Project-based learning in Australian & New Zealand universities: current practice and challenges

Figures & data

Figure 1. Coordinator level with class size for all units (n = 75).

Figure 2. Coordinators’ industry experience (n = 52).

Figure 3. Total hours vs student number (n = 70), where total hours = 3.291 x student number (R² = 0.832).

Figure 4. Coordinator workload (n = 26 for 2017–19; n = 30 for 2020).

Figure 5. Types of assessment along the length of the degree (n = 14 for 1st year; n = 9 for 2nd year; n = 20 for 3rd year; n = 15 for 4th year; n = 8 for postgraduate; n = 66 for all).

Figure 6. Assessment prevalence in multidisciplinary units (n = 22) and single-disciplinary units (n = 44) for a) preliminary reports, b) mid-project reports, c) final reports, d) presentations, e) portfolios, logs and reflections f) self/peer-review, g) tests and h) other assessment types.

Table 1. Proportion of learning outcomes in technical and professional categories.

	Single-disciplinary unit learning outcomes (n = 253)	Multidisciplinary unit learning outcomes (n = 119)	All learning outcomes (n = 372)
Technical knowledge and application [EoCs 1.1–6 & 2.1–4]	70%	39%	60%
Ethics [EoC 3.1]	2%	8%	3%
Communication [EoC 3.2]	9%	19%	12%
Creativity [EoC 3.3]	2%	1%	2%
Research and information management [EoC 3.4]	3%	5%	4%
Professional conduct [EoC 3.5]	3%	13%	6%
Teamwork [EoC 3.6]	11%	16%	13%

Figure 7. Technical learning outcomes vs test-based assessments (n = 65).

Figure 8. Student satisfaction against class size (n = 34 for 2017–19; n = 55 for 2020).

Figure 9. Student satisfaction for multi-disciplinary and single-disciplinary units (n = 21 for single-disciplinary 2017–19; n = 11 for multi-disciplinary 2017–19; n = 35 for single-disciplinary 2020; n = 20 for multi-disciplinary 2020).