=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1093/paper6
|storemode=property
|title=Exploring Students' Experience of Project-based Learning in an Instructional Design Course
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1093/paper6.pdf
|volume=Vol-1093
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/ectel/Hartescu13a
}}
==Exploring Students' Experience of Project-based Learning in an Instructional Design Course==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1093/paper6.pdf
Exploring students’ experience of project-based learning in an
instructional design course
Ioana Hartescu
Lancaster University, UK
s.hartescu@lancs.ac.uk
Abstract. The present research aims to explore the different conceptions of reality that
university and placement organizations staff, as well as postgraduate students have in the
context of a project-based learning class in instructional design of online courses. The
methodology used is phenomenography. This project contributes towards filling the re-
search gap concerning technology enhanced learning in universities in Romania in the
context of a student-centred learning strategy. The implications for policy and practice
will also be discussed.
Keywords: project-based learning, instructional design, higher education, Romania,
technology-enhanced learning
1 Context of the research
The research is conducted at the University of Bucharest, Romania, in the Faculty of Psychol-
ogy and Educational Sciences and focuses on graduate students taking a compulsory course in
“Design of Blended Learning Programs”, in the first year of the “Training of trainers” master.
The first stage of data collection was conducted during the second semester, from February to
June 2013, and the second stage will take place from February to June 2014. Data will be
collected from different cohorts. In the first year there were 21 students in the cohort.
Instructional Design is presented to students as a possible career avenue once they gradu-
ate the master program. As lecturer of the course, I chose project-based learning (PjBL) as a
pedagogical approach, based on my experience of training instructional designers in profes-
sional contexts. Students undertook projects for real organizations and were responsible to
design small e-learning courses based on real requirements. Thus, the learning was placed in
an authentic work context. As part of their training, students met with the clients‟ representa-
tives to analyse the current situation and identify the learning needs; they worked with sub-
ject-matter experts, and produced and presented functional prototypes of online modules.
Two organizations agreed to embark on this project, both from the public sector. Their
mission is to train and certify various categories of civil servants and specialized personnel.
One of the organizations has a broad audience and offers a large array of general topics, while
the other concentrates on a specific professional category and offers specialised education to
gain accession to a specific profession. Each of these organizations has an e-learning platform
which they plan to use to provide distance learning to their audiences.
The class meetings were accompanied by learning technology support. A virtual learning
environment (VLE) was used, as well as an authoring tool (CourseLab) for the creation of the
online modules. Students submitted written reflections throughout the semester, communicat-
ed via the online forum, uploaded their assignments and received feedback, and found all the
necessary materials in a centralized space. This is the first time a VLE is introduced to the
37
students of the faculty, and they only used it for this course. The existing practice in the facul-
ty is to have a yahoo group accessible to students and teachers to facilitate all communication
and transmission of materials. Assignments, either final or intermediate, are usually brought
by the students in printed form and the teachers review them in an open colloquium, asking
questions if necessary. Students are used to the project work, but it usually means they have to
prepare, in teams, a report that will be presented at the final colloquium. Learning is not orga-
nized around the projects, and the projects are seen more as a means of assessment, rather than
a method of learning. This is why having a PjBL approach, with real projects for real organi-
zations, and an e-learning platform to support the learning, was a change from the usual expe-
rience of the students from many points of view.
2 Significant problems in the field of research
An on-going preoccupation in the field of higher education is how to improve ways of teach-
ing and learning, and how to better prepare the students and to equip them with the competen-
cies necessary for the work market. The European funds available for the higher education
system in the recent years made it possible, since 2009, for many universities to implement e-
learning platforms. However, this doesn‟t necessarily mean that teachers and students are
prepared to use them. Although relevant articles published in peer reviewed research journals
about Romanian experiences are scarce, one can form an image about the current state of af-
fairs by participating in conferences. An analysis is currently underway based on the articles
published in the proceedings of the eLearning and Software for Education Conference
(www.elseconference.eu) held in Bucharest, starting with 2009, in order to have a clearer
picture of the context and practice in Romanian universities. Preliminary results indicate a
focus on technology at the detriment of pedagogy, and reports usually concentrate on small
scale, specialized implementations, with little qualitative data useful to establish good practic-
es. The situation is quite different in primary and secondary education, where national, gov-
ernment-supported initiatives are taken to ensure a systemic impact [1]. At all educational
levels, however, the investments that were made were accompanied by studies emerging from
the need to prove accountability and efficiency, and to a much lesser extent to investigate the
actual experiences of the people involved.
PjBL in Romania is widely promoted and used from pre-school to secondary education.
However, at tertiary level, projects are seen as ways to assess students, not to organize their
learning. Instructional design, although it is presented to students as a possible career option,
is only covered by one course lasting one semester, at master level.
Therefore, although PjBL is not a new approach in the universities globally, technology
enhanced learning is widely used, and instructional design is a program of study in its own
right at many universities in the world, in Romania the situation is different. In what ways it is
different, and how it can be improved – these are the research gaps that this PhD project is
hoping to fill.
3 Research questions
This qualitative research aims to answer the following questions, in the context presented
above:
• What different experiences students, teachers, and placement organizations staff have of
project-based learning?
• What are the perceptions of students, teachers‟, and placement organizations staff about the
role of the teacher in project-based learning?
• What are the students‟ and teachers‟ perceptions about the role of technology in learning
instructional design?
• How do students conceive of their own learning of instructional design?
• What are the implications of the findings for policy and practice?
38
4 Theoretical background
The research is grounded in the constructivist paradigm of learning. Constructivism is a phi-
losophy of learning that supports the idea that knowledge is constructed by the learners as a
result of the experiences they live. Learning is making meaning from the interactions with the
world, especially when the present experience conflicts with existing knowledge and creates a
challenge or a puzzle [2]. The principles of constructivism emphasize the necessity of incor-
porating feedback and reflection into the learning process, and of rethinking the role of the
teacher who needs to engage learners in a journey of inquiry rather than treat them as “empty
vessels into which knowledge is poured” [3]. While all learning is situated (in one context or
another), meaningful learning happens in the same context of its application [4]. The implica-
tion for instructional design is to bring the real world closer to the learning context (class,
program) by using authentic problems or projects to trigger and direct learning.
Building on Marton and Saljo‟s [5] concepts of learning as being either deep learning
(based on understanding) or surface learning (based on reproducing), Biggs [6] notes that
when teachers use active teaching methods (such as problem or project-based learning), stu-
dents are encouraged to use a deeper approach to learning, while more passive methods (such
as lectures) leaves them to use the methods they are accustomed to (meaning that students
who are more “academic” will use a deeper approach, while students who are not, will use a
surface approach).
As a method that “organizes learning around projects” [7], PjBL involves students in au-
thentic settings, encouraging them to explore and apply the subject matter to situations that are
complex and relevant to the professional practice for which they are preparing. Use of PjBL is
documented in various disciplines [8 - 15]. Out of the 17 articles reporting cases of PjBL im-
plementations in higher education, 15 are placed in the context of undergraduate education,
only one is dedicated to graduate education, and one presents cases from both educational
levels. As far as learning technology support in PjBL is concerned, only 5 studies included it
in their focus, out of which 3 concentrated on information searching and retrieving tools and
techniques, 1 on self and peer-assessment, and 1 on online group reflection. This shows a gap
in the research about ways that learning technology is experienced in PjBL environments, and
about ways that students can be better supported with technology.
5 Methodology
The chosen research methodology, phenomenography explores the various ways in which
people experience the world; it aims to describe, analyse and understand these second-order
perspectives called conceptions of reality [16]. The results of this methodology are “categories
of description, in which different ways of understanding a phenomenon are logically and hier-
archically interrelated to establish a typology” [17]. Although a relatively new methodology, it
is particularly used and useful in research on higher education because it makes explicit to the
academic staff certain aspects which are relevant in teaching and learning at this level, such as
the relational nature of learning and the various conceptions students have on the content,
which can help teachers adjust their teaching strategies to facilitate conceptual understanding
[18]. Phenomenographic studies switched the focus of research towards the experience of the
learners, as it is understood by them, and their ways of understanding concepts [19]. Based on
people accounts of their experience, phenomenographers derive categories of descriptions that
illustrate the variety of different experiences and identify structural relationships between
these categories, delimiting an outcome space of the experiences people have of one phenom-
enon. Phenomenographic practice is not dogmatic and has some variations [20] in terms of
how different researchers analyse and manage the data.
Data concerning the students‟ experiences was collected using a variety of methods: ques-
tionnaires, semi-structured interviews, focus groups, online learning journals. Data from
teachers, managerial staff from the university, and placement organizations personnel was also
collected using interviews.
Phenomenographic analysis will be used to identify “a small number of qualitatively dis-
tinct descriptive categories of the ways in which the subjects experience (or understand, or
conceptualise) the phenomena of interest” [19], as well as the relations between these catego-
ries.
39
6 Proposed approach and existing results
The first stage of data collection resulted in a total of 18 questionnaires, 49 online reflections,
2 focus groups, and 4 interviews. The questionnaires were administered at the beginning of
the course in order to determine the students‟ prior experience or knowledge about (a) project-
based learning, (b) instructional design, and (c) technology enhanced learning. Their experi-
ence in all three domains was scarce to none. All of them reported having worked on projects,
individually or in small groups, for their final assessment in a variety of disciplines, but none
of them participated before in a course organized around projects. Some of the students had
previously seen e-learning platforms, but they did not use them with any consistency. None of
them was familiar with instructional design. From the preliminary coding of the focus groups
and online reflections, the main areas of variability appear to be: the way the students experi-
mented teamwork (communication, roles, planning), how they balanced the focus between
product and process, how they viewed the support they received, including: the online and
face to face feedback, the meetings with the client, the pedagogical scaffolding of the course,
and the technology support. Concerning the technology support, students report three types of
approaches, not necessarily mutually exclusive: (1) using the e-learning platform (mainly the
homework feature) as a planning and organizing device that helps them stay on track time-
and quality- wise, (2) searching for additional online tools that would facilitate their collabora-
tive work, with variable degrees of success, and (3) focusing on the use of the authoring tool
and the technical issues associated with it, again with variable success. Out of the 4 inter-
views, 3 were with staff from the faculty and 1 was a group interview with the representatives
of one of the placement organizations. The analysis of these interviews is in an incipient
phase. The existing results are preliminary and although some categories are beginning to
emerge, the results are not final yet. It is important that structures and relationships are not
imposed artificially on the data by the researcher, so a more structured presentation of the
analysis status is not attempted at the moment.
The second stage of data collection that will take place in the second semester of the 2013
/ 2014 academic year will benefit from the lessons learned in the first stage concerning the
students‟ availability to participate in interviews and focus groups. The focus of the questions
will also be narrowed, and the frequency of the questions increased, in order to capture a rich
picture of their perspectives on each of the elements of the course.
7 Contribution to knowledge
The higher education sector in Romania, as in other Balkan countries, has seen tremendous
change in the post-communist period, driven by a complex combination of factors, such as the
Bologna Process, the influx of European pre-accession and structural funds, the international
exposure and experience brought by the teachers and students mobility programs, and the
influence of international non-governmental organisations [21]. One of the goals of these
changes was to improve the quality of the education process, namely, to bring education clos-
er to the student, to train - and persuade - teachers to use more student-centred methods, to
bring the curriculum closer to real life. The extent to which this was achieved is not known;
however, the current preoccupation in Romanian higher education with quality assurance
should help clarify this matter in the future. Furthermore, peer reviewed research on teaching
and learning in higher education in Romania is scarce or unavailable, and even though inter-
institutional cooperation is improving, teachers still do not form a community of practice
where initiatives and experiences can be shared and replicated.
The main contribution of the present research is that it will document the students‟ experi-
ences in using PjBL supported by technology in the context of a Romanian university, which
should broaden the outcome space of the studied phenomenon.
Although the results of a qualitative study are not generalizable in the sense quantitative
research results should be, this study aims to produce results that are transferable by practi-
tioners in similar contexts, by providing sufficient information to support an informed deci-
sion. The results of the research can be informative for further improvements in the way PjBL
is used in instructional design courses, and, perhaps, by extension, in other related subjects. To
my knowledge, this is the first time that a course with an instructional design focus is offered
in Romania at academic level. If it is successful, the course may become a permanent part of
the curriculum and it may even extend to a stand-alone degree. On the other hand, project-
40
based learning, although not a novel method in the higher education, does not feature in many
research articles. From the 17 accounts found by doing a review of the literature starting with
the year 2000, only 2 articles present cases of implementations in graduate education, while
15 articles report cases from undergraduate education. In Romania, in the K12 education,
PjBL is used and promoted, but I am not aware of any account of this approach being used for
learning in higher education. By understanding the students‟ various experiences, teachers can
improve their methods; faculty management can set realistic goals and implement adequate
support for reaching them. If this approach is successful for these courses, it may extend to
other disciplines, promoting interdisciplinary projects and a truly integrated curriculum. An-
other area that could benefit from the results is the professional training of instructional de-
signers in organizations, by offering grounds to adjust the curriculum and the methods to bet-
ter support the learners.
Technology support for learning is currently mainly used in technical universities in Ro-
mania, and less so in the humanities and social sciences faculties. Combining project – based
learning with technology support may open avenues into how more student centred methods
may be implemented in Romanian universities and may create a clearer picture of the factors
and issues that should be considered when designing and implementing teacher development
programs.
Moreover, instructional design teaching and PjBL were never documented at tertiary edu-
cation level in Romania. This research has the potential not only to enrich the existing body of
knowledge drawn mainly on Western or US experiences, but also to bring a fresh new per-
spective from the Eastern European higher education point of view.
Note
Ioana Hârţescu is a PhD student in E-Research and Technology Enhanced Learning at the
Department of Educational Research, Lancaster University, UK. Her supervisor is Professor
Mary Hamilton (m.hamilton@lancaster.ac.uk). Ioana started the program in February 2010
and is expected to complete and defend her thesis by the end of 2014.
References
1. Vlada, M., Jugureanu, R., Istrate, O.: E-learning and educational software. Educational
projects and experience of implementation in Romania. Proceedings of the 4th Interna-
tional Conference on Virtual Learning, Iași, Romania. Retrieved August 10, 2013, from
http://www.icvl.eu/2009/disc/icvl/documente/pdf/met/ICVL_ModelsAndMethodologies_
paper01.pdf (2009)
2. Wilson, B.G.: Constructivism in practical and historical context. Chapter in Bob Reiser &
Jack Dempsey (Editors), Current Trends in Instructional Design and Technology (third
edition). Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River NJ (2011)
3. Alessi, S.M., Trollip, S.R.: Multimedia for learning: Methods and development (3rd ed.).
Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA (2001)
4. Brown, J.S., Collins, A., Duguid, P.: Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Edu-
cation Researcher, 18(1), pp 32 – 42 (1989)
5. Marton F., Säljö, R.: Approaches to Learning. In: Marton, F., Hounsell, D. and Entwistle,
N., (eds.) The Experience of Learning: Implications for teaching and studying in higher
education. 3rd (Internet) edition, pp 39-58. University of Edinburgh, Centre for Teaching,
Learning and Assessment, Edinburgh (2005)
6. Biggs, J.: What the student does: teaching for enhanced learning, Higher Education Re-
search & Development, 31 (1), pp 39-55 (2012)
7. Thomas, J.W.: A Review of Research on Project-Based Learning. Autodesk Foundation,
San Rafael, CA (2000)
8. Braguglia, K. H., Jackson, K. A.: Teaching Research Methodology Using A Project-
Based Three Course Sequence Critical Reflections On Practice. American Journal of
Business Education 5(3), pp 347 – 352 (2012)
9. Hou, H. T.: Exploring the behavioral patterns in project-based learning with online dis-
cussion: quantitative content analysis and progressive sequential analysis. TOJET: The
Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 9(3), pp 52 – 60 (2010)
41
10. Karaman, S., Celik, S.: An exploratory study on the perspective of prospective computer
teachers following project-based learning. International Journal of Technology and De-
sign Education 18(2), pp 203 – 215 (2008)
11. Kim P., Hong J., Bonk C., Lim, G.: Effects of group reflection variations in project-based
learning integrated in a Web 2.0 learning space. Interactive Learning Environments 19(4),
pp 333-349 (2011)
12. Korfhage Smith, R.: A Case Study in Project-Based Learning: An International Partner-
ship. Journal of Teaching in International Business, 21(3), pp 178-188 (2010)
13. Krogstie, B.: A model of retrospective reflection in project based learning utilizing histor-
ical data in collaborative tools. In Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on Tech-
nology Enhanced Learning, Sept 29 – Oct 2, 2009 (Eds. U. Cress, V. Dimitrova, M.
Specht), pp. 418 – 432 (2009)
14. Lee, N.: Project methods as the vehicle for learning in undergraduate design education: a
typology. Design Studies 30(5), pp 541 – 560 (2009)
15. Lopez, T. B., Lee, R. G.: Five principles for workable client-based projects: Lessons from
the trenches. Journal of Marketing Education 27(2), pp 172 – 188 (2005)
16. Marton, F.: Phenomenography – describing conceptions of the world around us. Instruc-
tional Science 10, pp 177 – 200 (1981)
17. Ashworth, P., Lucas, U.: What is the „World‟ of phenomenography?, Scandinavian Jour-
nal of Educational Research, 42(4), pp 415-431 (1998)
18. Entwistle, N.: Introduction: phenomenography in higher education. Higher Education Re-
search & Development 16(2), pp 127-134 (1997)
19. Booth, S.: On phenomenography, learning and teaching. Higher Education Research &
Development, 16(2), pp 135-158 (1997)
20. Åkerlind, G. S.: Variation and commonality in phenomenographic research methods.
Higher Education Research & Development, 24(4), pp 321-334 (2005)
21. Zmas, A.: The transformation of the European educational discourse in the Balkans. Eu-
ropean Journal of Education 47(3), pp 364 – 377 (2012)
42