CHAPTER 8
Problem-Based and Project-Based
Learning in Engineering Education
Merging Models
Anette Kolmos and Erik de Graaff
Introduction
In the practice of engineering education,
there is a wide variety of implementations
of problem-based or project-based learning
(PBL). In this chapter we aim to explain
the relationships between different types
of problem-based and project-based learn-
ing to help teachers and educational man-
agers make innovative choices and provide
benchmarks for educational researchers.
We present a combined understanding of
problem- and project-based learning, the
theoretical and historical background, and
the different models of PBL that can cap-
ture the existing practices, ranging from
small- to large-scale practice, from class-
room teaching to institutional models, and
from single-subject to interdisciplinary and
complex knowledge construction.
It is well known that one-way dissemina-
tion of knowledge by means of lectures is
not very effective in achieving learning (van
der Vleuten, 1997). In higher education con-
cepts such as “self-directed-learning,” “case-
based learning,” “inquiry based learning,”
“experiential learning,” “service learning,”
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 11 Feb 2017 at 19:28:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.012
“project-based service learning,” “active
learning,” CDIO (Conceive, Design, Imple-
ment, and Operate), “project-based learn-
ing,” and “problem-based learning” were
introduced in the decades after the Second
World War. All these new learning con-
cepts come under the umbrella of learner-
centered or student-centered learning
models. Problem-based and project-based
learning, both known as PBL, originate from
the reform universities, and the new educa-
tional models, established between 1965 and
1975. In problem-based learning, problems
form the starting point for students’ learn-
ing emphasizing a self-directed learning
process in teams. The educational model
problem-based learning was introduced at
curriculum scale at the medical faculty of
McMaster University, Canada, followed by
Maastricht University in the Netherlands
and many others. Project-based learning
shares the aspect of students working on
problems in teams, but with the added
component that they have to submit a
project report completed collaboratively by
the project team. The problem- and project-
based/project organized model adopted at
141
 142 cambridge handbook of engineering education research
Aalborg University and Roskilde University,
Denmark, was inspired by the critical ped-
agogy in Europe after the student revolts
of the 1960s. At Aalborg University both
models of PBL were eventually combined in
problem-based project organized learning,
which was practiced at all faculties – the
Faculty of Engineering and Science being
the largest. This combined approach is the
central point of reference for this chapter, as
the pedagogical development in engineering
education indicates that both educational
practices are successful in their own way
and the abbreviation PBL is here defined as
including both practices.
A curriculum can be regarded as a social
construction depending on culture, national
regulations, institutional policies, and aca-
demic staff. During the last forty to fifty
years, many changes have occurred, espe-
cially in engineering education, and univer-
sities all over the world have developed
diverse PBL models and practices (Beddoes,
Kacey, Jesiek, Brent, & Borrego, 2010). Sev-
eral notable PBL implementations are to
be found all over the world. In U.S. engi-
neering education, in general, there is a
trend that the capstone projects are car-
ried out as a team-based and problem-based
project (McKenzie, Trevisan, Davis, & Bey-
erlein, 2004), but at a more comprehen-
sive level, there is the P5BL model at Stan-
ford University (Fruchter & Lewis, 2003)
and the work with projects at Olin Col-
lege – although they do not claim any rela-
tion to any global community (Sommerville
et al., 2005). In Mexico, Monterey Tech’s has
developed diverse PBL models at different
campuses (Lopez-Islas, 2001). In Brazil, Uni-
versity of São Paolo’s implemented change
of programs (Ulisses, Valéria, & Homero,
2009). In Australia the University of Queens-
land (Crosthwaite, Cameron, Lant, & Lis-
ter, 2006), Central Queensland University
(Joergensen & Howard, 2005), and Victo-
ria University (Ozansoy & Stojcevski, 2009)
have many years of project work prac-
ticed. In Asia, University of Technology
and University Tun Hussein Onn, both
in Malaysia, have course modules with
PBL (Yusof, Tasir, Harun, & Helmi, 2005);
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 11 Feb 2017 at 19:28:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.012
Singapore Polytechnique is running a spe-
cial PBL version known as ‘one problem per
day’ (O’Grady & Alvis, 2002). In India, there
is an increasing use of various PBL mod-
els (Shinde & Kolmos, 2011). In Europe, the
Bologna process, with a focus on student-
centered learning and learning outcomes,
has created increasing interest in PBL, and
there are similar trends all over the world
(Barrett & Moore, 2011), including in many
European universities such as Aveiro Uni-
versity, Portugal (Graaff & Kolmos, 2007);
Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium
(Galand & Frenay, 2006; Galand, Raucent, &
Frenay, 2010); and universities in the United
Kingdom, for example, Coventry, Newcas-
tle, Sheffield, and Manchester (Graham,
2009).
However, mentioning specific universi-
ties is unadvisable, as there is no full
overview of all the diverse PBL practices,
ranging from large-scale implementation at
an institutional level to small-scale imple-
mentation in a class room or a laboratory.
Nevertheless, this indicates that the PBL
practice is becoming more diverse and the
definition of problem- and project-based
learning more unclear. The concept of PBL
is used for both small team-based projects,
working on cases more or less defined in
terms of learning content by one lecture, and
for large mega-projects such as construction
of a satellite or a racing car, requiring multi-
disciplinary content.
Need for New Engineering
Competences
As early as the 1960s, there was a formu-
lated need for more qualified academics
and engineers, leading to an expansion of
higher education capacity and the establish-
ment of many new institutions both general
universities and specifically engineering col-
leges (de Graaff & Sjoer, 2006). The relation
between universities and society changed.
Gibbons et al. (1994) note that the rela-
tion between science and society changed
radically from an approach characterized
by “science speaking” to society to “society
 problem-based and project-based learning in engineering education
speaking to science” (Gibbons et al.,
1994; Nowotny, Scott, & Gibbons, 2001).
Recently, several reports on new demands
for engineering knowledge, skills, and com-
petences followed the same reasoning, that
the universities have to pay much greater
attention to real-life problems and to soci-
etal needs, in order, especially, to address
employability agenda including collabora-
tion with companies (National Academy of
Engineering, 2004; Royal Academy of Engi-
neering, 2007). Industry requires graduates
who are able to participate in engineer-
ing project organizations and to collabo-
rate (Chinowsky, 2011; Kolmos & Holgaard,
2010). At the same time, the accreditation
bodies have defined transferable or profes-
sional skills as an important part of the cur-
riculum (ABET, EURACE), which indicates
that there is a growing awareness of not only
the learning of isolated discipline skills and
competences, but also an integrated curricu-
lum approach. This emphasizes learning as
an integrated and exemplary act that goes
beyond technical knowledge and skills. With
new requirements for complex and inter-
cultural competences, there will be a need
for establishing mega-projects across disci-
plines and cultures and, therefore, a constant
development of the PBL practices.
The requirement for complex compe-
tences will increase with the need for more
green engineers (Jamison, 2001). This will
further necessitate the creation of new inter-
disciplinary techno-science programs and,
for students to learn to analyze relevant
problems leading to new innovations, the
societal needs and social structures, and con-
textual issues must be brought into engi-
neering education together with collabora-
tive competences (Hyldgaard Christensen,
Delabousse, & Meganck, 2009; Jamison,
Hylgaard Christensen & Botin, 2011). Buccia-
relli (1994) has pointed out that, combined
with technical knowledge, there is an ongo-
ing negotiation of understanding of the defi-
nitions of concepts in a collaborative design
process. Because engineers have a global
workplace, education needs to address these
new types of requirements. Therefore, stu-
dents should already, have experienced some
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 11 Feb 2017 at 19:28:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.012
143
of these activities during their education. It
is expected that the ability to handle com-
plexity and intercultural collaboration will
be an embedded engineering capacity in the
future, and innovation is based on collabora-
tive knowledge construction (Sawyer, 2008).
The signal from society clearly indicates a
need for engineers with relevant knowledge,
skills, and competences. The challenge for
universities is to meet these demands. Stro-
bel and van Barneveld (2009) point out that
the main reason many engineering universi-
ties implement PBL is that previous gradu-
ates were ill prepared for the labor market
and the need for new competences. In the
report from the Bernhard M. Gordon MIT
Engineering Leadership program, there is a
strong focus on project-oriented programs as
a variable for leadership competences (Gra-
ham, Crawley, Mendelsohn, 2009). Studies
on employers’ needs for engineering compe-
tences very often come out with results on
more project experiences (Kolmos & Hol-
gaard, 2010) and that there is a need for engi-
neering students to know more about engi-
neering practice and business models and
to act reflectively as practitioners (Schön,
1987). Another driver identified by Strobel
and van Barneveld (2009) is the institutional
interest in increased retention rate among
students.
A Historical Perspective on PBL
The new universities – also known as reform
universities – that were founded during
the 1960s and 1970s were a response to the
societal needs and had new pedagogical
approaches and educational models. These
universities were based on three ideas: (1)
a need for new knowledge and skills in the
labor market, (2) the study programs were
too fragmented and without relation to the
outside world, and (3) there was a need
for more democracy and student influence
(Carter, Eriksen, Horst, & Troelsen, 2003;
Nielsen & Webb, 1999). These reform
universities proved that new teaching and
learning models were applicable and that
the labor market welcomed the graduates.
 144 cambridge handbook of engineering education research
Prominent among the educational models
that were used was problem-based learning.
The first place to apply PBL principles as
the core for a new curriculum in medicine
was McMaster University in (Neufeld & Bar-
rows, 1974; Woods, 1994). Maastricht in the
Netherlands; Linköping University, Swe-
den; and Newcastle in Australia followed
the example set by McMaster, establish-
ing PBL curricula in their medical schools.
Around the same time, a problem-oriented
and project-organized model was developed
in Europe. This model was introduced at
Aalborg University and Roskilde University,
Denmark, and in the first years at Bremen
University, Germany.
The new pedagogy that grew out of the
reform universities has a history, although
there is no complete agreement on where
these ideas came from. The Danish reform
universities were based primarily on Ger-
man theories such as experiential learn-
ing formulated as an emancipatory peda-
gogy for the working class by Negt and
Kluge (Illeris, 1976). However, in reviewing
the literature, one can find that American
researchers from the Chicago group such
as Dewey and Kilpatrick formulated ideas
about project work and democracy years
earlier (Dewey, 1938; Kilpatrick, 1918; Kil-
patrick, Bagley, Bonser, Hosic, & Hatch,
1921). Also, Brazilian influence dating back
to Paulo Freire may be identified (Illeris,
1976). In the period of the reform universi-
ties, these authors were very much regarded
as the champions of a new form of educa-
tion for democracy and more equal rights
in society. The reform universities share
many experiences in establishing new teach-
ing and learning practices; however, there is
also an individual history related to each of
them.
McMaster followed by Maastricht orga-
nized a curriculum with thematic blocks,
in which the year is divided into a series
of blocks of approximately six weeks. Each
period focuses on a particular theme, such
as a group of complaints or organ systems. A
block book presents a series of cases, which
the students are to analyze. The case is the
problem that is to trigger the student’s learn-
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 11 Feb 2017 at 19:28:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.012
ing process. A problem in PBL does not need
to be solved; it just serves to initiate the
learning process (Norman, 1988). The stu-
dents work together in self-directed study
groups, discussing and analyzing specially
prepared case descriptions. They organize
the analyses of the cases using a procedure
called the Seven Jump (Schmidt & Moust,
2000). The objective is to define learning
goals, which are studied individually. The
results of this individual study are reported
and reviewed during the next group ses-
sion. Just as in real-life practice, there is an
integration of subject disciplines. The typi-
cal study group (eight to twelve students)
meets one or two times a week. In the
study group, each student presents his or
her work, which is discussed, and the group
discusses who should continue with what
tasks. Research has shown the effectiveness
of the self-directed learning process (Yew &
Schmidt, 2008). The role of the teacher who
attends the meetings is primarily to facilitate
the learning process, in other words, to facil-
itate the group’s collaboration and internal
communication.
The Aalborg and Roskilde models are
problem based by definition, as every stu-
dent project starts with a problem. Each
semester groups of five to eight students
work on a problem, which they normally
define by themselves within a thematic
framework and, after analyzing and solving
the problem, they write a project report.
Normally, the projects run for a semester
(half year) and the project work allows them
to develop competencies in project manage-
ment and collaboration. The more a prob-
lem replicates real life, the more students
experience it as motivating. Working on a
project can be seen as a way of organizing
the learning process, but it also gives com-
petences in how to start, carry out, and final-
ize a project, which is needed by companies
(Kjaersdam & Enemark, 1994; Kolmos, Fink,
& Krogh, 2004; Kolmos & Holgaard, 2010;
Olsen & Pedersen, 2005).
The fact that PBL grew out of practices
that were institutionalized has contributed
to the success and dissemination of this ped-
agogy. The new educational models were
 problem-based and project-based learning in engineering education
Table 8.1. Original Learning Principles at the PBL Universities
McMaster and Maastricht Universities
Problem-based learning
r Problems form the focus and stimulus for learning.
r Problems are the vehicle for development of
problem-solving skills.
r New information is acquired through self-directed
learning.
r Student-centered
r Small student groups
r Teachers are facilitators/guides
r (Barrows, 1996)
institutionalized with a new approach, and
the practice did not just cease if one aca-
demic staff member moved from the insti-
tution. It was possible to build up a sustain-
able community by recruiting academic staff
who were positive about these new ideas
and to evaluate and experiment with the
practices. At first there was much skepticism
toward the new graduates, as the labor mar-
ket did not know what to expect of them.
However, after about ten years, the attitudes
toward the new universities became much
more positive. During the 1970s and the
1980s, the reform universities proved their
value by getting very good responses from
the companies that employed the graduates.
Definitions of PBL
Returning to the roots of PBL, Barrows
(1996) defines six characteristics that are
all related to the learning process, whereas
Illeris (1976) defines five characteristics that
are related to both the learning process and
the implications for the social and the con-
tent dimension of learning (see Table 8.1).
An important difference between the
two aforementioned PBL approaches can
be found in the content dimension. The
Danish tradition emphasizes the interdisci-
plinary and exemplary aspect. The exemplar
approach, as stipulated by Klafki (2001), is an
important principle for the selection of con-
tent which should be of current and future
significance, as well as in accordance with
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 11 Feb 2017 at 19:28:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.012
145
Aalborg and Roskilde Universities
Problem-based and project organized learning
r Problem orientation
r Interdisciplinary
r Exemplary learning
r Participant-directed
r Teams or group work
r (Illeris, 1976)
the overall learning outcomes of the curricu-
lum. The exemplar learning process is char-
acterized by building on prior knowledge,
discovery learning and being both meaning-
ful and challenging to students. This is an
essential principle with respect to the man-
agement of the learning process, both in
terms of what to learn (identifying problems
that are often real problems) and how to
decide on the relevance to the curriculum.
PBL problems can be small or big,
authentic or scholastic, practical or theoret-
ical, etc. There are many combinations of
small problems and big projects, and there
is a need for a more theoretical definition of
PBL that allows for variation in practice.
Many of these definitions suggest that
there is a substantial difference between
problem-based and project-based learning.
In particular, there are differences in the way
the curriculum is organized. For instance,
Prince and Felder define problem-based and
project-based learning as follows: “Problem-
based learning (PBL) begins when students
are confronted with an open-ended, ill-
structured, authentic (real-world) problem
and work in teams to identify learning needs
and develop a viable solution, with instruc-
tors acting as facilitators rather than primary
sources of information” (Prince & Felder,
2006, p. 128). In comparison, “Project-based
learning begins with an assignment to carry
out one or more tasks that lead to the pro-
duction of a final product – a design, a
model, a device or a computer simulation.
The culmination of the project is normally a
 146 cambridge handbook of engineering education research

Figure 8.1. Differences between problem-based and project-based

learning according to Savin-Baden. (Supervision is here understood
as advice – U.S. term.)

written and/or oral report summarizing the start with a problem and that this problem,
procedure used to produce the product and by definition, will always be unique. Such
presenting the outcome” (Prince & Felder, an interpretation of project-based learning
2006, p. 130). clearly indicates that project-based learn-
According to this interpretation, a project ing cannot exist without a problem-oriented
is a narrowly formulated task, and problem- approach (Kolmos, 1996), and this approach
based learning is an open-ended and ill- constitutes the basis for the understanding
defined approach. Savery (2006) and Savin- of PBL in this chapter.
Baden (2003, 2007) are very much in De Graaff characterizes the relationship
accordance with the definitions in the between problem-based learning (Maas-
preceding text, describing the difference tricht model) and problem-based and
between the two models as shown in Figure project-organized learning (Aalborg model)
8.1. In their view “problem-based” stands in an input–output model designating five
for the process-oriented approach, whereas dimensions (Graaff, 1995).
projects involve a much more instrumental
and product-oriented approach. Input: The first dimension con-
Several other researchers propose their cerns the kind of stimu-
own definitions. Capraro and Slough define lus given to the students.
project-based learning as: “A well-defined It varies from discipline
outcome and ill-defined task. PBL for the knowledge as available in
purposes here is the use of a project that textbooks to problems from
often results in the emergence of various professional practice.
learning outcomes in addition to the ones Situation: The second dimension
anticipated” (Capraro & Slough, 2009, p. presents different possibil-
5). Algreen Ussing and Fruensgaard define ities in the environment,
a project as a complex, unique and situated ranging from the well-
task that cannot be repeated and will always organized classroom to the
involve an open approach (Algreen-Ussing real workshop.
& Fruensgaard, 1990). These definitions of Qualification The third dimension relates
projects and project-based learning are dif- teachers: to the qualifications of the
ferent from the definitions proposed by teachers. Do you need pri-
Prince and Felder, Savery, and Savin-Baden, marily teachers with thor-
as they stipulate that a project will always ough didactic training, or

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 11 Feb 2017 at 19:28:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.012
 problem-based and project-based learning in engineering education
situation teacher
problem workplace professional
Mtricht Aalb Aalb Aalb
input throughput
Mtricht Mtricht
discipline classroom didactic
Figure 8.2. Dimensions of the educational process. (Mtricht =
Maastricht University and Aalb = Aalborg University.)
do you cherish professional
experience?
Orientation: The fourth dimension
refers to the orientation
of the educational process.
This ranges from teacher-
centered (the teacher is
the focal point) to student-
centered (independent, self-
directed learning).
Output: The fifth dimension con-
cerns the type of result that
is most valued. Is there a
concrete product that can be
shown to the world? Or is
there just the invisible gain
of knowledge or skills?
The extremes of the dimensions repre-
sent the two most ancient forms of teaching:
“on the job training” and “frontal classroom
teaching.” As can be seen in Figure 8.2, both
the Maastricht PBL model and the project-
based model lean toward the “on the job”
training, the latter even more so. However,
this model does not aim to pin down educa-
tional models. Rather, it aims to be a tool to
identify a particular position in the develop-
ment of a curriculum to distinguish it from
the ultimate objective.
PBL as a Set of Learning Principles
History and the dissemination of PBL indi-
cate that the concept of PBL can no longer
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 11 Feb 2017 at 19:28:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.012
147
focus
student product
Mtricht Aalb
Aalb
output
Mtricht
teacher competence
be defined only at the concrete curricu-
lum level, because there are so many dif-
ferent practices. PBL has to be defined at
a more abstract level, as a philosophy and
set of learning principles (Graaff & Kolmos,
2003, 2007). Owing to contextual conditions
(cultural, national, institutional), specific
curriculum models cannot be transferred
directly between countries, as any PBL prac-
tice is a social construction and what might
work in one cultural or institutional setting
might not work in another. The element
of cultural practice is more dominant in a
student-centered learning model compared
with a more instructional model based on
textbook approaches. Thus, a more abstract
notion of PBL is needed to capture diversity
in the concrete curriculum and classroom
approach cross culture and subjects.
PBL is a very comprehensive system of
organizing the content in new ways and stu-
dents’ collaborative learning, enabling them
to achieve diverse sets of knowledge, skills,
and competences. As already stated, there
is an increasing demand for competences
that goes beyond the technical field and
reaches into process competences and inte-
grative personal competences such as collab-
orative and creative knowledge processes.
This means that education can no longer
address only the cognitive part; it is neces-
sary to think in broader terms.
Wilkerson and Gijselaers (1996) con-
nected PBL with educational theory and for-
mulated three basic learning theory princi-
ples: (1) learning is a constructive and not a
 148 cambridge handbook of engineering education research
receptive process; (2) metacognition affects
learning; and (3) social and contextual
factors influence learning. These three prin-
ciples indicate that in order to understand
and to develop a PBL curriculum, cognitive
learning principles are not sufficient.
Barnett and Coate (2004) define the cur-
riculum as knowing, acting, and being.
First, this views the curriculum as a space
for learning processes. Second, the curricu-
lum should encompass knowing, acting, and
being. Knowing and acting cover the nor-
mal notion of a curriculum, whereas being
addresses citizenship, social responsibility,
values, and personal and social identity. The
knowing, acting, and being are intercon-
nected, and the identity students develop
in a PBL curriculum is both as an indi-
vidual and a collaborative learner, whereby
individuals are in a constant dialogue with
each other about the content of the project
(knowing and acting).
This broader approach to the understand-
ing of curriculum and competences implies
a broader understanding of learning. Knud
Illeris defines learning as “any process that in
living organisms leads to permanent capacity
change and which is not solely due to bio-
logical maturation or ageing” (Illeris, 2007,
p. 3). This is a very broad definition; how-
ever, the intention is to overcome more lim-
ited definitions such as learning as outcome
of learning processes or learning as inter-
action. Illeris (2003, 2007) has developed a
more holistic learning approach based on
both cognitive and affective learning as one
dimension and individual and social learning
as another dimension.
Klafki (2001) argues that the exemplary
learning process should connect to the
learner’s cognitive and affective stage, but
also that there need to be challenges creat-
ing tension to trigger the learner to develop
knowledge, skills, or competences. Further-
more, the classroom allows the learner to go
beyond teaching to discover learning.
The PBL learning principles are based on
this holistic view of curriculum and learning
encompassing both the individual and the
social, cognitive, and affective. By analyz-
ing the specific PBL models and PBL prac-
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 11 Feb 2017 at 19:28:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.012
tices, combined with theoretical reflections,
three main clusters of learning principles
emerge: learning, social, and contents. The
three learning principles are interconnected
in several ways, but each of them also has its
own domain.
The learning approach concerns the
learning process of working with problems,
which involves identification, analysis, and
solution. It can be real-life/authentic, prac-
tical or purely theoretical problems. Many
authors claim PBL as a means of work-
ing with authentic problems; however, this
depends on the entire combination of the
different learning principles and the overall
objective for the learning process. The prob-
lem forms a starting point for the learning
process, but it is also a reference point for
the learning process, as the problem indi-
cates the purpose of the learning process.
This means that students can orient their
reading toward this particular problem to
gain a deeper understanding.
Ownership of the problem is also an
important principle. If students define the
problems by themselves, it might be as moti-
vating to work with a theoretical problem as
with an authentic or real-life problem. How-
ever, if the problem is given by the teacher,
it could be made more important if related
to real-life problems.
The learning principles also encompass
the organization of the learning process,
which can be case-based or project-based.
Case-based means that the students are
working with predefined cases containing
either well-defined problems or ill-defined
problems. Project-based contains a unique
task that involves more complex and situ-
ated problem analyses and problem-solving
strategies. Many researchers, from the Dan-
ish project work tradition in particular, have
indicated that working with problems can be
understood as a research process. The phases
in a research process are identical to many
of the formulated problem learning phases
for analyzing cases and working on projects.
The social approach covers team-based
learning and requires interaction between
the individual and the group. The team
learning aspect underpins the learning
 problem-based and project-based learning in engineering education
process as a social act, in which learning
takes place through dialogue and commu-
nication. Furthermore, the students are not
only learning from each other, but they also
learn to share knowledge and organize the
process of collaborative learning and collab-
orative knowledge construction.
The social approach also covers the con-
cept of participant-directed learning, which
indicates a collective ownership of the learn-
ing process and, especially, the identification
of the problem. This is typically called self-
directed learning. However, as it takes place
in a collaborative setting, it is the partici-
pants who together negotiate the direction
for learning.
The contents approach covers selec-
tion of knowledge and skills. PBL involves
interdisciplinary learning across traditional
subject-related boundaries. As soon as stu-
dents are working with real-life problems, it
is necessary to use knowledge from different
disciplines or at least acquire the knowledge
of the limitations of the problem analysis
and problem-solving proposals.
If students have freedom to choose
projects within a given theme, exemplary
practice becomes an important tool to ensure
that learning outcome is exemplary to the
overall objectives. Thus, the interaction
between students and supervisors is impor-
tant. Furthermore, in the process of ana-
lyzing and solving problems, students apply
theories, which enhances the understanding
of the relation between theory and practice.
This type of learning process is identical to a
research process and training core research
methodologies such as formulating a prob-
lem/research question, analyzing a problem
by literature review, specifying and defin-
ing the final problem/research question, the-
oretical and methodological considerations,
problem solving and data analysis, and con-
clusion.
PBL Models in Engineering Education
A review of the literature on PBL in engi-
neering education clearly shows that most
often projects are used – either these are
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 11 Feb 2017 at 19:28:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.012
149
more discipline based (task based) or prob-
lem based. Beddoes et al. (2010) have
reviewed international engineering educa-
tion research on PBL. They emphasize that
most of the literature review on effec-
tiveness is within subject fields other than
engineering education. However, there are
plenty of articles from all over the world
reporting and assessing PBL engineering
practices within existing courses.
For both PBL models, the problem is the
start of the learning process. However, the
seven jumps procedure used at Maastricht
University focuses on the analysis of the
problem, whereas the project phases also
encompass the problem-solving part and the
overview of the methodology used in the
problem analysis and the problem-solving
phases (see Figure 8.3).
In the engineering field, it is both the
problem analysis and the problem solving
phases that are important learning phases
(Powel & Weenk, 2003). Engineers need to
know what the problems are, to formulate
the requirements, and to solve the prob-
lem by development of relevant technolog-
ical solutions. Furthermore, it is important
that these learning processes are team based
in order to acquire the knowledge shar-
ing within a smaller team as well as glob-
ally, and that the collaboration is oriented
toward both process and product so that
engineers learn the competence of collab-
orative knowledge construction.
Model for the Implementation of PBL
There is a need for a more concrete model
for the analysis, construction, and imple-
mentation processes in the curriculum. To
meet the implementation needs, a PBL cur-
riculum model has been developed that is
based on the PBL learning principles and
on the curriculum theories of alignment and
social construction (Kolmos, Graaff, & Du,
2009; Savin-Baden, 2003, 2007; Savin-Baden
& Wilkie, 2004). The PBL curriculum model
is linked to the PBL learning principles,
but the seven elements have been identi-
fied as objectives and outcomes, types of
 150 cambridge handbook of engineering education research

Figure 8.3. Differences between the seven jumps and project phases.

problems and projects, students’ learning,
progression and size, academic staff and
facilitation, space and organization, and,
finally, assessment and evaluation, see Figure
8.4. These elements were identified on the
basis of a theory on relationship models and
principles of alignment (Biggs, 2003; Hiim &
Hippe, 1993). All components are elemen-
tary in a basic PBL curriculum and must
be aligned to a certain degree. Depending
on subject areas and cultural and national
requirements, there might be more elements
to consider and numerous dimensions for
each element.
The principle of alignment is an under-
lying assumption for this PBL curriculum
model. If there is a change in one element, it
will affect all of the other elements as well.
However, each of the elements can be inter-
preted in different ways, and bearing in mind
that in practice there is a huge difference
in the definitions of problem-based learning
and project-based learning, there are differ-
ent approaches to PBL.
There are basically two poles in the
interpretation and implementation of the
curriculum elements: a teacher-controlled
approach on the one side, and an innovative
and learner-centered approach on the
other. Even if PBL is a student-centered
learning methodology, a teacher-controlled
approach does exist, in which the teacher
to a certain degree knows the problem, the
methodology, and the results. In compar-
ison, the innovative and learner-centered
approach implies that the teacher might not
know the problem beforehand. He or she
knows the variety of methodologies but not
the solution.
In each of the curriculum elements,
there are several dimensions as illustrated
in Figure 8.5. Between the two approaches,
there are mixed modes, and most of the
PBL practice is defined as some kind of a
mixed mode. For example, concerning the
assessment system, there are many ways of
practicing assessment to support the learn-
ing objectives such as peer assessment, for-
mative assessment, and so forth. Therefore,
the point of formulating these poles is to
create awareness of the choices that have
to be made in the implementation process
of PBL regardless of whether this is at a
single course level or a system level. Between

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 11 Feb 2017 at 19:28:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.012
 problem-based and project-based learning in engineering education 151

Objecves,
outcomes

Type of
Assessment and problems,
evaluaon projects, and
lectures

Space and Progression, size,

organizaon and duraon

Academic staff Students’

and facilitaon learning

Figure 8.4. PBL curriculum model (Kolmos et al., 2009).

Figure 8.5. Dimensions of PBL curriculum elements (Kolmos et al., 2009).

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 11 Feb 2017 at 19:28:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.012
 152 cambridge handbook of engineering education research
the poles or extremes, there are plenty of
variation possibilities.
Outcomes
In PBL there is a need for definition of
learning objectives and learning outcomes
as reference points for students’ projects.
The learning outcomes might be formu-
lated within disciplines and across disci-
plines. However, for a PBL curriculum, it
is important that the formulations are not
too tight and narrow and have more charac-
teristics of methodological objectives. This
will allow variation in the students’ projects.
Most PBL curricula and courses also for-
mulate process skills such as collaboration,
project management, communication, and
so forth. These skills are embedded in the
learning process. Nevertheless, the learning
of process skills will be enhanced by reflect-
ing, experimenting and conceptualizing the
experienced learning process (Kolmos et al.,
2004).
Types of Problems, Projects, and
Coherence with the Courses
The type of problem that students should
work with is related to the learning objec-
tives and outcomes. If there are very narrow
learning outcomes, the problem will also be
narrow. If the learning outcomes are for-
mulated in broader terms, it will allow for
more variation. Sockalingam and Schmidt
(2011) distinguish between features and func-
tions of problems, where the features refer
to the design of the problem, and the func-
tion refers to the desired learning outcomes.
The projects of a curriculum should vary;
for some semesters, it will be necessary to
have discipline projects with well-defined
problems, and for other semesters, there
might be more open learning outcomes and
open innovation projects.
There are also lectures in the PBL curricu-
lum, and the relation between lectures and
projects – as well as the role of projects –
has to be considered, as either applying
the knowledge taught and/or creating new
knowledge.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 11 Feb 2017 at 19:28:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.012
Progression, Size, and Duration
How does PBL progress during the curricu-
lum? Does it move from more narrowly dis-
ciplined projects toward more open innova-
tion projects? The same questions apply as
to where in the system smaller projects or
cases would be of greater benefit and where
it would be more efficient to have more
comprehensive projects. Savin-Baden (2003)
has developed a variation of models for pro-
gression in blended PBL curricula ranging
from full integration to smaller pockets of
PBL.
Students’ Learning
Students do not know how to collaborate
or to run projects. There are various col-
laboration modes and project management
systems, and it will be an advantage for
the learning of these process skills to adopt
a more experimental and reflective learn-
ing approach. Reflection is an important
part of developing competences in handling
the process. Studies indicate that reflection
methods, such as portfolios with individual
and team-based reflections, have an impact
on students’ approaches to the learning pro-
cess (Kolmos et al., 2004; Turns, Cuddihy, &
Guan, 2010).
Academic Staff and Facilitation
Many PBL universities have mandatory
training or offer training that introduces PBL
in the system, as well as already established
systems for new staff. Most often the con-
tent of the training concerns the facilitator/
adviser role, which is a very difficult teacher
role that requires knowing when to give
direct answers to students’ questions or
to encourage them to be independent in
searching and learning processes.
Space and Organization
Space is an issue in the facilitation of stu-
dents’ team learning. ICT can be a type
of solution, but there will still be a need
for physical space. Distribution and recal-
culation of resources between traditional
 problem-based and project-based learning in engineering education
lecturing and facilitation of students’ learn-
ing have to be considered.
Assessment and Evaluation
According to Gibbs (1999), assessment is
one of the core drivers for students’ learn-
ing. Therefore, the type of assessment sys-
tem used is important for the success of
PBL. There is a tremendous body of research
on formative assessment, self-assessment,
peer assessment, and summative assessment
methods. Assessment in a PBL learning envi-
ronment can be aligned with the learning
outcomes and the learning methods. Forma-
tive assessment is very much in alignment
with the principles of PBL, because it sup-
ports awareness of the learning process, and
the summative assessment practice should
judge both the individual performance as
well as the group performance. If assess-
ment has to focus on both learning and per-
formance, this involves an oral assessment
combined with types of written work such
as portfolios, projects, and so forth (Brown
& Glasner, 1999). The assessment practice
is very often a group based assessment with
individual judgment and grading of an indi-
vidual’s performance (Holgaard & Kolmos,
2009).
Alignment among all the curriculum ele-
ments is important, and this PBL curriculum
model is aimed to create awareness of differ-
ent options. The model can be used for both
a course level and the entire curriculum.
Successes and Failures of PBL
Reviewing the successes and failures of PBL
is quite an undertaking. If a valid study is
to be made, it should provide a contextual
background for all the studies, as the spe-
cific PBL practice varies from situation to
situation. There is also the fact that failures
are not reported, and neither are the insti-
tutions that have implemented PBL at full
scale and that have had a halfway drawback
to traditional learning. However, across all
the different practices and subject areas, the
review indicates the following.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 11 Feb 2017 at 19:28:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.012
153
One of the significant results from re-
search on PBL in all types and variations
is that students’ motivation for learning
increases (Galand et al., 2010; Schmidt &
Moust, 2000; Thomas, 2000; Walker & Leary,
2009); students are increasingly curious, ask-
ing more questions, and using more time
to study. This is a significant result from
research on PBL across subjects and cul-
tures; for instance, according to Yadav,
Subedi, Lundeberg, & Buntung (2011), the
PBL approach has led to greater motivation
for learning. However, studies also indicate
that the PBL curriculum might be increas-
ing students’ stress, as they are using more
time for study and, as a result, can become
de-motivated (Bédard et al., 2010). Stud-
ies on gender and engineering indicate that
women are motivated by knowing the con-
text; they analyze problems and the con-
textual aspect is embedded in the problem
approach. Indeed, many PBL students are
not learning isolated disciplines, but work-
ing on more comprehensive problems and
relations from real life (Ihsen & Gebauer,
2009).
Students’ development of skills and com-
petences seems to be significant (Van Barn-
eveld & Ströbel, 2009; Dochy, Segers, Van
den Bossche, & Gijbels, 2003; Schmidt &
Moust, 2000; Strobel & van Barneveld, 2009).
Dochy et al. (2003) have made a review of
the literature from the 1990s on the evalua-
tions of long-term effects of using PBL. They
concluded that PBL results in an improve-
ment of the development of transferable
skills such as process skills. The impact
on knowledge acquisition is missing or not
significant. However, PBL students do not
acquire less knowledge compared with stu-
dents educated the traditional way. Studies
document that there is a significant improve-
ment of process skills. Galand and Frenay
(2006) have conducted an empirical study
of a transformation process at a particu-
lar institution. Their main conclusion was
the same: students obtain process compe-
tence. Crosthwaite, Cameron, Lant, & Lis-
ter (2006) documents that the students’ own
perception of the achievement of skills had
been significantly improved by PBL learning.
 154 cambridge handbook of engineering education research
Studies on PBL can present results of
improved retention rate or decreased drop-
out rate (Burch, Sikakana, Yeld, Seggie, &
Schmidt, 2007), and PBL students seem to
get higher grades (Graham, 2012).
Schmidt and Moust (2000) have reviewed
existing literature and concluded that PBL
seems to have an effect on long-term reten-
tion of knowledge such as remembering
and understanding various concepts. Other
studies are based on employers’ responses
to education, and Danish research shows
that employers are very satisfied with can-
didates from the PBL institutions and
that these candidates are easy to integrate
(Krogh & Rasmussen, 2004). In 2004 and
2008, a survey was conducted by Dan-
ish Society for Engineers (Ingeniøren, 2004,
2008) in which the companies rated Aal-
borg University as the most innovative uni-
versity. The response from the compa-
nies in general was very positive toward
the PBL universities (Kolmos & Holgaard,
2010).
Much of the early PBL literature con-
cerns conceptualization of the new emerg-
ing practices such as conceptual understand-
ings of the facilitator’s role, for example,
the development of the tutor role, defining
types of projects and problems, collabora-
tion in teams, and so forth (Biggs, 2003; Kol-
mos, 1996; Savin-Baden, 2003; Savin-Baden
& Wilkie, 2004). This is a natural develop-
ment of researching a new practice, as there
is first a need for building up a language
before comparing the effectiveness.
As noted previously, not many failures
have been reported, nor is there literature
on failures in the change process. There
are institutions that started out with high
ambitions of changing the entire curricu-
lum and ended up with almost no change at
all. Other institutions have implemented an
advanced PBL curriculum, but with change
of management they changed the curricu-
lum again with more traditional teach-
ing and learning methodologies. However,
this knowledge is based on the authors’
experiences and was never scientifically
reported.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 11 Feb 2017 at 19:28:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.012
At any rate, there have been several
critical voices; during the 80’s Danish
criticism pointed out that PBL was rely-
ing too much on experience and reflection
of experience, resulting in novices teach-
ing novices in the teams. Recently, in sim-
ilar criticism, Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark
(2006) emphasized strong instructional guid-
ance rather than knowledge construction in
teams with minimal guidance. There has
been heavy debate surrounding these issues
in the journal Educational Psychologist. Our
response would be that it is very seldom to
have a PBL curriculum without some level
of instruction. For most PBL curricular and
courses, there will be a mixed mode and the
PBL curricula are normally a mix between
lectures and students’ collaborative activi-
ties.
Barnett (1994) formulates further crit-
icism of PBL as being too instrumental,
focusing so much on authentic problems,
and asserts that learning therefore becomes
too concerned with problems without gain-
ing academic overview. Another very com-
monly formulated criticism is that PBL does
not cover as much material as conven-
tional lecture-based courses. However, this
is a problem not only in PBL practices.
Generally, there is more and more scien-
tific knowledge and the curriculum cannot
cover everything, but must be selective. The
importance is to be aware of the criteria
for the selection of content and that the
learned outcomes are exemplary of the over-
all objectives.
Future Directions
Most of the PBL implementation in engi-
neering education is at the single course
level, as this is the easiest way to change
practice for academic staff. From a strate-
gic point of view, it is very important that
academic staff experiment with their teach-
ing and try out new models. The tradi-
tional system is characterized by parallel
and rather independent courses most often
without coordination across the disciplines,
 problem-based and project-based learning in engineering education
so for enthusiastic teachers it might be dif-
ficult to initiate a more comprehensive PBL
approach across the disciplines.
For the students, however, a more com-
prehensive and interdisciplinary approach
would be an advantage. With no coordi-
nation, none in the system knows where
the students have learned problem analysis,
project management, and collaboration and
whether the learning is at a stage upon which
it is possible to build. Sometimes students
experience PBL in several parallel courses.
This might create overload, as research indi-
cates that they are using more time for study.
A coordinated PBL approach is prefer-
able across single courses (Shepard et al.,
2008).
CDIO (Crawley, 2001; Crawley, Malm-
quist, Ostlund, & Brodeur, 2007) is one way
to build up a more complex and coherent
structure at the system level, where there is
an overview of where students learn certain
process skills as an integrated part of existing
courses.
The most efficient way to utilize the PBL
approach is implementation at the insti-
tutional level – either the entire institu-
tion, faculty, or department level (Fullan
2001; Kolmos, 2002; Scott, 2003; Thomas,
2000). This type of learning approach is
supported by the whole system, for exam-
ple, physical facilities, training of academic
staff, distributing resources, development
of new culture, and so forth. Systemic
change requires both top-down and bottom-
up decisions in the system – and it is not a
change that can be implemented overnight.
It is a long, serious process of change from
the traditional paradigm of learning to a
new paradigm of collective, cognitive learn-
ing with the aim of achieving interdisci-
plinary knowledge for analyzing and solving
problems.
Kotter (1995) stresses the importance of
urgency and the creation of visions. Exter-
nal reasons are most often the motivation
for institutional change. However, exter-
nal factors such as cuts in resources or
demands for new skills might create urgency
for institutional change, but not for creat-
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 11 Feb 2017 at 19:28:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.012
155
ing visions. Without visions, there is a risk
of short-sighted change strategies. Knoster
indicates that the condition for a success-
ful change is that all of the following ele-
ments are in place: vision, consensus in the
organization, skills for new teaching and
learning methods, incentives for academic
staff, resources (as the change process will
be resource intensive), and an action plan
for what to do and how to do it (in Thou-
sand & Villa, 1995). If all of these elements
are in place, there might be a conceptual
change among academic staff and change in
the curriculum. However, if any of the ele-
ments are ignored, it might be even more
difficult to establish systemic change.
As Litzinger, Lattuca, Hadgraft, and
Newstetter (2011) conclude in their article,
there is a missing alignment between the
goal of educating engineers with a series of
new requirements and the existing engineer-
ing curricula. It might be easier for insti-
tutions to use an adding strategy instead
of changing teaching and learning method-
ologies at the systemic level. However, the
adding strategy, in which new courses and
activities are added to the established sys-
tem, might partly contribute to an overload
in the curriculum and to a theoretical and/or
disintegrated learning of the required skills
and competences. Educational change is a
challenge, but it is a constant condition for
educating engineers of today and tomorrow
and it is important to find a balance between
top-down strategies and bottom-up strate-
gies in facilitating sustainable change toward
more student-centered learning.
PBL Communities
Finally, there is much inspiration to be found
in participating in the established inter-
national communities. The Pan-American
Network for Problem-based Learning runs
international biennial conferences (http://
www.udel.edu/pan-pbl/). In the Asian com-
munity, the International PBL Symposium,
organized by Republic Polytechnic, Sin-
gapore, runs International Symposia every
 156 cambridge handbook of engineering education research
second year (http://www.rp.sg/symposium/
2009/). There are many national networks
like Facilitate – a PBL network (www.
facilitate.ie), which is an Irish Network,
and the Finnish Network on Problem-
Based Learning in Higher Education ProBell
(http://www.uta.fi/tiedekunnat/kasv/eduta/
probell/index.html). All of these PBL com-
munities are rooted in the McMaster and
Maastricht traditions of problem-based
learning.
The only community within PBL that
focuses on engineering education is the
UNESCO Chair in Problem Based Learn-
ing in Engineering Education (UCPBL),
Aalborg University, Denmark (www.ucpbl.
net). The UCPBL is running research sym-
posia every second year, and the activities
are based on philosophy and learning prin-
ciples across different PBL practices, which
derive from educational research and prac-
tice. This community has also declared its
commitment to researching the effective-
ness of PBL and strategies for changing PBL
in diverse cultural and institutional settings.
The evidence of the effect of PBL is an
important argument for change.
There are similar communities for engi-
neering education such as the ALE
(Active Learning in Engineering) commu-
nity encompassing a wide range of learning
philosophies and active learning method-
ologies (http://ale2011.ing.uchile.cl/). The
CDIO community is a very structured com-
munity with formulated standards. The
CDIO community also encompasses PBL at
the curriculum level; while the CDIO stan-
dards address the institutional system level
covering curricula, quality assurance proce-
dures, and training of academic staff, the
PBL address mainly the curriculum (http://
www.cdio.org/).
Finally, there are also interdisciplinary
journals in the field: the Interdisciplinary
Journal of Problem-Based Learning (http://
www.edci.purdue.edu/ijpbl/) and the new-
ly established Journal of PBL in Higher
Education (http://www.pbl.aau.dk/Journal+
of+Problem+Based+Learning+in+Higher+
Education/).
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 11 Feb 2017 at 19:28:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.012
References
Algreen-Ussing, H., & Fruensgaard, N. O. (1990).
Metode i projektarbejde. Aalborg, Denmark:
Aalborg University Press.
Barnett, R. (1994). The limits of competence –
Knowledge,higher education and society. Buck-
ingham, U.K.: Open University Press.
Barnett, R., & Coate, K. (2004). Engaging the cur-
riculum: Higher education and society. Bucking-
ham, U.K.: Open University Press.
Barnett, R., & Napoli, R. D. (2008). Chang-
ing identities in higher education,voicing per-
spective. New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor &
Francis.
Barrett, T., & Moore, S. (2011). New approaches to
problem-based learning – Revitalising your prac-
tise in higher education. New York, NY: Rout-
ledge/Taylor & Francis.
Barrows, H. S. (1996). Problem-based learning in
medicine and beyond: A brief overview. In L.
Wilkerson & W. H. Gijselaers (Eds.), Bringing
problem-based learning to higher education: The-
ory and practice (pp. 3–12). New Directions for
Teaching and Learning No. 68. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bédard, D., Lison, C., Dalle, D., & Boutin, N.
(2010). Predictors of student’s engagement and
persistence in an innovative PBL curriculum:
Application for engineering education. Interna-
tional Journal of Engineering Education, 26 (3),
511–522.
Beddoes, K. D., Jesiek, B. K., & Borrego, M.
(2010). Identifying opportunities for collabo-
rations in international engineering education
research on problem- and project-based learn-
ing. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based
Learning, 4(2), Article 3. Retrieved from http://
docs.lib.purdue.edu/ijpbl/vol4/iss2/3
Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at
university – What the student does. Buckingham,
U.K.: Open University Press.
Brown, S., and Glasner, A. (1999). Assessment
Matters in Higher Education. UK:The Society
for Research into Higher Education and Open
University Press
Bucciarelli, L. L. (1994). Designing engineers.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Burch, V. C., Sikakana, C. N., Yeld, N., Seg-
gie, J. L., & Schmidt, H. G. (2007). Perfor-
mance of academically at-risk medical students
in a problem-based learning programme: A
 problem-based and project-based learning in engineering education
preliminary report.Advances in Health Science
Education: Theory and Practice, 12(3), 345–358.
Capraro, R. M., & Slough, S. W. (Eds.) (2009).
Project-based learning – An integrated sci-
ence, technology, engineering, and mathematics
(STEM) approach. Rotterdam: Sense.
Carter, J., Eriksen, K., Horst, S., & Troelsen, R.
(2003). If reform is the answer – What are the
questions? Copenhagen: Center for Naturfa-
genes Didaktik, Københavns Universitet.
Hyldgaard Christensen, S., Delabousse, B., &
Meganck, M. (eds). (2009). Engineering in con-
text. Aarhus : Systime Academic.
Chinowsky, P. (2011). Engineering project orga-
nization: Defining a line of inquiry and a path
forward. The Engineering Project Organization
Journal, 27(3), 170–178.
Conway, J., & Williams, A. (1999). Themes and
variations in PBL. Callaghan, NSW: Australian
Problem Based Learning Network.
Crawley, E. F. (2001). The CDIO syllabus: A state-
ment of goals for undergraduate engineering edu-
cation. MIT CDIO Report no. 1, 2001. Retrieved
from http://www.cdio.org
Crawley, E., Malmquist, J., Ostlund, S., &
Brodeur, D. (2007). Rethinking engineering edu-
cation – The CDIO approach. New York, NY:
Springer Science +Business Media.
Crosthwaite, C., Cameron, I., Lant, P., & Lit-
ster, J. (2006). Balancing curriculum processes
and content in a project centred curriculum –
In pursuit of graduate attributes. In Education
for Chemical Engineers. Trans IChemE, Part D,
no. 1, pp. 39–48. Retrieved from http://www
.icheme.org/ECEsamplepaper.pdf
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New
York, NY: Collier and Kappa Delta Pi.
Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P., &
Gijbels, D. (2003). Effects of problem-based
learning: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruc-
tion, 13, 553–568.
Fruchter, R., & Lewis, S. (2003). Mentoring mod-
els in support of P5BL in architecture/ engi-
neering /construction global teamwork. The
International Journal of Engineering Education,
19(5), 663–671.
Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational
change (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers Col-
lege Press.
Galand, B., & Frenay, M. (Eds.) (2006). Prob-
lem and project-based learning in higher educa-
tion: Impact, issues, and challenges. Louvain-
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 11 Feb 2017 at 19:28:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.012
157
la-Neuve, Belgium: Presses Universitaires de
Louvain.
Galand, B., Raucent. B., & Frenay, M.
(2010). Engineering students-self-regulation,
study strategies, and motivational believes
in traditional and problem-based curricula.
International Journal of Engineering Education,
26(3), 523–534.
Gibbs, G. (1999). Using assessment strategically
to change the way students learn. In S. Brown
& A. Glasner (Eds.), Assessment matters in
higher education. London: The Society for
Research into Higher Education and Bucking-
ham, U.K.: Open University Press.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, S., Nowotny, H.,
Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994).
The new production of knowledge. The dynamics
of science and research in contemporary societies.
London: SAGE.
Gijselaer, W. H. (1996). Connecting problem-
based practices with educational theory. In L.
Wilkerson & W. H. Gijselaers (Eds.), Bring-
ing problem-based learning to higher education:
Theory and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Graaff, E. de (1995). Models of problem-based
learning. Paper presented at the Fourth World
Conference on Engineering Education, Saint
Paul, MN . In E. Rex Krueger & F. A. Kulacki
(Eds.), Restructuring engineering education for
meeting world needs (Vols. 1–4). Technology
Based Engineering Education Consortium, The
William C. Norris Institute.
Graaff, E. de (2010). Research on engineering
education: The development of a field of
applied research. In Proceedings of the Inter-
national Conference on Engineering Education
ICEE, Gliwice, Poland.
Graaff, E. de, & Kolmos, A. (2003). Character-
istics of problem-based learning, International
Journal of Engineering Education, 19(5), 657–
662.
Graaff, E. de, & Kolmos, A. (2007). Manage-
ment of change implementation of problem-based
and project-based learning in engineering. Rot-
terdam, The Netherlands: Sense.
Graaff, E. de, & Sjoer, E (2006). Positioning edu-
cational consultancy and research in engineer-
ing education. In Proceedings of the 34th Annual
SEFI Conference, Uppsala: Uppsala University
(pp. 98–101).
Graham, R. (2009). Approaches to engineering
project-based learning, White Paper. Retrieved
 158 cambridge handbook of engineering education research
from http://web.mit.edu/gordonelp/ukpjblwh
itepaper.pdf
Graham, R. (2012). Achieving excellence in engi-
neering education: the ingredients of successful
change. London: The Royal Academy of Engi-
neering.
Graham, R., Crawley, E., & Mendelsohn, B.
R. (2009). Engineering leadership education: A
snapshot review of international good practice.
White Paper, Bernard M. Gordon-MIT Engi-
neering Leadership Programme.
Hiim, H., & Hippe, E. (1993). Learning through
experience,understanding and action, (Læring
gjennom oplevelse, forståelse og handling: En
studiebok i didaktikk.) Oslo: University Pub-
lishing.
Holgaard, J. E., & Kolmos, A. (2009). Group or
individual assessment in engineering, science
and health education: Strengths and weak-
nesses. In X. Du, E. de Graaff, & A. Kolmos
(Eds.), Research on PBL practice in engineering
education (pp. 57–69). Rotterdam, The Nether-
lands: Sense.
Ihsen, S., & Gebauer, S. (2009). Diversity issues in
the engineering curriculum. European Journal
of Engineering Education, 34(5), 419–424.
Illeris, K. (1976). Problemorientering og delt-
agerstyring: Oplæg til en alternative didaktik.
(Problem orientation and participation: Draft for
an alternative didactic.) Copenhagen: Munks-
gaard.
Illeris, K. (2003). Towards A contemporary and
comprehensive theory of learning.International
Journal of Lifelong Education, 22(4), 396–406.
Illeris, K. (2007). How we learn – Learning and
non-learning in school and beyond. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Ingeniøren. (2004, March 3). Aalborg – Kandi-
daters Tekniske Viden er i Top.
Ingeniøren. (2008, May 30). Virksomheder dumper
nye ingeniøruniversiteter.
Jamison, A. (2001). The making of green knowl-
edge: Environmental politics and cultural trans-
formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Jamison, A., Hylgaard Christensen, S. & Botin,
L. (2011). A hybrid imagination. Science and
technology in cultural perspective. Golden, CO:
Morgan & Claypool.
Jarvis, P. (1992). Paradoxes of learning: On becom-
ing an individual in society. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 11 Feb 2017 at 19:28:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.012
Jorgensen, D., & Howard, P. (2005). Ten years in
the making – a unique program in engineering.
Paper presented at WACE 2005.
Kilpatrick, W. H. (1918). The project method.
Teachers College Record, 19, 319–335.
Kilpatrick, W. H. (1925). Foundations of method.
New York, NY: Macmillan.
Kilpatrick, W. H., Bagley, W. C., Bonser, F. G.,
Hosic, J. F., & Hatch, R. W. (1921). Dangers
and difficulties of the project method and how
to overcome them. Teachers College Record, 22,
283–321.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006).
Why minimal guidance during instruction does
not work: An analysis of the failure of construc-
tivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential,
and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psy-
chologist, 41(2), 75–86.
Kjaersdam, F., & Enemark, S (1994). The Aalborg
experiment – Project innovation in university edu-
cation. Aalborg, Denmark: Aalborg University
Press.
Klafki, W. (2001). Dannelsesteori og didaktik: Nye
studier (Theories of Bildung and didactics: New
studies). Århus, Denmark: Forlaget Klim.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning – Experience
as the source of learning and development. Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kolmos, A. (1996). Reflections on project work
and problem-based learning. European Journal
of Engineering Education, 21(2), 141–148.
Kolmos, A. (2002). Facilitating change to a
problem-based model. The International Jour-
nal for Academic Development, 7(1), 63–74.
Kolmos, A., de Graaff, E., & Du, X. (2009).
Diversity of PBL: PBL learning principles and
models. In X. Du, E. de Graaff, & A. Kolmos
(Eds.), Research on PBL practice in engineering
education (pp. 9–21). Rotterdam: Sense.
Kolmos, A., Fink, F., & Krogh, L. (2004). The Aal-
borg PBL model. Aalborg, Denmark: Aalborg
University Press.
Kolmos, A., & Holgaard, J. (2010). Responses to
problem based and project organised learning
from industry. International Journal of Engineer-
ing Education, 26(3), 573–583.
Kotter, J. B. (1995, March–April). Leading
change: Why transformation efforts fail. Har-
vard Business Review, 59–67.
Krogh, L., & Rasmussen, J. G. (2004). Employa-
bility and problem-based learning in project-
organized settings at the University. In A.
 problem-based and project-based learning in engineering education
Kolmos, F. K. Flink, & L. Krogh (Eds.), The
Aalborg PBL Model: Progress, diversity and chal-
lenges (pp. 37–56). Aalborg, Denmark: Aalborg
University Press.
Litzinger, T. A., Lattuca, L. R., Hadgraft, R. G.,
& Newstetter, W. C. (2011). Engineering educa-
tion and the development of expertise. Journal
of Engineering Education, 100(1), 123–150.
Lopez-Islas, J. R. (2001). Collaborative learning at
Monterrey Tech-Virtual University. Paper pre-
sented at the Invited Symposium on Web-
based Learning Environments to Support
Learning at a Distance: Design and Evaluation,
Asilomar, Pacific Grove, CA.
McKenzie, L. J., Trevisan, M. S., Davis, D. C.,
& Beyerlein, S. W. (2004). Capstone design
courses and assessment: A national study. In
Proceedings of the 2004 American Society of Engi-
neering Education Annual Conference & Exposi-
tion,American Society for Engineering Education.
National Academy of Engineering. (2004). The
engineer of 2020 – Visions of engineering in the
new century. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press.
Neufeld, V. R., & Barrows, H. S. (1974). The
McMaster philosophy: An approach to med-
ical education. Journal of Medical Education,
49, 1040–1050.
Nielsen, Jørgen Lerche., & Webb, Thomas W.
(1999). Project work at the new reform univer-
sity of Roskilde – Different interpretations? In H.
Salling Olesen & Højgaard Jensen, J. (Eds.),
Project studies – A late modern university reform.
Roskilde, Denmark: Roskilde University Press.
Norman, G. R. (1988). Problem-solving skills,
solving problems and problem-based learning.
Medical Education, 22, 279–286.
Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-
thinking science: Knowledge and the public in age
of uncertainty. Cambridge, U.K.: Polity Press.
O’Grady, G., & Alvis, W. A. M. (2002). One day
one problem: PBL at Republic Polytechnic. Paper
presented at 4th Asia-Pacific Conference on
PBL, Hatyai, Thailand.
Olsen, P. B., & Pedersen, K. (2005). Problem-
oriented project work – A workbook. Roskilde,
Denmark: Roskilde University Press.
Ozansoy, C., & Stojcevski, A. (2009). Problem-
based learning in electrical and electronic engi-
neering education. In X. Du, E. de Graaff, &
A. Kolmos (Eds.), PBL – Diversity in research
questions and methodologies. Rotterdam: Sense.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 11 Feb 2017 at 19:28:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.012
159
Powel, P., & Weenk, W. (2003). Project-led engi-
neering education. Utrecht, The Netherlands:
Lemma.
Prince, M. J., & Felder, R. M. (2006). Induc-
tive teaching and learning methods: Defini-
tions, comparisons, and research bases. Journal
of Engineering Education, 95(2), 123–138.
Royal Academy of Engineering. (2007). Edu-
cating engineers for 21st century, Retrieved
from http://www.raeng.org.uk/news/release/
pdf/Educating Engineers.pdf
Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of problem-based
learning: Definitions and distinctions. Interdis-
ciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning,
1(1), 9–20.
Savin-Baden, M. (2003). Facilitation problem-
based learning. London: Society for Research
into Higher Education and Buckingham, U.K.:
Open University Press.
Savin-Baden, M. (2007). Challenging models
and perspectives of problem-ased learning.
In E. de Graaff & A. Kolmos (Eds.), Man-
agement of change: Implementation of problem-
based and project-based learning in engineer-
ing (pp. 9–30). Rotterdam, The Netherlands:
Sense.
Savin-Baden, M., & Wilkie, K. (Eds.). (2004).
Challenging research in problem-based learning.
London: Society for Research into Higher Edu-
cation and Buckingham, U.K.: Open Univer-
sity Press.
Sawyer, K. (2008). Group genius – The creative
power of collaboration. New York, NY: Basic
Books.
Schmidt, H. G., & Moust, J. H. C. (2000).
Factors affecting small-group tutorial learning:
A review of research. In D. H. Evensen &
C. E. Hmelo (Eds.), Problem-based learning:
A research perspective on learning interactions.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective prac-
titioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Scott, G. (2003). Effective change management in
higher education. EDUCAUSE Review, 38(6),
64–80. Retrieved from http://net.educause.
edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0363.pdf
Sheppard, S. D., Macatangay, K., Colby, A., &
Sullivan, W. M. (2008). Educating engineers:
Designing for the future of the field. San Fran-
cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Shinde, V., & Kolmos, A. (2011). Problem
based learning in Indian engineering education:
 160 cambridge handbook of engineering education research
Drivers and challenges. In Proceedings of Wire-
less VITAE 2011: 2nd International Conference
on Wireless Communication, Vehicular Technol-
ogy, Information & Theory and Aerospace & Elec-
tronic System Technology (pp. 179–184). Banga-
lore, India: IEEE Press.
Sockalingam, N., & Schmidt, H. G. (2011).
Characteristics of problems for problem-based
learning: The students’ perspective. Interdisci-
plinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 5(1),
6–33.
Somerville, M., Anderson, D., Berbeco, H.,
Bourne, J. R., Crisman, J., Dabby, D., Zas-
tavker, Y. (2005). The Olin Curriculum: Think-
ing toward the future. IEEE Transactions on
Education, 48(1), 198–205.
Strobel, J., & van Barneveld, A. (2009). When
is PBL more effective? A meta-synthesis of
meta-analyses comparing PBL to conventional
classrooms. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-
Based Learning, 3(1), 44–58.
Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research
on project-based learning. San Rafael, CA:
Autodesk Foundation.
Thousand, J. S., & Villa, R. A. (1995). Managing
complex change towards inclusive schooling.
In R. A. Villa & J. S. Thousand (Eds.), Creat-
ing an inclusive school. Alexandria, VA: Asso-
ciation for Supervision and Curriculum Devel-
opment (ASCD).
Turns, J., Cuddihy, E., & Guan, Z. (2010). I
thought this was going to be a waste of time:
How portfolio construction can support stu-
dent learning from project-based experiences.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based
Learning, 4(2). Retrieved from http://docs.lib.
purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1125%
26;context=ijpbl
Ulisses, A., Valéria A. A., & Homero, F. F. (2009).
Ensino de Sensoriamento Remoto através
da Aprendizagem Baseada em Problemas
ePor Projetos: Uma proposta metodológica.
In Anais XIV Simpósio Brasileiro de Senso-
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 11 Feb 2017 at 19:28:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.012
riamento Remoto, Natal, Brazil (pp. 2365–
2371).
van Barneveld, A., & Ströbel, J. (2009). Problem-
based learning: Effectiveness, drivers and
implementation challenges. In X. Du, E. de
Graaff, & A. Kolmos (Eds.), Research on PBL
practice in engineering education. Rotterdam:
Sense.
Vleuten, C. P. M. van der (1997). De intuı̈tie
voorbij [Beyond intuition] Tijdschrift voor
Hoger Onderwijs, 15(1), 34–46.
Walker, A., & Leary, H. (2009). A problem-based
learning meta analysis: Differences across
problem types, implementation types, disci-
plines, and assessment levels. Interdisciplinary
Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 3(1), Article
3. Retrieved from http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/
ijpbl/vol3/iss1/3
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wilkerson, L., & Gijselaers, W. H. (Eds.). (1996).
Bringing problem-based learning to higher educa-
tion: Theory and practice. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Woods, D. (1994). How to gain most from problem-
based learning. Hamilton, Ontario: McMaster
University.
Yadav, A., Subedi, D., Lundeberg, M. A., &
Bunting, C. F. (2011). Problem-based learning.
Electrical Engineering – Journal of Engineering
Education, 100(2), 253–280.
Yew, E. H. J., & Schmidt, H. G. (2008). Evi-
dence for constructive, self-regulatory, and col-
laborative processes in problem-based learn-
ing. Advances in Health Science Education, 14(2),
251–273.
Yusof, K., Tasir, Z., Harun, J., & Helmi, S.
A. (2005). Promoting problem-based learn-
ing (PBL) in engineering courses at the
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. Global Jour-
nal of Engineering Education 9(2) pp. 175-
184. Retrieved from http://www.wiete.com.
au/journals/GJEE/Publish/vol9no2/Yusof.pdf