Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Opportunities for educational innovations in authentic project-based learning: understanding instructor perceived challenges to design for adoption

  • Development Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

“When felt needs are met, a faster rate of adoption usually occurs” Rogers, 2003, p. 246.

Abstract

Authentic project-based learning (APBL) is a highly effective way for instructors to help students learn disciplinary skills, modes of thinking, and collaborative practices by creating solutions to real-world problems for real users and clients. While educational technology innovations can bolster APBL by making a promising but challenging pedagogy more effective, as with many areas of education instructor adoption is slow. Diffusion of innovations theory predicts that instructors will adopt and maintain their use of innovations if innovations are perceived to, and then do, address their challenges. To guide design of future APBL technologies, we interviewed 47 university APBL instructors about their most significant challenges and inductively analyzed the resulting interview transcripts. APBL instructors reported interrelated challenges of: (a) scoping, sourcing challenges and balancing the needs of the program, students, and clients; (b) curriculum preparation, making the curriculum flexible enough for shifting project problems and codify standards to help students understand how to do quality work; (c) providing assistance to teams, including monitoring, and delivering assistance; and (d) coordinating a range of stakeholders involved in assisting teams, including co-instructors, clients, and students. To support instructor adoption in APBL, educational technology innovators might communicate existing technology, or create technological innovations, that provide: (a) scoping tools for sourcing projects, and forming teams; (b) authoring tools for sharing and remixing of curricular materials; (c) project management tools for team management and monitoring; and (d) coordination software to manage all APBL stakeholders.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Archer, K., Savage, R., Sanghera-Sidhu, S., Wood, E., Gottardo, A., & Chen, V. (2014). Examining the effectiveness of technology use in classrooms: A tertiary meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 78, 140–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beyer, H., & Holtzblatt, K. (1998). Contextual design: Defining customer-centered systems. San Franscisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biernacki, P., & Waldorf, D. (1981). Snowball sampling: Problems and techniques of chain referral sampling. Sociological Methods & Research, 10(2), 141–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blank, S., & Dorf, B. (2012). The startup owner’s manual. Pescadero, CA: K&S Ranch Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumenfeld, P., Fishman, B. J., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (2000). Creating usable innovations in systemic reform: Scaling up technology-embedded project-based science in urban schools. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 149–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boling, E., Schwier, R. A., Gray, C. M., Smith, K. M., & Campbell, K. (Eds.). (2016). Studio teaching in higher education: Selected design cases. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borrego, M., Froyd, J. E., & Hall, T. S. (2010). Diffusion of engineering education innovations: A survey of awareness and adoption rates in US engineering departments. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(3), 185–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, S.E., Maliakal, L.V., Rees Lewis, D.G., Gorson, J., Gerber, E.M., & Easterday, M.W. (2018a). Defining and assessing risk analysis: The key to strategic iteration in real-world problem solving. In Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS). London: ICLS.

  • Carlson, S. E., Rees Lewis, D. G., Gerber, E. M., & Easterday, M. W. (2018b). Challenges of peer instruction in an undergraduate student-led learning community: Bi-directional diffusion as a crucial instructional process. Instructional Science, 46, 405–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandra Kruse, L., & Nickerson, J. V. (2018). Portraying design essence. Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2018). Waikoloa Village, Hawaii, USA: AIS.

  • Chang, M. L., & Downey, A. B. (2008, June). A semi-automatic approach for project assignment in a capstone course. In Proceedings of ASEE annual conference and exposition, Pittsburgh, PA. Retrieved from https://peer.asee.org/4116.

  • Cheung, A. C., & Slavin, R. E. (2013). The effectiveness of educational technology applications for enhancing mathematics achievement in K-12 classrooms: A meta-analysis. Educational research review, 9, 88–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A. (1996). Design issues for learning environments. In S. Vosniadou, E. De Corte, R. Glaser, & H. Mandl (Eds.), International perspectives on the design of technology-supported learning environments (pp. 347–361). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A., & Kapur, M. (2014). Cognitive apprenticeship. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 109–127). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Koster, S., Volman, M., & Kuiper, E. (2017). Concept-guided development of technology in ‘traditional’ and ‘innovative’ schools: Quantitative and qualitative differences in technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(5), 1325–1344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlap, J. C. (2005). Problem-based learning and self-efficacy: How a capstone course prepares students for a profession. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(1), 65–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutson, A. J., Todd, R. H., Magleby, S. P., & Sorensen, C. D. (1997). A review of literature on teaching engineering design through project-oriented capstone courses. Journal of Engineering Education, 86(1), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.1997.tb00260.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 103–120. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00832.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Easterday, M. W., Rees Lewis, D. G., & Gerber, E. M. (2016). The logic of the theoretical and practical products of design research. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Easterday, M. W., Rees Lewis, D. G., & Gerber, E. M. (2018). The logic of design research. Learning: Research and Practice, 4(2), 131–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P. A., & Simons, K. D. (2006). Jumping the PBL implementation hurdle: Supporting the efforts of K–12 teachers. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1), 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank, M., & Barzilai, A. (2004). Integrating alternative assessment in a project-based learning course for pre-service science and technology teachers. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(1), 41–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerber, E. (2014). Design for America: Organizing for civic innovation. Interactions, 21(2), 42–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goel, V., & Pirolli, P. (1992). The structure of design problem spaces. Cognitive Science, 16(3), 395–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadim, H. A., & Esche, S. K. (2002, November). Enhancing the engineering curriculum through project-based learning. In Proceedings of 32nd annual ASEE/IEEE frontiers in education conference. Boston, MA, USA. Champaign, IL, USA: Stipes Publishing..

  • Hoit, M., & Ohland, M. (1998). The impact of a discipline-based introduction to engineering course on improving retention. Journal of Engineering Education, 87(1), 79–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.1998.tb00325.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ISTE. (2002). National education technology standards for students. Eugene: ISTE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Järvelä, S., & Hadwin, A. F. (2013). New frontiers: Regulating learning in CSCL. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 25–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2015). The NMC Horizon Report: 2015 Higher Education. Austin, TX: New Media Consortium.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H., & Hung, W. (2015). All problems are not equal: Implications for problem-based learning. In A. Walker & H. Leary (Eds.), Essential readings in problem-based learning (pp. 17–41). West Lafayette: Purdue University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D., Strobel, J., & Lee, C. B. (2006). Everyday problem solving in engineering: Lessons for engineering educators. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 139–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolodner, J., Owensby, J., & Guzdial, M. (2004). Case-based learning aids. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology: A project of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (2nd ed., pp. 829–861). New York: L. Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krajcik, J. S., & Czerniak, C. M. (2013). Teaching science in elementary and middle school classrooms: A project-based approach. London: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraut, R. E., & Resnick, P. (2011). Encouraging contribution to online communities. In R. E. Kraut & P. Resnick (Eds.), Building successful online communities: Evidence-based social design (pp. 21–76). Boston, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lepper, M. R., & Malone, T. W. (1987). Intrinsic motivation and instructional effectiveness in computer-based education. In R. E. Snow & M. J. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, learning, and instruction: III. Conative and affective process analyses (pp. 255–296). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, In.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Establishing trustworthiness. Naturalistic inquiry (pp. 289–331). London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loughry, M. L., Ohland, M. W., & Woehr, D. J. (2014). Assessing teamwork skills for assurance of learning using CATME team tools. Journal of Marketing Education, 36(1), 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475313499023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mandala, M., Schunn, C., Dow, S., Goldberg, M., & Pearlman, J. (2018). Uncovering the practices, challenges, and incentives for engineering design faculty. International Journal of Engineering Education, 34(4), 1314–1324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matusovich, H. M., Paretti, M. C., McNair, L. D., & Hixson, C. (2014). Faculty motivation: A gateway to transforming engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(2), 302–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, A. C., & Zhao, C. M. (2005). Rethinking and reframing the Carnegie classification. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 37(5), 51-57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niederhauser, D. S., & Stoddart, T. (2001). Teachers’ instructional perspectives and use of educational software. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(1), 15–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olds, B. M., & Miller, R. L. (2004). The effect of a first-year integrated engineering curriculum on graduation rates and student satisfaction: A longitudinal study. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(1), 23. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00785.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panadero, E., & Järvelä, S. (2015). Socially shared regulation of learning: A review. European Psychologist, 20(3), 190–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penuel, W. R., & Spillane, J. P. (2014). Learning sciences and policy design and implementation: Key concepts and tools for collaborative engagement. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 649–667). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Prince, M. J., & Felder, R. M. (2006). Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00884.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rees Lewis, D. G., Easterday, M. W., Harburg, E., Gerber, E. M., & Riesbeck, C. K. (2017). Overcoming barriers between volunteer professionals advising project-based learning teams with regulation tools. British Journal of Educational Technology. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rees Lewis D. G., Gerber E. M., & Easterday. M. W. (2015) Supporting project scoping: The Scoping wheel. In Poster presented at Harvey Mudd Design Workshop IX “Design Thinking in Design Education”. Claremont, CA, US.

  • Rees Lewis, D.G., Gorson, J., Maliakal, L.V., Carlson, S.E., Riesbeck, C.K., Gerber, E.M., & Easterday, M.W. (2018). Planning to Iterate: Supporting iterative practices for real-world ill-structured problem-solving. In Proceedings of the international conference of the learning sciences (ICLS). London, UK: ICLS.

  • Rees Lewis, D., Harburg, E., Gerber, E.M., Easterday, M. (2015). Building help-seeking tools for novice designers. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGCHI conference on creativity & cognition 2015 (pp. 43–52). New York, NY: ACM.

  • Reifenberg, S., & Long, S. (2017). Negotiating the client-based capstone experience. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 29(3), 580–588.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadaf, A., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2016). An investigation of the factors that influence preservice teachers’ intentions and integration of Web 2.0 tools. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(1), 37–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer, D. W., & Resnick, M. (1999). “Thick” authenticity: New media and authentic learning. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 10(2), 195–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for information, 22(2), 63–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Small, M. L. (2009). How many cases do I need? ‘On science and the logic of case selection in field-based research. Ethnography, 10(1), 5–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1466138108099586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Somech, A. (2008). Managing conflict in school teams: The impact of task and goal interdependence on conflict management and team effectiveness. Educational administration quarterly, 44(3), 359–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spillane, J. P., Parise, L. M., & Sherer, J. Z. (2011). Organizational routines as coupling mechanisms: Policy, school administration, and the technical core. American Educational Research Journal, 48(3), 586–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spradley, J. P. (2016). Participant observation. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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), 4. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland, J., & Sutherland, J. J. (2014). Scrum: The art of doing twice the work in half the time. New York, NY: Crown Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tatar, D., Roschelle, J., Knudsen, J., Shechtman, N., Kaput, J., & Hopkins, B. (2008). Scaling up innovative technology-based mathematics. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(2), 248–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tawfik, A. A., & Kolodner, J. L. (2016). Systematizing scaffolding for problem-based learning: A view from case-based reasoning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 10(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanderlinde, R., & van Braak, J. (2010). Implementing an ICT curriculum in a decentralised policy context: Description of ICT practices in three Flemish primary schools. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(6), E139–E141. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01111.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • VanLehn, K. (1988). Toward a theory of impasse-driven learning. In H. Mandl & A. Lesgold (Eds.), Learning issues for intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 19–41). New York, NY: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies. New York, NY: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yadav, A., Subedi, D., Lundeberg, M. A., & Bunting, C. F. (2011). Problem-based learning: Influence on students’ learning in an electrical engineering course. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(2), 253. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2011.tb00013.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaritsky, R., Kelly, A. E., Flowers, W., Rogers, E., & O’Neill, P. (2003). Clinical design sciences: A view from sister design efforts. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 32–34. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x032001032.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, H., Easterday, M. W., Gerber, E. M., Rees Lewis, D., & Maliakal, L. (2017). Agile research studios: Orchestrating communities of practice to advance research training. In Proceedings of the ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing, Portland, OR, USA. New York, NY: ACM Press.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the members of the Delta Lab, Simone Ispa-Landa, Bruce Sherin, and Christopher Riesbeck for their feedback on data collection and analysis.

Funding

This work was funded by the National Science Foundation (US) Grant Nos. IIS-1530833 and IIS-1320693.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Delta Lab, Northwestern University, 2133 Sheridan Road, 2.320/2.325, Evanston, IL, 60208, USA

    Daniel G. Rees Lewis, Elizabeth M. Gerber, Spencer E. Carlson & Matthew W. Easterday

  2. School of Education and Social Policy, Northwestern University, Evanston, USA

    Daniel G. Rees Lewis, Spencer E. Carlson & Matthew W. Easterday

  3. McCormick School of Engineering, Northwestern University, Evanston, USA

    Daniel G. Rees Lewis & Elizabeth M. Gerber

Authors
  1. Daniel G. Rees Lewis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elizabeth M. Gerber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Spencer E. Carlson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Matthew W. Easterday
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel G. Rees Lewis.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 4 and 5.

Table 4 APBL classes in the sample
Full size table
Table 5 APBL Classes in the Sample
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rees Lewis, D.G., Gerber, E.M., Carlson, S.E. et al. Opportunities for educational innovations in authentic project-based learning: understanding instructor perceived challenges to design for adoption. Education Tech Research Dev 67, 953–982 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09673-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09673-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation