JPBLHE: Early view

xx-xx

Enhancing Student’s Problem-solving Skills through Project-based Learning

Ebrahim Karan and Lisa Brown *

ABSTRACT

The goal of the study is to overcome two main drawbacks of traditional science,
technology, engineering, and math (STEM) pedagogical strategies using PBL - lack
of student engagement and students who are not prepared for more complex
problems. PBL teaching strategies practiced in an introductory class are assessed.
Classroom observations and student surveys are used to determine at what level
does the PBL affect students’ problem-solving skills. For the first half of the
semester of the course, traditional lectures were used, during the second half,
students are divided into experimental (PBL strategy) and control groups. The
results of the survey and student grades are analyzed to determine a statistically
significant difference between pre/post-study results. From the students’
perspective, there is a significant mean difference between their confidence level in
solving problems before and after using PBL and the students earned higher grades
compared to the students in the control group.

Keywords: Project-based learning; teaching strategies, construction management

INTRODUCTION

Solving problems is an essential skill for the future workforce in many science,
technology, engineering, and math (STEM) careers. In the context of higher education,
the development of problem solving skills includes a variety of teaching strategies to
prepare students for solving new kinds of problems and provide opportunities for
theoretical concepts to become more concrete (Netwong, 2018). STEM problems share
many common pedagogical principles despite the obvious difference in their teaching
strategies. For example, they present students with a real-world problem and ask them to
________________
* Dr. Ebrahim Karan, Department of Engineering Technology, Sam Houston State University, USA
Email: [email protected]
Dr. Lisa Brown, School of Teaching & Learning, Sam Houston State University, USA
Email: [email protected]
E. Karan, L. Brown JPBLHE: Early view

propose a valid well-constructed solution (Jurdak, 2016). Hands-on and active

participation have also been proposed in the literature to facilitate the problem solving
learning process (Demirhan & Şahin, 2019). Developing such skills can be best achieved
in using project-based learning (PBL) where students are engaged through a collaborative
process of investigation over an extended period of time (Sahin, 2013). PBL represents a
promising student-centered approach to overcome two main drawbacks of traditional
STEM pedagogical strategies; firstly, lack of engagement in collaborative partnerships
and, secondly, passive learning and compartmentalized curriculum (Pinho-Lopes &
Macedo, 2014). By working with PBL, students, in groups, investigate the problem from
the curriculum. Recent studies show that PBL curriculum has an overall positive impact
on student attainment of professional attributes (Johnson & Ulseth, 2014).

It was noticed that students who falter in introductory STEM courses are more likely to
develop learning gaps that grow as they tackle more difficult material (Alzen et al., 2018).
The goal of this study is to close such gaps and build a solid foundation for more advanced
work in upper level courses. This can be achieved by using PBL strategies in which
instruction is delivered through small groups and students are encouraged to collaborate
to master concepts. In working with undergraduate students over many years, the authors
have experienced countless occasions where students are asked to work in groups to solve
a problem, yet, they wait for the instructor or classmates to give them a hint to solve the
problem for them. Perhaps, they have never been taught how to find the information
required to problem solve. This issue is certainly not unique to the authors' experience;
as other educators have noticed that many students are completely dependent on the help
of a tutor for the majority of their class projects (Khouyibaba, 2015).

It is recommended to enhance students’ problem-solving particularly in introductory

classes where students need to master the basics before moving on to an advanced course
(Stanger-Hall, 2012). The format of PBL can be useful as a way of challenging students
to answer/solve real problems in an authentic meaningful way. In the next section, we
define characteristics of PBL in STEM education by reviewing recent studies. The
foundation of this study is comprised by this question: How can PBL improve the
students’ problem-solving skill in introductory STEM courses? To answer this question,
we assess PBL teaching strategies practiced in an introductory STEM class.

A REVIEW OF PROJECT-BASED LEARNING IN STEM EDUCATION

PBL is a student-centered form of instruct which is based on six hallmarks: a driving
question, the focus on learning goals, participation in educational activities, collaboration
among students, the use of scaffolding technologies, and the creation of tangible artifacts
(Krajcik & Shin, 2014). Like other student-centered pedagogies (e.g. problem-based
learning), PBL requires students to work together through authentic questions and to find
E. Karan, L. Brown JPBLHE: Early view

solutions to authentic problems within real-world practices (Al-Balushi & Al-Aamri,

2014) which lead to meaningful learning experiences (Al-Balushi & Al-Aamri, 2014).

A driving question (DQ) is an open-ended inquiry that guides the problem-solving

approach and the project work. For the teachers, it helps to focus the inquiry and planning
of the project. For the students, the DQ creates interest and a feeling of challenge and
entices critical thinking (Miller & Krajcik, 2019). The DQ should be open-ended to allow
numerous possible answers and get adequate answers to complex projects. At the same
time, it should be provocative and challenging to encourage students to think creatively
and raise the visibility of the key learning concepts (Bielik et al., 2018). Learning goals
are simply the result of the instruction; what students will learn and/or be able to do as a
result of the lesson. Therefore, it is necessary to use hands-on projects that successfully
address significant learning goals. PBL helps teacher combine the project goals (the aim
to achieve) and the learning goals (the knowledge learned in the course) (Michel et al.,
2012).

Many studies demonstrate active participation in educational activities boosts students’

level of understanding and improves the ability to process content, and the retention of
knowledge (Baraldi, 2013; Nasmith & Steinert, 2001). Since students have to collaborate
with their peers on how to solve a problem, most projects include opportunities for
collaborative problem-solving activities by nature (Cukurova et al., 2016). Negotiating
how to collectively solve a problem is also part of PBL (Bell, 2010). Once projects are
undertaken as groups, two types of roles are defined with PBL: The individual role
performs individual tasks, and group role which is composed of several individual roles
and performs collaborative tasks (Yassine et al., 2013).

A number of scaffolding strategies have been presented in the literature. Examples of

common scaffolds in PBL include but not limited to: using real-case projects grounded
in the personal interests (Grant, 2009), modeling with think-aloud can be used to generate
student questions during a project launch (Mou, 2019), projects can be broken into parts
to better facilitate collaboration in small groups, hands-on activities can be used to link
theory to practice (Joyce et al., 2013), and graphic organizers can be used to visually
depict an idea either through writings or charts (Chasanatun & Lestari, 2017).

Last, the creation of artifacts is a distinguishing characteristic of PBL compared to other

student-centered pedagogies. Students create a set of tangible project/products that
address the DQ. These artifacts are shared and present their gained knowledge
(Arcidiacono et al., 2016).
E. Karan, L. Brown JPBLHE: Early view

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The class that is involved in this study is a required introductory course for BSc students
in Construction Management at Sam Houston State University (SHSU). The class
selected for this study is Wood Frame Construction containing 26 students with 3 females
(11%) and 23 males (89%). The class is a lecture/lab course with 1-houe lecture and 3-
hour lab per week. Figure 1 shows the woodworking area that allows exposure to the
machines and hands-on practices typically found in industry.

Figure 1. The woodworking lab facility for the selected class.

The section selected for this study was offered in Spring 2021 with the COVID-19
pandemic entering its second year. As a response to COVID-19, the course delivery has
been modified to reduce classroom density. The class is divided into two sections; each
meets once a week with half of the students enrolled in the class (13 out of 26 students).

The authors’ effort has focused on applying PBL methods as an alternative to “cookbook”
procedures. Traditionally, students in Wood Frame Construction were supposed to
perform the exact sequence of steps specified by the instructor or the textbook. From
authors’ observations, it could be seen that students did not learn when and how to apply
these same procedures outside of the classroom. A deeper understanding of the wood
working material is needed. Most students were conditioned to wait for the instructor to
give them the answer and did not take collaborative inquiry seriously.

We compiled a list of recommendations and strategies for improving engagement to fulfill

educational objectives. First, we used a DQ as an entry event to give students a sense of
purpose and challenge. The questions are mostly focused on solving a problem (e.g., how
to frame a wall or door). Second, each project would give students opportunities to
communicate, collaborate, and think critically. In addition to the PBL pedagogical
benefits, there are at least three more reasons that justify the use of PBL for this
introductory STEM class; First, students construct their understanding by building their
wood products. Second, students are able to display their learning in a continuous process
E. Karan, L. Brown JPBLHE: Early view

throughout a woodworking project that is consistent with real-world practices. Third,

student presentations make their problem-solving skill visible to others.

The first half of the semester, traditional lectures were used to introduce all students to
new topics; the instructor delivered the content over the course of a few lectures, set
assignments with step-by-step procedure to measure student comprehension and moved
on once it is complete. During the second half of the semester, the students enrolled in
the Wood Frame Construction class are divided into experimental and control groups,
with those in the experimental group being taught with PBL. Those in the control group
are taught with the traditional lecture/lab method. For seven consecutive weeks, the
students in the experimental group are given different wood frame projects such as
framing a roof or stair, installing a door, and building a fence. As an example, the students
were taught how to properly layout gable and hip roofs and introduced to rise, run, pitch,
and rafter length calculations. A roof plan for a sloped gable roof was used as the DQ and
the students were asked to calculate the actual length of the rafters. The DQ is presented
to each team one week in advance and each team is given 5-10 minutes during the class
to discuss and select which role to play or topic to study.

The student could use email, text messaging, and video communications to solve the
problem. Last, students were asked to conduct real inquiry as opposed to find the
information in the textbook or websites. The resources are available to use but ideas
should be generated and then tested. The students were asked to actively participate in
the class activities and they had to collaborate with group members to find and agree on
a solution. Drawings are used as scaffolding technologies and there was a tangible artifact
for each project. For example, the students were provided with a roof plan drawing and
delivered a framed gable roof. In another project, the students were provided with a site
plan and customer's requirements of a fence and delivered an assembled fence with a
footing, two posts and pickets between the posts.

A structured problem-solving technique is used for the experiential group in the study to
identify, analyze, and solve problems in an organized manner. The experimental group
must agree to a solution and be able to explain the solution and the strategy used to solve
the problem. Figure 2 shows students working on their woodworking projects. The
learning environment for the experimental group is designed based on many elements of
constructionism; the instructor acts as a facilitator and guides the students through the
necessary steps to complete their project. The students are assigned tasks in which they
must brainstorm, investigate, and solve problems. Other elements for the experimental
group guided by constructionism include presentation of rubrics which define
expectations, presentation of artifacts, collaboration between the students, and using
authentic real-world projects. Constructionism (Papert, 1993) is both a theory of learning
E. Karan, L. Brown JPBLHE: Early view

and a strategy for education asserting that knowledge is not simply transmitted from
teacher to student, but actively constructed in the mind of the learner.

Figure 2. Examples of the woodworking projects (building stair and wood fence).

The course material has been revised to improve students’ creativity and problem-solving
skills through PBL techniques. Instead of providing step-by-step instruction to meet the
outcome (e.g. wood planter box), the final product is identified, and students should
develop creative and practical solutions (e.g. what should be used for the joints, wood
glues or nail or screw connections, what are the feasible decisions based on the available
tools). Once a solution is agreed upon, the team must decide how to realize that solution
by building the product. Students work together in small groups and the problems are
posed in a wide variety of contexts and representations.

The students were expected to present their work to the class at the end of each project.
These wood products, which were representations of students' solutions resulting from
the given projects, were presented as the final products to the control group. Because the
projects were exactly the same for the control and experimental groups, there were
opportunities for sharing ideas and getting feedback with peers. The students in both
groups were given the opportunity to revise their artifact for the final project. Given the
circumstances related to COVID-19, whole class presentations were not scheduled and
the students did not have the opportunity to foster their intra-group communication and
sharing.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data is collected for this study in two forms; through a student survey and final grades.
All students in the experiential group are given a pre-survey at the beginning of the
semester (when the study initially begins) which is also the same survey given at the end
of the semester (conclusion of the study). The results of the survey and the students’
grades are statistically analyzed to determine any statistically significant difference
between pre/post-study results for the students in the experimental group. The survey
used in the study is available in the appendix.
E. Karan, L. Brown JPBLHE: Early view

Table 1 shows the results for the pre- and post-study surveys for the experimental group.
The first three questions focus on individual student’s ability to solve problems. In
questions 4-6, we wanted to see whether students’ confidence increases while their
dependence on instructors for problem solving decreases by having them present ideas
and solutions. The last five questions focus on group problem-solving and the effects of
various communication behaviors on the group's problem solving.

Question Strongly Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly

Agree Disagree
Score 5 4 3 2 1
1- I feel confident Pre-study 23% 46% 15% 15% 0%
solving wood working
problems on my own. Post- 46% 38% 8% 8% 0%
study
2- It is easy for me to Pre-study 23% 46% 15% 15% 0%
find a solution to a
wood working problem. Post- 46% 23% 23% 8% 0%
study
3- I use drawings or Pre-study 46% 38% 15% 0% 0%
visualize the final
product to find my Post- 54% 46% 0% 0% 0%
study
solutions.
4- I feel comfortable Pre-study 31% 54% 0% 15% 0%
explaining my solution
to other group-mates. Post- 54% 15% 23% 8% 0%
study
5- Explaining my Pre-study 46% 54% 0% 0% 0%
work/solution is an
important part of Post- 54% 31% 8% 8% 0%
study
learning about wood
working
6- Problem solving is a Pre-study 31% 54% 15% 0% 0%
subject that I am good
at. Post- 23% 69% 0% 8% 0%
study
7- Working in groups Pre-study 85% 15% 0% 0% 0%
helps me better
Post- 77% 15% 8% 0% 0%
understand
study
woodworking.
8- I feel like I can help Pre-study 46% 38% 15% 0% 0%
my group plan for a
woodworking Post- 54% 38% 8% 0% 0%
study
assignment.
9- If I am struggling Pre-study 69% 15% 15% 0% 0%
with an assignment, it
helps to have a Post- 54% 38% 8% 0% 0%
study
classmate explain it to
me.
10- I feel like my Pre-study 62% 8% 15% 15% 0%
opinions and ideas are
used in my group. Post- 31% 38% 31% 0% 0%
study
E. Karan, L. Brown JPBLHE: Early view

11- Working in groups Pre-study 69% 31% 0% 0% 0%

could help me
understand hands-on Post- 62% 38% 0% 0% 0%
study
projects better.
Table 1. Survey results for the experimental group (use of PBL).

The proposed analysis is consistent with different theories, such as social constructivist
theory, which emphasizes that students learn by doing especially when they work together
with the teacher’s guidance. The survey aims to understand whether the provided learning
environments allowed students to take responsibility for their learning. Furthermore, by
including mathematical statistics and data analysis the authors wanted to assess how the
students (as individuals) learn differently to one another. This is also consistent with
multiple intelligence theory that differentiated the intelligences of learners that are
manifested in different skills and competencies.

Figure 3 demonstrates the difference between the pre- and post-study surveys. Only one
data point is presented for each question. A Likert scale was used to quantify the
strength/intensity of students’ attitude. Each of the five responses has a numerical value
to measure the attitude under investigation. The values are used to create an aggregated
(or average) score for each question to measure the attitude of the experimental group.
The differences in the collected Likert scale data are were considered statistically
significant if the p value for a paired t-test statistic associated with the particular pair of
means is smaller than 0.05. The t-test are conducted for all thirteen questions and the
results are shown in Table 2.

Strongly Agree

Agree

Undecided
Pre-Study
Post-Study
Disagree

Strongly Disagree
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Question Number

Figure 3. Survey results for the experimental group (use of PBL).

E. Karan, L. Brown JPBLHE: Early view

Question Mean Std. deviation t Sig.

Pre- Post- Pre- Post- (2-
Study Study Study Study tailed)
1- I feel confident solving wood 3.61 4.23 1.19 0.93 - 0.014*
working problems on my own. 2.889

2- It is easy for me to find a solution 3.62 4.08 1.19 1.04 - 0.008*

to a wood working problem. 3.207

3- I use drawings or visualize the 4.31 4.54 0.75 0.52 - 0.082**

final product to find my solutions. 1.897

4- I feel comfortable explaining my 4.00 4.15 1.00 1.07 - 0.436

solution to other group-mates. 0.805

5- Explaining my work/solution is 4.46 4.31 0.52 0.95 0.805 0.436

an important part of learning about
wood working
6- Problem solving is a subject that I 4.15 4.08 0.69 0.76 0.562 0.584
am good at.
7- Working in groups helps me 4.85 4.69 0.38 0.63 1.477 0.165
better understand woodworking.
8- I feel like I can help my group 4.31 4.46 0.75 0.66 - 0.165
plan for a woodworking assignment. 1.477

9- If I am struggling with an
assignment, it helps to have a 4.54 4.38 0.78 0.65 1.000 0.337
classmate explain it to me.
10- I feel like my opinions and ideas 4.15 4.08 1.21 0.86 0.433 0.673
are used in my group.
11- Working in groups could help 4.69 4.62 0.48 0.51 1.000 0.337
me understand hands-on projects
better.
Table 2. Paired t-test results for the pre- and post-survey results.
* Significant at p<0.05
** Significant at p<0.1

The null hypothesis states “there is no difference in mean score of students’ opinion when
PBL is used”. Based on the significance (2-tailed) value for the first three questions, we
can conclude that there is less than 5% (or 10% for Q3) probability that there is no
difference in individual student’s ability to solve problems with and without using PBL.
From the students’ perspective, there is a significant mean difference between their
confidence level in solving wood working problems when they learned through PBL
compared to the traditional teaching. Furthermore, the students in the experimental group
found it easier to find a solution to a wood working problem when PBL is used. Regarding
the common scaffolds in PBL, the survey results show drawings and visualization of the
final product are used more often to find the solutions.
E. Karan, L. Brown JPBLHE: Early view

Another important metric to measure the strength of PBL is the students’ grades before
and after using this learning method and the comparison between the grades for the
students in the control and experimental groups. The control group was given similar
projects but with the sequence of steps specified by the instructor or the textbook.
Although students’ grades are not necessarily an indicator of students’ problem-solving
skill, they can reflect the knowledge possessed by the students and thus show the
effectiveness of PBL. We use the paired t-test to compare the students’ grades before
(from the beginning to the middle of the semester) and after using PBL (from the middle
of the semester to the end of the semester). To exclude and understand the changes in the
grades for the second half of the semester, the paired t-test is also used for the control
group and the results are shown in Table 3.

Group Mean Std. deviation t Sig.

Pre- Post- Pre- Post- (2-
Study Study Study Study tailed)
Control (traditional learning) 0.752 0.749 0.113 0.244 0.085 0.933

Experimental (use of PBL) 0.797 0.816 0.113 0.158 -0.528 0.607

Table 3. Paired t-test results for the pre- and post- students’ grade results.

Although the average difference in the students’ grades for the experimental group before
and after using PBL is not statistically significant (p=0.607>0.05), students in this group
earned higher grades and could improve their grades compared to those in the control
group. In addition, we use the independent samples t-test to compare the grade difference
between the control and experimental group and determine whether students benefited
from PBL earned grades that differ on average from those did not learn through PBL. The
results for the independent samples t-test is shown in Table 4. The students who learned
through the PBL performed better compared to other students in the class, but the
difference was not statistically significant.

N Mean Std. deviation F Sig. (2-tailed)

Control (traditional learning) 13 0.192 0.131
0.006 0.941
Experimental (use of PBL) 13 -0.038 0.162

Table 4. Comparison of Students’ grades for the experimental and control groups.

CONCLUSION

As a response to COVID-19, the course delivery for the selected class shall be modified
to reduce classroom density. To make the most of the limited time left for face-to-face
interaction, PBL was found to be an appropriate instructional approach to better engage
E. Karan, L. Brown JPBLHE: Early view

students in the investigation of real-world problems. The purpose of the study was to
understand whether PBL positively impacts students’ problem-solving skills and their
interests/connection to real-world problems. This quantitative study included two groups
of undergraduate students. One group of students were learned through PBL for half of
the semester, and the other group of students did not have the PBL learning experience.
Every student in the two groups were exposed to the same curriculum throughout the
duration of the study.

Data is collected for this study in two forms: through student surveys and final grades.
The survey results indicate that PBL learners could benefit from this alternative learning
method regarding the individual student’s ability to solve problems. The survey results
for the questions regarding the students’ confidence, group problem-solving and the
effects of various communication behaviors on the group's problem solving were not
statistically significant. Regarding the students’ grades, PBL learners performed better
than the other group of students (2% increase compared to 0.4 decrease). Both control
and experimental groups showed the same trend with respect to class participation before
the beginning of the study. However, the participation rate of PBL learners in class
activities was noticeably higher than that of the control group. This can be explained by
the degree of active involvement of students in problem-solving as the instruction alone
is not sufficient to solve the problem. The survey results and student grades were tested
quantitatively in this study, but they can be further tested on more data to represent
performance norms of different student-centered pedagogies.

Given that the study group may represent only a portion of the target population, it would
be useful to repeat the study with a similar setting but larger student group or combining
a number of introductory STEM courses in future. The investigation of communication
and collaboration skills were beyond the scope of this study and the measurement of
these two twenty-first-century skills can be a subject for future research. A test with open-
ended questions can be used to measure students’ communication skills and a peer-
collaboration rubric can give students an opportunity to evaluate their team-mates.

Acknowledgement
The work described in this paper was supported by a teaching enhancement grant from
Sam Houston State University – STEM Center. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions
or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the STEM Center.
E. Karan, L. Brown JPBLHE: Early view

References

Al-Balushi, S. M., & Al-Aamri, S. S. (2014). "The effect of environmental science

projects on students’ environmental knowledge and science attitudes."J
International Research in Geographical Environmental Education, 23(3), 213-
227.

Alzen, J. L., Langdon, L. S., & Otero, V. K. (2018). "A logistic regression investigation
of the relationship between the Learning Assistant model and failure rates in
introductory STEM courses."J International journal of STEM education, 5(56), 1-
12.

Arcidiacono, G., Yang, K., Trewn, J., & Bucciarelli, L. (2016). "Application of
axiomatic design for project-based learning methodology." J Procedia CIRP, 53,
166-172.

Baraldi, C. (2013). "Participation, facilitation and mediation in educational

interactions." Participation, Facilitation, and Mediation, Routledge, 78-98.

Bell, S. (2010). "Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future." The
clearing house, 83(2), 39-43.

Bielik, T., Damelin, D., & Krajcik, J. S. (2018). "WHY DO FISHERMEN NEED
FORESTS? Developing a Project-Based Learning Unit With an Engaging Driving
Question." J Science Scope, 41(6), 64-72.

Chasanatun, T. W., & Lestari, S. "The Development of Learning Material in Teaching

Writing used Project Based Learning with Graphic Organizer Concept." Proc.,
International Conference on English Language Teaching (ICONELT 2017),
Atlantis Press, 92-96.

Cukurova, M., Avramides, K., Spikol, D., Luckin, R., & Mavrikis, M. "An analysis
framework for collaborative problem solving in practice-based learning activities:
a mixed-method approach." Proc., Proceedings of the Sixth International
Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge, 84-88.

Demirhan, E., & Şahin, F. (2019). "The Effects of Different Kinds of Hands-on
Modeling Activities on the Academic Achievement, Problem-Solving Skills, and
Scientific Creativity of Prospective Science Teachers." J Research in Science
Education, 1-19.

Grant, M. (2009). "Understanding projects in project-based learning: A student’s

perspective." Proc., Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association.

Johnson, B., & Ulseth, R. (2014). "Professional competency attainment in a project

based learning curriculum: A comparison of project based learning to traditional
engineering education." Proc., 2014 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
(FIE) Proceedings, IEEE, 1-4.
E. Karan, L. Brown JPBLHE: Early view

Joyce, T., Evans, I., Pallan, W., & Hopkins, C. J. E. E. (2013). "A hands-on project-
based mechanical engineering design module focusing on sustainability." J
Engineering Education, 8(1), 65-80.

Jurdak, M. (2016). "STEM Education as a Context for Real-World Problem Solving."

Learning and Teaching Real World Problem Solving in School Mathematics,
Springer, 151-163.

Khouyibaba, S. (2015). "Teaching remedial courses: Challenges and teaching

philosophy." J Procedia-Social Behavioral Sciences, 186, 927-931.

Krajcik, J. S., & Shin, N. (2014). "Project-based learning." The Cambridge handbook of
the learning sciences (2nd ed.), R. K. Sawyer, ed., Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK, 275-297.

Michel, C., Lavoué, E., & Piétrac, L. (2012). "A dashboard to regulate project-based
learning." Proc., European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning,
Springer, 250-263.

Miller, E. C., & Krajcik, J. S. (2019). "Promoting deep learning through project-based
learning: a design problem." J Disciplinary Interdisciplinary Science Education
Research, 1(7), 1-10.

Mou, T.-Y. (2019). "Students' Evaluation of Their Experiences with Project-Based

Learning in a 3D Design Class." J The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 29(2),
159-170.

Nasmith, L., & Steinert, Y. (2001). "The evaluation of a workshop to promote

interactive lecturing." J Teaching learning in medicine, 13(1), 43-48.

Netwong, T. (2018). "Development of Problem Solving Skills by Integration Learning

Following STEM Education for Higher Education." International Journal of
Information Education Technology, 8(9), 639-643.

Papert, S. (1993). The Children's machine: rethinking school in the age of the computer.
New York: Basic Books.Pinho-Lopes, M., & Macedo, J. (2014). "Project-based
learning to promote high order thinking and problem solving skills in geotechnical
courses." International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, 4(5), 20-27.

Sahin, A. (2013). "STEM Project-Based Learning." STEM Project-Based Learning, C.

R.M., C. M.M., & M. J.R., eds., Springer, Rotterdam, 59-64.

Stanger-Hall, K. F. (2012). "Multiple-choice exams: an obstacle for higher-level

thinking in introductory science classes." J CBE—Life Sciences Education, 11(3),
294-306.

Yassine, B. T., Faddouli, N. E., Samir, B., & Idrissi, M. K. (2013). "Project-based
learning modeling language." J Procedia-Social Behavioral Sciences, 106, 2159-
2178.
E. Karan, L. Brown JPBLHE: Early view

APPENDIX:
SURVEY USED IN THE STUDY

Please answer the following questions honestly. Your response to these questions will not
affect your grade but will help me better understand different ways to teach you in the
classroom! The survey will not be graded and your responses will be anonymous.

5 4 3 2 1
Strongly Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree
I feel confident solving
wood working problems
on my own.
It is easy for me to find a
solution to a wood
working problem.
I use drawings or visualize
the final product to find
my solutions.
I feel comfortable
explaining my solution to
other group-mates.
Explaining my
work/solution is an
important part of learning
about wood working
Problem solving is a
subject that I am good at.
Working in groups helps
me better understand
woodworking.
I feel like I can help my
group plan for a
woodworking assignment.
If I am struggling with an
assignment, it helps to
have a classmate explain it
to me.
I feel like my opinions and
ideas are used in my
group.
Working in groups could
help me understand hands-
on projects better.

Something I would like to change about group work is:

Something I like about group work is: