European Journal of Engineering EducationVol. 32, No. 3, June 2007, 337–347

A case study on project led education in engineering: students’and teachers’ perceptions

RUI M. LIMA*†, DINIS CARVALHO†, MARIA ASSUNÇAO FLORES‡ and NATASCHAVAN HATTUM-JANSSEN†

†School of Engineering of University of Minho, Campus de Azurém, 4800-058 Guimaraes, Portugal‡Institute of Education and Psychology of University of Minho, Campus de Gualtar,

4710-057 Braga, Portugal

(Received 4 August 2006; in final form 20 December 2006)

This paper explores the extent to which students and teachers are able to acknowledge the strengthsand weaknesses of a shift in the approach to teaching and learning from a traditional, teacher-centredperspective towards project- and learner-centred education. It reports on a case study aimed at exploringstudents’ and teachers’ perceptions of a project-led education course carried out at an engineeringcourse at a Portuguese university. Data were collected through questionnaires, letters and interviews.Findings suggest, in spite of some negative experiences and final results for some of the students, aclear recognition of the benefits of a project-based approach to both the teaching staff as well as thestudents. Both are able to identify interdisciplinarity, high student motivation and the acquisition ofsoft skills as key features of project-led education.

Keywords: Project-led education; Learning process; Assessment

1. Introduction

Most Engineering programmes do not facilitate the continuous assessment process and aninterdisciplinary connection between different subject matters. Traditional learning is mostlyan end-term process in which the fundamental acquired competency would be the compe-tency to pass final exams. A more contextualized, autonomous, interdisciplinary learning andstudent-centred process, continuously assessed, could contribute to a more effective learningprocess. In a review on project-based learning, Helle et al. (2006) refer to a definition givenby Adderley, from which they highlight the following key issues:

(1) [projects] involve the solution of a problem; often, though not necessarily, set by thestudent himself [or herself];

(2) they involve initiative by the student or group of students, and necessitate a variety ofeducational activities;

*Corresponding author. Email: rml@dps.uminho.pt

European Journal of Engineering EducationISSN 0304-3797 print/ISSN 1469-5898 online © 2007 SEFI

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journalsDOI: 10.1080/03043790701278599

338 R. M. Lima et al.

(3) they commonly result in an end product (e.g., thesis, report, design plans, computerprogramme and model);

(4) work often goes on for a considerable length of time;(5) teaching staff are involved in an advisory, rather than authoritarian, role at any or all of

the stages—initiation, conduct and conclusion (Helle et al. 2006, p. 288).

All these characteristics apply to the project-based learning experience that will be reportedin this paper. Project-based learning can be aimed at applying knowledge and techniquesthat are already acquired (usually limited to one subject). It can also include interdisciplinaryprojects that are related to existing professional issues. This kind of project work tends toconsist of a combination of traditional courses and project work. A third model of projectwork is the project orientation that embraces the entire curriculum. In this case, the projectsare aimed at achieving the learning goals of the course and traditional teaching is only sup-plementary. Project-led education (PLE), as described by Powell and Weenk (2003), is anapproach to project-based education that includes the whole curriculum. This approach is notsupplementary, but replaces traditional subjects and teaching methods.

Project-led education (PLE), defined by Powell and Weenk (2003), promotes active learningprocesses:

Project-led education focuses on team-based student activity related to learning and to solving large-scale open-ended projects. . . . A team of students tackles the project, provides a solution, and delivers by an agreed deliverytime (a deadline) a ‘team product’, such as a prototype and a team report. Students show what they have learntby discussing with staff the ‘team product’ and reflecting on how they have achieved it. (p. 28)

There are various reasons behind the shift from traditional to project-led education in highereducation. Helle et al. (2006) distinguish three categories which are of relevance in this paper.First, there are professional motives: learning should be more work-based and aimed at theprofessional practice. Fostering critical thinking can be a second reason to embark on a shift toproject-based learning. Pedagogical motives which comprise a better understanding of the sub-ject matters also justify this shift in the learning approach. In the case of the project describedhere, the pedagogical motives play a key role. Another motivation lies on the demands arisingfrom the so-called Bologna Process (see Heitmann 2005) in which an increased student auton-omy, creativity, commitment and critical thinking are to be fostered in order to promote higherquality at undergraduate courses. Active and deep learning is one of the key features of PLE,as defined by Schachterle and Vinter (1996) and by Lutz and Schachterle (1996). Helle et al.(2006) also recognize active learning as an important issue of project-based approaches. Apartfrom active learning, these authors also mention a range of characteristics of project-basedapproaches, such as the contextualization of learning and incorporation in real-life situationsas well as interdisciplinarity. Projects are based on open-ended problems that require an inte-grated approach. Åalborg University in Denmark has more than 20 years of experience withproject-based learning. They identify a number of deficiencies of traditional education, amongwhich are the inability to work with others and discussing, the inability for creative problemsolving and to solve complex problems that require integration of social, economic, legal andtechnical factors (Luxhøj and Hansen 1996). The goals of project-based learning are to reducestudents’ attrition rate, to increase their self-confidence, communication skills and creativ-ity, to emphasize integrated problem-solving and to improve faculty leadership abilities todirect student project teams to solve interdisciplinary problems. Kolmos (1996) also outlinesthe characteristics of project-based work and problem-based learning, highlighting problemorientation and interdisciplinarity, an open curriculum and experience-based learning. Withregard to learning, the authors agree that motivation and learner control characterize the learn-ing process (Helle et al. 2006, Lutz and Schachterle 1996, Schachterle and Vinther 1996). Theproject described here clearly contains the features of a project-based approach as identified

Project-led education 339

by these authors: student-centredness, teamwork, interdisciplinarity, contextualization in aprofessional context, development of critical thinking, and the development of competenciesrelated to interpersonal communication, communication to audiences, conflict management,project management and autonomous and creative work.

As the role of the teacher in project-led education changes from transmission-orientedto interaction-oriented and the student becomes more responsible for his learning process(Dahlgren et al. 1998), perceptions of students and teachers with regard to PLE processeswere analysed, based on a case study at an Engineering course at a Portuguese university. Asthe added value of PLE lies in the development of competencies that are difficult to develop inmore traditional education, the adequacy of the project as a tool to develop these competenciesand the technical competencies as established in the course curriculum is studied.

2. Case study context

The study described here was carried out in a public university located in northern Portugalwith first-year Industrial Management and Engineering students during the second semesterof 2004/2005. A PLE project was designed based on a Biodiesel Production System. Thefive main subjects related to project supporting courses (PSC; Powell and Weenk 2003) were:Introduction to Industrial Engineering; Industrial Engineering Computer Tools; Computer Pro-gramming; Physics; Chemistry. The project result should include specification of a biodieselproposal including the selected production process; a produced biodiesel sample; specificationof a production system; and computer prototypes to support proposals evaluation. The Mathe-matics course did not directly support the project and, as a consequence, it was a non-supportingcourse (NSC; Powell and Weenk 2003).

The coordination team included 13 teachers, 4 of them lecturers and team tutors, 7 of themonly lecturers and 2 only tutors. In this PLE process, the tutor deals mainly with students’project management and teamwork guidance. The coordination team includes the coursedirector, a recently graduated assistant, and two educational specialists. Forty-four studentswere involved in the process, divided into six teams.

Evaluation included continuous assessment of the five PSCs and final product assessment.Both of these processes had the same 50% impact on the final grade. Each PSC teacher definedhis/her own way of assessing his/her subject based on written tests and/or work assignments.The final project result was assessed based on final report (40%), revision after feedback(10%), developed prototypes (20%), final public presentation (10%) and final discussion(20%). The group grade had an individual correction factor based on the tutor assessmentand peer assessment within each team.

3. Methods

The goals of the study reported in this paper were twofold: to analyse the perceptions of theparticipants in the PLE experience in regard to learning processes and outcomes and to discussthe implications of these in improving teaching/learning process, in particular the teacher’sand student’s role.

Data were collected at the end of the semester through questionnaires which consistedof five open-ended questions on the following dimensions: significant learning experiences;strengths and limitations of the project; doubts and difficulties and ways of overcoming them

340 R. M. Lima et al.

throughout the development of the project; appropriateness of the project; and suggestions forimprovement.

Overall, 20 students responded to the questionnaire, representing a 45% return rate. Studentswere also asked to write a letter to next-year students giving recommendations, especially aboutwhat they liked and disliked most in the project, the contact with the tutor and the teachers,teamwork and assessment method. In total, 13 letters were received.

Seven teachers participating in the experience also responded to a questionnaire whichincluded eight open-ended questions with five dimensions similar to the students’questionnaireand three more related to the course in which each of the teachers was involved.

The process of data analysis was undertaken according to two phases: a vertical analy-sis (Miles and Huberman 1994) in which each of the respondents’ accounts was analysedseparately. A second phase was then carried out through a comparative or horizontal anal-ysis (cross-case analysis) (Miles and Huberman 1994). This enabled checking for recurringthemes and regularities as well as contrasting patterns both in students’and teachers’responses.Findings are presented according to the main dimensions included in the questionnaires.

4. Students’ perceptions

4.1 Students’ views on their learning experiences

Students identified a wide range of learning processes and outcomes. They said to have learnedhow to engage in teamwork and how to collaborate with colleagues. Peer interaction emergesas a source of motivation. Conflict management is also said to be one of the major learningoutcomes for the students involved in the project. To quote some of them:

In this project the most important learning experience was how to work as a team and a more continuous andprogressive way of learning. (Student 1)

During the semester I have learned how to learn, this method enables us to be more responsible (. . .) and teamwork and hands-on activities. (Student 2)

Students also highlighted that they have learned how to communicate knowledge throughwriting and presenting their own work to the teacher and to the class and how to motivatethemselves as far as they had to set their own learning goals, to manage their own motivation,which have led to increased commitment to learning:

I have learned how to work as a team, how to organise a report, how to present the materials to the group andto others, the teachers and other students, how to work in multimedia programmes . . . (Student 9)

The most important thing for me is to know what I am going to learn in the years to come and what the basicsof production system creation are. (Student 12)

Students also referred to the increasing relevance and meaning of course content, whichthey associated with the emphasis on a closer articulation between theory and practice:

For me the most important aspect in the project was the opportunity to put into practice theoretical knowledgelearned in the previous semester . . . and thus the bridge between the knowing what and the knowing how. I havedeveloped the competencies related to Industrial Engineering so to speak. (Student 15)

A clearer and more realistic vision of their professional world was also a key feature instudents’ accounts when they talked about their learning experience and engagement in theproject:

The project has shown us what our course is all about and what kind of work we may do in the future. (Student 6)

In other words, according to the students it was possible to identify a number of competenciesthey developed throughout the course: (i) research competencies (the ability to ask questions,

Project-led education 341

to analyse and think about the content, the activities, etc.); (ii) competencies related to search,selection and interpretation of information; (iii) competencies which enabled them to managetheir own learning in a more autonomous way; and (iii) communication skills.

4.2 Doubts and difficulties

Students have also identified a number of project constraints, namely time- and task-management and ways of dealing better with work inside and outside the classroom. Moststudents referred to group work and group processes as one of the main difficulties in theproject. Group work motivated them to do the project, but most of them felt difficultiesworking in a group. Leadership and responsibilities were complicated issues in most groups.Choosing the right people to work with was not an easy job. In some cases, groups emergedfrom existing friendships. This did not appear to be a good reason to choose group members.

The difficulties were more serious at the beginning of the Project because people in the group had different kindsof motivations and pace of work. (Student 3)

Time management and resources was the main difficulty I felt in the Project and also the need to deal withemotions in the group. (Student 15)

To share our ideas within the group and be understood wasn’t easy. Another difficulty related to the need to learnsome concepts by ourselves. (Student 20)

The assessment method was another difficulty. The importance of the final presentation, theworkload of the tests in the middle of the semester and coursework, and the balance betweenthe project and the subjects was considered to be difficult by many of the students.

. . . there were people in the teams who didn’t work much and other members were very committed to the teamproject and didn’t have time to get prepared to the assessment periods. (Student 19)

. . . I found it difficult to keep a balance between the need to get prepared for the written tests and the developmentof the project work, taking most of our time ... (Student 20)

Students also mentioned the lack of coordination in the teacher team as a serious problem.They found it hard to establish the right priorities between the different subjects participatingin the project. Every teacher had his/her own subject and there was no clear communicationabout what priorities to set at what stage of the project.

I think one of the weaknesses was teacher coordination, because sometimes students had to hand in work andwe needed to work on several requests from different teachers at the same time. (Student 16)

4.3 Ways of overcoming the difficulties

Students also described the ways in which they had overcome the difficulties during thesemester. Overall, they spoke of initiative, willingness to do well and to learn. Some of themalso refer to searching on the Internet, help from the tutors and individual effort to deal withthe difficulties, which demanded extra dedication and commitment:

I think it has to do with your willingness to learn and to master the content and the search on the Internet alsohelped a lot . . . (Student 1)

The difficulties were overcome with more dedication and time given to the project. (Student 9)

Students also stressed the support from their group as well as from the teachers. Individualsearch for solutions, more investment and dedication to the project and respect for otherpeople’s ideas were also key elements in students’ accounts:

I think I have overcome doubts and difficulties by respecting other people’s opinion and trying to respect thetimetables and to accomplish the tasks that I was supposed to do in order for the group to do well, and alsoasking for help from the teachers and doing some research in books. (Student 5)

342 R. M. Lima et al.

As mentioned earlier, the letters written by the students were meant to prepare and givehints to next year’s students. Thus, students gave a lot of advice as to how to be better preparedfor the project that, in many cases, related to their own difficulties and ways of overcomingthem. They referred to the importance of choosing group members carefully and the learningthat working in teams implies, such as responsibility, leadership, respecting deadlines anddividing work.

Just an idea . . . participating in the project is a good option that I would recommend, but I need to tell you thatyou need to have a good relationship with your group members and you need to respect each other. And do notforget the deadlines. (Letter 1)

. . . choose your group well; do not ever lose your motivation; if you are the leader of the group and some ofthe members become more distant to the project, do not hesitate and go and see you tutor as soon as possible;be helpful between groups; separate friendship from work. If you have to discipline someone, do so; stick totime-tables and deadlines. (Letter 10)

The relationship within the group and with the tutor was also a key issue reiterated instudents’ letters.

4.4 Appropriateness of the project

All answers stressed the adequacy of the project for the curriculum content. Most studentsfocused on the utility of project development due to the application of practical aspects ofcourses content and to the clarification of those contents.

. . . all subjects contributed directly to the project. (Student 13)

. . . this learning process values the student ability . . . to associate theory with practice. (Student 14)

. . . in this way knowledge is more easily assimilated and with more dedication. (Student 23)

The relationship between course contents and practical application improved the learningresults through an increased student motivation.

. . . allow us to make a practical application of several subjects. (Student 19)

. . . it is more attractive and more interesting. (Student 3)

The results of the questionnaire were reinforced by the letters that some students wrote forthe next-year colleagues, and apart from the appropriateness of the project, most of the lettersmention whether or not they liked the project. In general, their opinion was positive. Theproject was described as a good way to prepare students for professional life, also by weakerstudents.

To me, the final result of the project was negative, but I think that if you try to avoid the mistakes we made,you are definitely going to like the experience. I enjoyed watching the project grow and getting shaped moreand more. There were moments in which we worked and researched certain topics together, which I enjoyed(Letter 9)

Students said that subjects became easier, because of the continuous assessment during thesemester. They referred to peer- and self-assessment processes.

The final presentation was essential to the students. They regarded the presentation skillsacquired during the semester as very useful. ‘Learning to sell the product’ was identified as akey issue of the project. More than half of the letters also refer to the importance of the supportfrom the tutors.

I think they performed excellently. The sociability between students and teachers helped us, …because we hadmore time to solve problems, to gain confidence, good advice and to find out how to deal with certain situations.They always helped us, without doing our work and were tolerant in extreme situations. The final presentationswere useful and the tutor helped to have good meetings. (Letter 8)

Project-led education 343

4.5 Suggestions for improvement

Data from the questionnaires provided directed and helpful suggestions for improvement ofthe learning project, namely:

• Resources—more project rooms for increasing privacy and with better equipment, likephones, computers and printers; more materials for project implementation.

• Organization—clarifying tasks; assessment timings; improving coordination betweenteachers.

• Assessment—differentiation of grades within the team; improving monitoring and feedback.• Implementation—reward best projects; include all courses of the semester as PSC.

. . . for a better project realisation . . . put a printer in each project room . . . and an internal phone for reachingteachers. (Student 1)

All assignments should be well defined . . . (Student 2)

. . . include all courses of the semester as PSC. (Student 5)

In this project I would like to see a better control of each group member for assessment purposes because,sometimes, some students work for others. (Student 21)

I would like to have more time between tests. (Student 24)

Students are rather optimistic about the project and most of the advice is related to the waysin which group problems should be handled. They also stress that next year’s students needto work hard and should use creativity as much as possible.

Although my group did a good job . . . we were not the best . . . because we could not ‘sell’ our product wellenough in the final presentation! Don’t forget to surprise with originality and quality and catch your audience.(Letter 1)

5. Lecturers’ perceptions

The lecturers’ perceptions are based on written questionnaires at the end of the semester. Onlyone lecturer was not involved in a non-supporting course (NSC; Lecturer G).

5.1 Teachers’ views on learning experiences

Lecturers had different perceptions on what students learned but they shared some thoughtsabout PLE. One of the advantages of this kind of learning, shared by all lecturers, relates to softskills, such as: working in teams; managing interpersonal professional relationships; doing for-mal presentations; leading activities; conducting formal meetings; accepting responsibilities;being creative; solving problems,

. . . Students learned how to work in teams, assigning responsibilities and sharing results, which allowed themto develop competencies and interpersonal relationships. They had to plan and control the tasks of differentteam members in a integrated way; manage conflicts; adapt to different personalities and attitudes towards work;stand up for their believes, discuss and to give in. Students learned to communicate to an audience, individuallyand in a team . . . (Lecturer B)

Asecond important remark on learning outcomes was related to the integration of the subjectmatters. As real projects are multidisciplinary by nature, learning by project work is a morenatural way of learning resulting in a deeper knowledge and competence. Lecturer B stressedthat the results achieved through this method were the best results over the last years.

The students also showed a better knowledge on topics such as their own learning process,objective analysis, evaluation methods as well as discussion of results.

344 R. M. Lima et al.

Lecturer F, involved in the Chemistry course, stressed the fact that students were moreenthusiastic in her subject than students of former years. The need for an intensive practicalapproach as required by the project was a key factor to effective learning. The perception isthat the students became also much more aware of the importance of Chemistry in a productionengineering course:

. . . At least I am sure that these students do not see this subject as useless or displaced in their degree course,without practical interesting in industry or in their day to day life . . . (Lecturer F)

Student motivation, perceived by lecturers during the semester, was one of the most impor-tant assets of this learning experience. By and large, the cooperation between lecturers andstudents as well as the great results obtained by students on the project was also positivelyperceived by all lecturers.

5.2 Main difficulties

Most lecturers played two different roles: tutor and lecturer. Some difficulties related to thelecturer’s role but the majority are associated with the tutor’s role. Most difficulties identifiedare: relationship problems between team members, project management and difficulties inunderstanding clearly the objectives by all group members.

Supporting the solution of problems related to the project management process within a teamis increasingly difficult when the team members have persisting interpersonal communicationproblems.

. . . I found it complicated to help students in a deadlock solving problems after I found out about persistinginterpersonal problems in the group . . . (Lecturer A)

Difficulties in project coordination were particularly noticed by two lecturers. According toone lecturer, project and subject goals should be defined in a more precise way at the beginningof the semester.

. . . Students spent several weeks being lost without knowing what to do (subject and project objectives), maybethose objectives could be more clearly defined . . . (Lecturer C)

Most students did not have any experience with project work and were therefore ratherdisorganized. Two lecturers referred that in some cases team members did not fulfil the dutiesthey were supposed to and frequently some team members were not on time for projectmeetings. One lecturer found difficulties in convincing team members of the benefits of formalmeetings.

. . . I felt many difficulties in motivating the team to hold formal meetings along the semester . . . (Lecturer E)

As far as the lecturer’s role is concerned, difficulties were also felt. Lecturer A points outthe difficulty in matching subject matter covered in a particular week with the knowledgeeach particular group needs in that particular week in order to perform a required project task.Groups tend to work on a particular topic required to their project according to their projectplan, which is naturally different from the lectures’ plan.

Lecturer C highlighted the lack of some important theoretical material normally coveredin traditional education methods that were not covered, because they were not needed in theproject. The subject syllabus may require some changes in order to accommodate projectrequirements, but, according to Lecturer F, in this particular experience that was not difficult.

Lecturer G, the only one involved in an NSC, refers to the low number of students attendinghis lectures. In his view, the courses that are not included in the project are severely penalizedsince the students tend to use all their energy and attention for the project and the subjects

Project-led education 345

directly related to it. The results of assessed homework as well as exams were very poor onaverage.

A common perception is that PLE is a process that requires from lecturers more time andenergy than traditional approaches. Lecturer F says that this effort is largely rewarded by theenthusiasm and dedication of students.

. . . A heavier work load to lecturers (without ‘official’ account) (although this negative point being largelycompensated by the enthusiasm and dedication shown by students and by the larger interaction kept with thestudents along the semester) . . . (Lecturer F)

5.3 Evaluation

The evaluation method is considered a very important issue by all lecturers. The commonidea is that the evaluation method adopted is more adequate than the traditional one, althoughchanges should be introduced to be more effective and fairer. Most of what the lectures wrote onthis issue is basically indications on how the adopted evaluation method should be improved.

According to Lecturer F, the final public presentation performed by students followed bydiscussion was the most enlightening and effective piece of assessment in the entire process.

Lecturer A stresses the concern that teams tend to assign different tasks to its members sodifferent competences would be acquired by students.

. . . As the assessment system is essentially based on the team’s final output, it is possible that some students didnot develop some particular competencies, as some degree of project task division between team members issupposed . . . (Lecturer A)

Lecturer B suggests that more check points should be included in project evaluation toassure a reasonable workload for students and better quality of the final products. The numberof evaluation check points assigned to the different project supporting subjects on the otherhand should be reduced (also suggested by Lecturer E). The project check points should alsobe used by lecturers as evaluation check points for project supporting courses.

. . . I think that more milestones and moments of project assessment should exist along the semester andless subject evaluations. Lecturers should use those assessment moments to perform subject assessment . . .

(Lecturer E)

Peer assessment concerns are referred by Lecturers B and D and improvements are tobe made. Lecturers B and E suggest that it should be maintained but the process should beperformed several times during the semester. The results should be discussed within the teamand the team tutor should participate in the discussion.

It was also suggested that the assessment criteria for all assessment components should bemore detailed and clearer.

. . . We should invest time in developing a clearer definition of criteria and ways of assessment, which could inan ideal scenario, lead to self assessment (well supported) with results similar to the ones obtained by lecturers. . . (Lecturer B)

6. Discussion

The perceptions of students and teachers with regard to their experiences in the project are,in general, positive. They all refer to teamwork, communication skills, connection with theprofessional practice, and an increased motivation for learning. The specific characteristics ofproject learning as identified by Helle et al. (2006) are recognized by both the teaching staffas well as the students as a clear merit of project-led education. The approach appears to be ananswer to the initial motives for the implementation of this project. There are, however, some

346 R. M. Lima et al.

aspects that need more reflection. These are similar to the problems identified by Peschgesand Reindel (1999) who describe the structuring and marking of project-oriented work at theUniversity of Applied Sciences of Mannheim. They refer to the flexibility of teachers thatis necessary in the development of both technical competencies as well as project-relatedcompetencies (soft skills). They also stress organizational aspects of project-led education:how to schedule a project and how to complete it.

Another issue found in this study is the marking of project work. Both group and indi-vidual contributions need to be assessed. Both the workloads as well as the coordination ofcontinuous assessment tasks for different subjects need improvement in order to provide amore balanced assessment scheme. The coordination between the subjects is, in general, anissue for further reflection. Transforming five subjects into one project that still reflects thecontent of each individual subject requires a coherent approach of the teaching staff. Currentcurricular structure does not allow a smooth shift from five subjects into one project, so theywere in fact functioning as five separate subjects, requiring five separate final grades. Thismade the whole process more complicated, especially in regard to the complete integration ofthe subjects, although the coordination team facilitated a joined approach as much as possible.

PLE as a tool to enhance quality of learning in engineering education has proven to beuseful in a sense that contents became more interrelated, student motivation has increased andteacher job satisfaction also has increased. In spite of the negative aspects that are evidentlyidentified by students and teachers, all clearly recognize the advantages of PLE compared tomore traditional approaches to teaching and learning. The changing role of the teacher andits implications for staff development and support of project led education (Hansen 2004,Peschges and Reindel 1999) needs to be more explored in further research. Not only does theteacher have a role in the support of the problem-solving process and the understanding of theproblem, he should also pay attention to the group’s communication and organization ofthe project work (Hansen 2004).

References

Dahlgren, M.A., Castensson, R. and Dahlgren, L.O., PBL from the teachers’ perspective. Higher Ed., 1998, 36(4),437–447.

Hansen, S., The supervisor in project-organized group work should participate in developing the students’ projectcompetencies. Eur. J. Engng Educ., 2004, 29(3), 451–459.

Helle, L., Tynjälä, P. and Olkinuora, E., Project-based learning in post-secondary education—theory, practice andrubber slings shots. Higher Ed., 2006, 51(2), 287–314.

Heitmann, G., Challenges of engineering education and curriculum development in the context of the Bologna process.Eur. J. Engng Educ., 2005, 30(4), 447–458.

Kolmos, A., Reflections on project work and project-based learning. Eur. J. Engng Educ., 1996, 21(2), 141–148.Lutz, F.C. and Schachterle, L., Project in undergraduate engineering education in America. Eur. J. Engng Educ., 1996,

21(2), 207–214.Luxhøj, J.T. and Hansen, P.H.K., Engineering curriculum reform at Aalborg University. J. Engng Educ., 1996, 85(3),

183–186.Miles, M. and Huberman, M., Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook (2nd edn), 1994 (Sage: Thousand

Oaks, CA).Peschges, K-J. and Reindel, E., How to structure and mark project oriented studies. Global J. Engng Educ., 1999,

3(3), 203–208.Powell, P. and Weenk, W., Project-led Engineering Education, 2003 (Lemma: Utrecht).Schachterle, L. and Vinther, O., Introduction: The role of projects in engineering education. Eur. J. Engng Educ.,

1996, 21(2), 115–120.

About the authors

Rui Manuel Lima is an assistant professor at the Department of Production and Systems ofthe School of Engineering at the University of Minho, Portugal. As coordinator of several

Project-led education 347

Project-led Education processes of Industrial Management and Engineering program he hascontributed to the implementation of different learning projects. He received his PhD in Pro-duction Systems at the University of Minho, Portugal, with the work “Distributed ProductionSystems under Simultaneous Production”. His research interests include distributed produc-tion systems, production planning and control information systems, productivity improvement,project management and active learning in Industrial Management and Engineering.

José Dinis Carvalho is an associate professor at the Department of Production and Systems ofthe School of Engineering at the University of Minho, Portugal. Most of his research is relatedto virtual enterprises but most practical work is related to lean production implementationin local industry. Lately his research interests also include Project Management and ActiveLearning methodologies such as Project-led Education.

Maria Assunçao Flores is an assistant professor at the University of Minho, Portugal. Shereceived her PhD at the University of Nottingham, UK. Her research interests include teacherprofessionalism, teacher education, and change. She is currently working on teachers’ profes-sional development from a longitudinal perspective. Recent publications include The EarlyYears of Teaching: Issues of Learning, Development and Change, 2004; “Contexts which shapeand reshape new teachers’ identities: a multi-perspective study” in Teaching and Teacher Edu-cation, 22(2), co-authored with C. Day and Being a Novice Teacher in Two Different Settings:Struggles, Continuities, and Discontinuities in Teachers College Record, 108(10).

Natascha van Hattum-Janssen is working at the Council of Engineering Courses of the Uni-versity of Minho. She is involved in projects on learning and assessment, quality of highereducation and staff development and obtained a PhD in Education at the University of Minhoafter finishing an MSc degree in Educational Science and Technology at the University ofTwente, the Netherlands. Her current research projects focus on the influence of assessment onthe learning approach of students in first-year engineering courses. She also develops trainingcourses for students and teachers to support project-based learning in engineering education,and is involved in the evaluation of project-based learning experiences at the engineeringcourses.