calendar is described in Table 3.
They were asked to provide a brief report of the Bioprocess (1),
a block flow diagram to illustrate the process, with inputs and
output flow streams (2), a table containing the different unit
operations and their classification according the property transfer
operation involved (3), and a selection of two unit operations and
their basic design (e.g. calculate flow rate and  in a centrifuge)
(4).
The project had two evaluation and feedback dates (Milestone
3 and 5; Table 3). In the first one, students were asked for the first
3 points and Feedback is provided. In the second one, all the work
is evaluated, and the changes and suggestions are indicated. The
whole class also delivers Feedback on all projects. In the last stage
methodologies, it was observed that 48% of the students affirmed
not to know PBL and few students doubted whether they knew it or
not (see Table 4). Regarding the PLL, there were more NS/NC (26.1%)
and 56.5% declared to know the methodology. However, 78.3%
of the students indicated that they had received courses where
these methodologies were used. Finally, almost 80% of the stu-
dents declared themselves inclined to take courses where PLE was
applied, although only a 26.1% of the students indicated that they
would like to undertake a project within the course under study
(Table 4). On the other hand, the Likert-type questionnaire on satis-
faction showed very positive results. Satisfied students (valuations
4 and 5) with the course were about 80% (Table 5). Similar percent-
age was collected for the items where students were questioned
if they thought they had learned more with this methodology and
if they would like to receive more courses with PLL. However, sat-
isfied students’ percentage decreased to 65.2% when asked if they
would like to receive all the courses following this methodology. In
the latter item the percentage of undecided was 21.7%.

Table 4
Survey of previous knowledge about learning methodologies based on projects and problems.

Item YES NO NK/NA

Do you know the Problem-based learning (PBL) methodology? 47.8 47.8 4.3
Do you know the Project-led education? 56.5 17.4 26.1
Have you ever received any courses with any of these methodologies? 65.2 34.8 0
Would you like to receive courses following non-classical methodologies based on problems or projects? 78.3 8.7 13
Would you like to receive this course (OB-I) following non-classical methodologies that involve the realization of a group project? 26.1 60.9 13

Table 5
Satisfaction survey with the Project-led methodology at the end of the course.

Question 1 Very Disagree 2 Disagree 3 Neither agree nor disagree 4 agree 5 very agree

Are you satisfied with the course? 8.7 4.3 8.7 26.1 52.2
Do you think you’ve learned more using PLE methodologies? 4.3 4.3 8.7 26.1 56.5
Would you like to receive more courses using PLE methodologies? 4.3 8.7 4.3 47.8 34.8
Would you agree on a degree based completely on PLE methodologies? 4.3 8.7 21.7 39.1 26.1
 A.M. Ruiz-Ortega et al. / Education for Chemical Engineers 29 (2019) 1–8 5

Fig. 2. Comparison of theoretical (a) and practical test grades (b) in control groups and groups where partial project-led strategies were used. Grades are in a 1–7 scale.

Table 6
Results from statistical tests.

One-way ANOVA

Source Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F-ratio P-value

Between groups 51.59 2.00 25.80 21.35 0.0000

Within groups 61.62 51.00 1.21
Total (Corr.) 113.22 53.00

Multiple-range test (Fisher’s LDS; 95% confidence)

Source Cases Mean Homegeneous groups

Theoretical test grades Control 21.00 2.74 X

Theoretical test grades PLE 2017 13.00 4.59 X
Theoretical test grades PLE 2018 20.00 4.84 X

Multiple-range test (Contrast)

Source Significative Difference Limits

Theoretical test grades Control-Theoretical test grades PLE 2017 * −1.8479 0.778791
Theoretical test grades Control-Theoretical test grades PLE 2018 * −2.0921 0.689494
Theoretical test grades PLE 2017-Theoretical test grades PLE 2018 −0.2442 0.786201

Equality of Variances (Lavene’s Test)

Test P-value

Lavene’s 0.28178 0.755607

Red numbers indicate statistical significative difference.

With regard to the theoretical grades, in the case of the course
where the PLL methodology was followed, an average of 4.6 ± 1.2
and 4.8 ± 1.3 (on a 1–7 scale) was obtained for 2017 and 2018 stu-
dents, respectively. Control groups had an average of 2.7 ± 0.8 (see
Fig. 2a). ANOVA test conducted on the data revealed significant
difference between groups (Table 6; F-test; P-Value<0.05). Mul-
tiple range tests showed no differences in average grade among
PLL groups of 2017 and 2018 whereas there was difference among
these groups and the control group (Fisher’s LDS; 95% confi-
dence). However, no statistically significant difference was found
in mean of the grades corresponding to the practice tests (ANOVA
F-test; Table 6). Also, variances where equal (Lavene’s test; P-
Value>0.05). Notwithstanding, the mean was slightly higher for the
PLE group (see Fig. 2b). In this case the averages were 4.7 ± 0.9,
6 A.M. Ruiz-Ortega et al. / Education for Chemical Engineers 29 (2019) 1–8
4.7 ± 0.8 and 4.2 ± 0.9 for the intervened and control groups,
respectively.
4. Discussion
It can be said that PLL has become a favorable pedagogical
model for teaching in engineering programs where students,
resembling what happens in professional engineering projects,
work in groups to solve open problems. What clearly separates
the traditional conception of projects in engineering courses
from PLL is the students’ self-diagnosis and the acquisition of
knowledge for immediate application in the resolution of the
problem (just-in-time learning). When traditional project-led
learning is applied, students acquire knowledge throughout the
years of their degree to be applied months or years later. This
means a greater effort for the student who, besides, will only focus
on the specific aspects and knowledge required by the project
in question and not the whole curriculum. In the cases where
PLL can be applied as an integral strategy, real Industrial Projects
can even be considered. This provides an experience close to
the professional reality. In addition, it is possible to undertake
interdisciplinary projects grouping students from different areas
or departments of engineering (Alptekin et al., 2006; Warmerdam,
2017). In all these cases, transversal key competencies that have
been pointed out as essential are developed. For example, the
Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) when
adopted the Engineering Criteria 2000 pointed out several of these
skills. Criteria 2000 is used for accreditation in all engineering
degrees in USA. In this criterion, the following skills were included:
teamwork, problem solving (identifying, diagnosing and solving),
effective communication, social responsibility, recognizing the
need of (and be able to) self-learning (ABET 2009, p. 18)
In the traditional course experience (control group), the knowl-
edge was delivered in expository classes. Each topic was followed
by exercise-resolution classes and the majority of students were
able to respond satisfactorily to the exercises posed to them. This
also happened for students of PLL courses, although in this case stu-
dents were previously asked to think with their groups about what
knowledge they require for the project (self-diagnose). Contrary to
what was expected, improvements were obtained in the theoretical
grades and not in the practice ones. The traditional methodology
used in class to learn how to solve case studies appears to be ade-
quate and sufficient for simple examples, such as those used in
our evaluations. However, the purely expository classes of theoret-
ical concepts are less effective than the combination of these and
the PLL. The proposed partial strategy sought meaningful learning
and increased motivation. When exposed to the problem-complex
project, students pass through a more or less long phase of con-
fusion and little or no confidence in their ability to cope with
the resolution of the project. Since these students had not much
experience with PBL, when the unit operation design problem was
presented to them, they thought that they were supposed to know
how to do it. Some of them revised previous subjects and look for
information prior the class. In general, in the traditional approach,
students learn to solve the exercises by memorizing the resolu-
tion algorithm without understanding fundamental aspects of the
curriculum. This was evident by the results of the practice tests
(where statistically significant difference was not observed) and
the theoretical tests in the control course. Theoretical exams do
not cover a lot of content, so 1 or 2 days of study time are sufficient.
It is more probable, then, that the cause of the improvement in the
grades is that in PLL schemes it is necessary to reflect and under-
stand the contents. Similar conclusion was obtained by Mioduser
and Betzer (2008) when PLL was applied. They found better qual-
ifications with respect to control groups that followed classical
expository methodologies. These authors pointed out as an addi-
tional result a greater ability to learn autonomously and a greater
persistence of the acquired knowledge. It could also be argued that,
having to go through the project during the course, students are
forced to review or reinforce the content seen in class earlier and
more regularly. However, from the theoretical tests’ responses, an
improvement in the quality of the answers could be observed. In
many cases students responded to the question by adding examples
or approaches not seen in the expository classes. In this sense, in a
similar study developed by the Faculty of the Illinois Mathematics
and Science Academy and the Chicago Academy of Science, it was
observed that in addition to provide the correct answer in tests, stu-
dents were more able to write justifications for the chosen solution
(Gallagher et al., 1992). In addition, the obtained results were better
in aspects related to troubleshooting. Specifically, in the identifi-
cation of necessary information, proposal of solutions and finding
information resources. In any case, as in the study described in this
work, active learning attitudes were promoted, so students were
able to acquire autonomy and responsibility in their learning. These
are also outcomes of PBL (Johari and Bradshaw, 2008). Another pos-
itive aspect found in the intervened courses was that the hours
of tutoring demanded by the students increased significantly. For
instance, questions related with bibliography for the project, bibli-
ography to expand concepts seen in class and general doubts about
the curriculum were raised. In theoretical classes, from the middle
of the semester, more attention and more questions were evident,
as probably the students were aware what knowledge they would
have to be applied to their projects. As was discussed previously,
when PBL is applied, problems should be carefully chosen to cre-
ate a controlled pedagogical space (Blumenfeld et al., 1991). In the
case of PLE, on top of that, projects could even comprise open prob-
lems in a real scenario. When using PLL (as a partial strategy) it
simplified projects must be proposed. The monitoring of learning
activities by the teacher is similar in all the cases. In our case, as PLL
was only applied in one subject, the projects covered only aspects
which were designed to lead to close-ended problems.
With the conduct of a survey, the students’ opinion about the
process was inquired (see Table 5). The pre-course survey allowed
noting that the better-known methodology was project-led learn-
ing (PLE, in the survey), although subsequent responses called into
questioning this fact (Table 4). It is probable that the students
indicated that they knew the methodology by certain degree of
confusion because the word “project” is used in many contexts. This
can be deduced from the fact that they indicated their willingness
to take courses with the methodology (approx. 80%) whereas, at the
same time, they indicated mostly the opposite when asked about
the inclusion of a group project in the current course (approx. 60%).
In summary, the students were mostly not favorable to the pro-
posed methodology, but after the course they were satisfied (80% of
satisfaction, see Table 5). Moreover, in a high percentage, students
stated that they would like the methodology to be applied in other
courses. However, given the question of whether they were prone
to have all the courses dictated with the PLE methodology, the
percentage of willing students dropped to 62.3%. Approximately
23% indicated doubts about this. Rodríguez Sandoval and Cortés
Rodríguez (2010) registered in studies with similar methodologies
very high satisfaction in 60% of students, high satisfaction in 30%
and only a 10% of students answered with low satisfaction. Simi-
larly, in the study of Willard and Duffrin (2003) PLE improved the
declared satisfaction in students who attended an “Introduction to
Foodc̈ourse. This experience, which contained elements of com-
petition, was perceived as entertaining by both the students and
the teacher. According to the same authors, this would also have
positive repercussions for future professionals who would be more
capable of facing real situations where complex problem-solving
and new knowledge acquisition skills are required. Additional
 A.M. Ruiz-Ortega et al. / Education for Chemical Engineers 29 (2019) 1–8
advantages of using PLL are that teamwork is encouraged (Mesquita
et al., 2009) whereas dropout rate and poor performance in fresh-
men are lowered (Powell and Weenk, 2003; Tavares et al., 1995).
Although these outcomes are not exclusive of this methodology,
is true that PLL benefits from what collaboration implies from a
social point of view. Thus, collaborative work is known to improve
motivation and interest. PLL also tributes to soft skills such as capac-
ity to collaborate, communication in different contexts, ability to
synthesize, autonomous and high-level reasoning. In engineering
courses, this methodology has been affirmed to promote reflec-
tion and metacognition and improve self-regulation and learning,
fostering interdisciplinarity in the curricula (Bédard et al., 2007;
Fernandes et al., 2014; Van Den Berg et al., 2006; Zimmerman,
1990; Vickerman, 2009; Lima et al., 2007).
In the context of engineering programs, peer evaluation pro-
cesses can encourage student participation in the course, improve
motivation and deepen student learning (Fernandes et al., 2012).
This was taken into account and students were asked to evaluate
the performance of their peers within the team. This peer-
evaluation had the intention of assuring that all members of the
team contributed to the project. Whether it was due to this evalua-
tion or not, we only had two cases of students who were graded
low by their group mates. Their marks (theoretic and practice
tests) were well below the class average. The whole class was
also requested to evaluate and delivered feedback on the pre-
liminary version of their mates’ projects (Milestone 5, Week 11;
Table 1). Despite the many relevant benefits, some studies indi-
cated negative aspects of PLE. Among them, the barrier against
the first implementation that can be insurmountable in unmo-
tivated students. On the other hand, from the point of view of
the teacher, greater dedication is required (Lima et al., 2007). In
this way, it becomes difficult to handle large groups of students.
For larger groups, partial PLL strategy becomes unmanageable. In
Lima’s study, it was pointed out that evaluation and feedback must
be adapted to the different phases of the project to encourage the
development of all the competencies involved (Lima et al., 2007).
An end-result evaluation would bring undoubtedly worse learning
outcomes.
5. Conclusions
Migration from traditional to project-led learning strategies was
satisfactorily carried out in a subject whereas the rest of curricu-
lum remained with teacher-centered methodologies. The use of
strategies focused on the student’s learning (active methodologies),
allowed in this study obtaining a greater student’s implication in
the learning process. The observed understanding of the course
curriculum was deeper. Motivation and other aspects such as col-
laborative learning, etc. were also improved. However, the subject,
scope and stages of the project should be designed by the teacher
and there should be proper follow-up and feedback. If in the PLL
only the final result is assessed, the formative experience is not used
well. In that case, the teacher will not be able to assess the depth of
the knowledge acquired by the student and, in the case of collabo-
rative learning, the actual contributions of each participant. Many
of the advantages of PLL as an integral strategy are maintained in
the partial-strategy PLL, although others like interdisciplinarity and
working with open problems of professional level are not possible.
Closed-ended problems for the first- and second-year students and
small groups probably are necessary for succeed in using PLL when
the rest of the curriculum is traditionally-delivered.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the University of Concepción [Inno-
vative Teaching Project grant number 17-003].
7
References
Adderley, K., Ashwin, C., Bradbury, P., Freeman, J., Goodlad, S., Greene, J., Uren, O.,
1975. Project Methods in Higher Education. Society for Research into Higher
Education, London.
Alptekin, S.E., DeTurris, D., Macy, D.J., Ervin, J.E., 2006. Development of a flying eye:
a project-based learning experience. J. Manuf. Syst. 24, 226–236, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/S0278-6125(06)80012-9.
Barrows, H.S., 1986. A taxonomy of problem-based learning methods. Med. Educ.
20, 481–486, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.1986.tb01386.x.
Bédard, D., Louis, R., Bélisle, M., Viau, R., 2007. Project-based and problem-based
learning in engineering at the University of Sherbrooke: impact on students’
and teachers’ perceptions. In: de Gra, E. (Ed.), Management of Change Imple-
mentation of Problem-Based and Project-Based Learning in Engineering. , pp.
109–129, Rotterdam.
Bellmunt, O.G., Miracle, D.M., Arellano, S.G., Sumper, A., Andreu, A.S., 2006. A dis-
tance PLC programming course employing a remote laboratory based on a
flexible manufacturing cell. IEEE Trans. Educ. 49, 278–284, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1109/TE.2006.873982.
Van Den Berg, I., Admiraal, W., Pilot, A., 2006. Peer assessment in university teaching.
Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 31 (1), http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602930500262346.
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. Educ. Psychol. 26, 369–398, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1991.
9653139.
Cawley, P., 1991. A problem-based module in mechanical engineering. In: The Chal-
lenge of Problem Based Learning., pp. 177–185, London.
Duch, B.J., Groh, S.E., Allen, D.E., 2001. Why problem-based learning? A case study
of institutional change in undergraduate education. In: The Power of Problem-
Based Learning., pp. 3–11.
Fernandes, S., Flores, M.A., Lima, R.M., 2012. Students’ views of assessment in
project-led engineering education: findings from a case study in Portugal.
Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 37, 163–178, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602938.
2010.515015.
Fernandes, S., Mesquita, D., Flores, M.A., Lima, R.M., 2014. Engaging students in learn-
ing: findings from a study of project-led education. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 39, 55–67,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2013.833170.
Gallagher, S.A., Stepien, W.J., Rosenthal, H., 1992. The effects of problem-based learn-
ing on problem solving. Gift. Child Q. 36, 195–200, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
001698629203600405.
Hanney, R., Savin-Baden, M., 2013. The problem of projects: understanding the the-
oretical underpinnings of project-led PBL. Lond. Rev. Educ. 11, 7–19, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1080/14748460.2012.761816.
Helle, L., Tynjälä, P., Olkinuora, E., 2006. Project-based learning in post-secondary
education - Theory, practice and rubber sling shots. High. Educ. 51, 287–314,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-6386-5.
Huet, I., Mourtos, N.J., Costa, N., Pacheco, O., Tavares, J., 2007. Models for research-
based teaching in engineering courses : a case-study at the University of Aveiro
(PT) and San José State University (USA). Int. Conf. Eng. Educ.
Johari, A., Bradshaw, A.C., 2008. Project-based learning in an internship program: a
qualitative study of related roles and their motivational attributes. Educ. Tech-
nol. Res. Dev. 56, 329–359.
Kolmos, A., 1996. Reflections on project work and problem-based learning. Eur. J.
Eng. Educ. 21, 141–148, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03043799608923397.
Kolmos, A., 2009. Problem-based and project-based learning BT - university science
and mathematics education in transition. In: Skovsmose, O., Valero, P., Chris-
tensen, O.R. (Eds.), University Science and Mathematics Education in Transition.
Springer, US, Boston, MA, pp. 261–280, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-
09829-6 13.
Lima, R.M., Carvalho, D., Assunção Flores, M., Van Hattum-Janssen, N., 2007. A
case study on project led education in engineering: students’ and teach-
ers’ perceptions. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 32, 337–347, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
03043790701278599.
Lima, R.M., Mesquita, D., Coelho, L., 2017. Five years of project-based learning
training experiences in higher education Institutions in Brazil. In: Guerra, A.,
Rodriguez, F.J., Kolmos, A., Peña Reyes, I. (Eds.), 6th International Research Sym-
posium on PBLPBL, Social Progress and Sustainability, 470–479.
Mesquita, D., Lima, R.M., Sousa, R.M., Flores, M.A., 2009. The connection between
project learning approaches and the industrial demand for transversal com-
petencies. In: Gabb, R. (Ed.), 2nd International Research Symposium on PBL,
1–8.
Mettas, A., Thorsteinsson, G., Norman, E., 2007. Design decisions in design and tech-
nology education: a research project undertaken in Cyprus, Iceland, and England.
In: Loughborough University Institutional Repositary., pp. 61–69, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1243/09596518JSCE509.
Mioduser, D., Betzer, N., 2008. The contribution of project-based-learning to high-
achievers’ acquisition of technological knowledge and skills. Int. J. Technol. Des.
Educ. 18, 59–77, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10798-006-9010-4.
Powell, P.C., Weenk, G.W., 2003. Project Led Engineering Education. Lemma. ed.,
Utrech.
Rodríguez Sandoval, E., Cortés Rodríguez, M., 2010. Evaluación de la estrategia
“aprendizaje basado en proyectos:̈ percepción de los estudiantes. Educ. y Educ.
13, 1–16, http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1414-40772010000100008.
Sancho, P., Fuentes, R., Gómez, P.P., Fernández, B., 2009. Applying multiplayer role-
based learning in engineering education: three case studies to analyze the
impact on students’ performance. Int. J. Eng. Educ. 25, 665–679.
8 A.M. Ruiz-Ortega et al. / Education for Chemical Engineers 29 (2019) 1–8
Schachterle, L., Vinther, O., 1996. Introduction: the role of projects in engi-
neering education. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 21, 115–120, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
03043799608923394.
Smith, K., Sheppard, S., Johnson, D., Johnson, R., 2005. Pedagogies of engagement:
classroom-based practices. J. Eng. Educ. 94, 87–101, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
bmb.20204.
Strobel, J., van Barneveld, A., 2009. When is PBL more effective? A meta-synthesis of
meta-analyses comparing PBL to conventional classrooms. Interdiscip. J. Probl.
Learn., 3, http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1046.
Tavares, J., Soares, I., Lencastre, L., Santiago, R., 1995. Levels of success of first year
students in first degree courses on science and engineering at the University of
Aveiro. In: Lambert, J.L., Banta, T.W. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International
Seminar on Assessing Quality in Higher Education 24, 249–255.
Vega, F., Navarrete, B., 2018. Professional design of chemical plants based on
problem-based learning on a pilot plant. Educ. Chem. Eng. 26, 30–34, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2018.08.001.
Vickerman, P., 2009. Student perspectives on formative peer assessment: an attempt
to deepen learning? Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 34, 221–230, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1080/02602930801955986.
Warmerdam, J., 2017. The Twente Educational Model. Analysing Educational Policy.
University of Twente.
Watson, G., 2002. Using technology to promote success in PBL courses. Technol.
Source.
Willard, K., Duffrin, M.W., 2003. Utilizing project-based learning and competition to
develop student skills and interest in producing quality food items. J. Food Sci.
Educ. 2, 69–73, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-4329.2003.tb00031.x.
Woods, D.R., 1996. Problem-based learning for large classes in chemical engineering.
In: Bringing Problem-Based Learning to Higher Education: Theory and Practice.,
pp. 91–99, San Francisco, CA.
Zimmerman, B.J., 1990. Self-regulated learning and academic achieve-
ment: an overview. Educ. Psychol. 25, 3–17, http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/
s15326985ep2501 2.