Engineering students’ perceptions of problem and project-based learning (PBL) in an online learning environment

ABSTRACT

Modern engineering curricula often rely on approaches such as problem and project-based learning (PBL) as a core teaching and learning strategy. With a growing need to move these student-centred active learning curricula to online and blended learning environments, it is essential that practitioners understand the impact that these different modes of delivery may have on student collaboration. This paper aims to identify factors that affect students’ perceptions of PBL in an online learning environment. This case study was carried out in an Irish university over a seven-week period with first-year engineering students during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study utilised a questionnaire (n = 94) and semi-structured interviews (n = 7) to collect participant data. Qualitative data were analysed using Braun and Clark’s thematic analysis. The analysis identified 6 themes and 18 sub-themes that are linked to students’ perceptions of problem and project-based learning (PBL) in an online environment. The identified themes and sub-themes in this study are uniquely reported findings within the context of online PBL in engineering education.

KEYWORDS:

• Online learning
• distance learning
• open data
• PBL
• teamwork

1. Introduction

1.1. Background

While the adoption of online and blended learning within engineering education was accelerated as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic, educators were already incorporating online and blended systems in response to the demands for more flexible approaches to learning (Graham 2018). During this time, debates regarding the effectiveness of online learning when compared to traditional and blended approaches has continued (Castro and Tumibay 2021; Graham 2006) Due to the COVID-19 pandemic (Zhao and Watterston 2021) and the increasing requirement for providing engineering education that is of high quality and tailored to the needs of diverse groups of students (Graham 2018; Hadgraft and Kolmos 2020), there has been a notable global rise in interest for blended and online learning methods.

Active and student-centred learning strategies such as problem and project-based learning (PBL), one of the most widely used teaching and learning strategy in engineering education (Brears, MacIntyre, and O’Sullivan 2011; Chen, Kolmos, and Du 2021; Williams, Iglesias, and Barak 2008), have been researched at length in traditional on-campus environments. However, research on effective PBL implementation in online environments, especially in engineering, is still emerging. With the adoption of online and blended learning approaches during the COVID-19 pandemic, the need for a body of evidence-based pedagogical practices in PBL has been highlighted (Amashi et al. 2022; Qi et al. 2021).

To optimise online PBL for the development of engineering capabilities, effective planning and implementation need to take place (Chen, Kolmos, and Du 2021; Moskal, Dziuban, and Hartman 2013). By using outdated or less relevant pedagogical guidance it becomes increasingly difficult to support students in their learning. Although considerable research on PBL in an online setting has been completed within a wide variety of disciplines (Erickson et al. 2021; Ng et al. 2014), there has been limited research within the unique context of engineering environments. PBL effectiveness, and optimal design, has been consistently linked to context (Almulla 2020; Chen, Kolmos, and Du 2021; Du, de Graaff, and Kolmos 2009).

This study intends to enhance our understanding of student perceptions of online PBL with a specific focus on design and manufacturing. Utilising arguably outdated research might lead to ineffective pedagogical strategies due to the rapidly changing nature of online technology and requirements of contemporary engineering curricula to satisfy the evolving needs of industry (Cevik Onar et al. 2018). To this end, this study expands upon the application of online PBL in the fields of engineering education with the goal of helping bridge a contextual gap in the literature.

1.2. Research questions

To identify how engineering students perceive PBL in an online environment, the following research questions will be addressed:

1. What factors enhance and/or inhibit the success of PBL in online engineering learning environments as perceived by students?

2. How does the online environment impact students’ abilities to communicate effectively?

3. What are students’ perceptions of PBL in online engineering learning environments?

2. Literature review

2.1. PBL

At the heart of evidence-based practice in engineering is the adoption of proven student-centred active teaching and learning strategies that enhance student outcomes in both performance and retention (Bubou, Offor, and Bappa 2017; Kolmos and de Graaff 2014). Some of the most common active and student-centred strategies applied at tertiary-level engineering education are problem-based learning, project-based learning, and the amalgamation problem and project-based learning (Chen, Kolmos, and Du 2021). Unfortunately, these approaches are commonly collectively referred to as PBL, which can add to confusion among the community around their respective teaching and learning strategies (Servant-Miklos and Kolmos 2022). Although these strategies are often used interchangeably, it’s important to note they are individual concepts and should be treated as such.

There are many competing definitions for the amalgamation of problem and project-based learning (PBL) in engineering education as a strategy. However, the fundamental principle remains that students are motivated by themselves and become owners of the learning process (Chen, Kolmos, and Du 2021). Edström and Kolmos (2014) provide a discussion on why PBL needs to be defined loosely at a conceptual level so that it can be adapted, stating that its ‘short sighted to define PBL based on practice and that a useful description should be dynamic and based on both theories and practices’ (Edström and Kolmos 2014, 544). This is also echoed by Kolmos and de Graaff (2014) who provide a more abstract description of PBL ‘PBL is a very comprehensive system of organising the content in new ways and students’ collaborative learning, enabling them to achieve diverse sets of knowledge, skills, and competencies’ (Kolmos and de Graaff 2014, 147).

Nevertheless, in this paper the authors subscribe to a definition developed by Servant-Miklos and Kolmos (2022). ‘PBL designates a method of learning whereby students work in groups on lengthy projects (between 1 month and 1 semester) under the guidance of one or two project supervisors (Kolmos 1996). In PBL, the projects are problem-based rather than task-based, as in project based learning (De Graaff and Kolmos 2003). This means that students examine real-life situations and formulate problems to work on by themselves instead of following instructions from a teacher’ (Servant-Miklos and Kolmos 2022, 794).

Research indicates that students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines can experience greater achievement through active and student-centred learning strategies (Erdogan and Bozeman 2015; Kolb, Boyatzis, and Mainemelis 2001).Thus, active and student-centred learning strategies now form the cornerstone of many engineering courses worldwide (Kolmos 2017; Servant-Miklos and Kolmos 2022). PBL isn’t new to tertiary education, similar to evidence-based practice, PBL started in medical education (Lou et al. 2011; Mills and Treagust 2003) and has since been adopted by a range of different disciplines both at secondary and tertiary level education (Doppelt 2003; Frank, Lavy, and Elata 2003; Lou et al. 2011; Lu et al. 2022). The plethora of research surrounding PBL outlines numerous benefits to its implementation in STEM education environments. For example, research has shown a notable improvement in student academic performance (Kolmos, Fink, and Krogh 2004), satisfaction (De Camargo Ribeiro 2008) and soft skills such as communication and teamwork (Crosthwaite et al. 2006; Strobel and van Barneveld 2009). The development of professional skills and competencies that have been linked to PBL are vital to the transition from student to engineer (Chen, Kolmos, and Du 2021; Johnson and Ulseth 2016). During the implementation of PBL, it is reported that students have higher levels of motivation for learning when compared to other traditional methods of teaching and learning (Edström and Kolmos 2014; Kolmos and de Graaff 2014; Walker and Leary 2009). Furthermore, PBL studies also highlight a link to student retention (Mills and Treagust 2003).

However, it is important to note the lack of reporting outlining the challenges faced during PBL implementation (Chen, Kolmos, and Du 2021). Failures are not often reported in PBL, especially when implemented in large-scale institutions that have pared back their implementation to a semi-traditional learning approach (Kolmos and de Graaff 2014). This publication bias, which results in positive or remarkable outcomes being far more likely to be published when compared to negative or null findings is a serious issue across a range of disciplines (Banks, Kepes, and Banks 2012). A review of the PBL literature by Chen et al. (2021) identified typical challenges that face students, teachers and institution managers at the individual level (student and teacher), institutional level and cultural level. Chen et al. (2021) outline challenges such as lack of facilitator training, the challenge of assessment, lack of student differentiation in tasks, insufficient development of key skills by students prior to PBL (teamwork, self-learning, project management) and lack of institutional support for implementation. Nevertheless, these challenges are not solidified as everlasting pitfalls of PBL but serve to highlight future research to improve the delivery of PBL.

2.2. Online PBL during the COVID-19 pandemic

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many educational institutions were forced to move to online and blended learning environments to ensure student learning outcomes were fulfilled (Khandakar et al. 2022). This transition was particularly hard for engineering educators who were trying to adopt current PBL strategies. To be successful, this methodology requires collaborative, active, and student-centred learning strategies (Saghafian and O’Neill 2018). However, the online environment has presented certain obstacles for team-based activities, especially in comparison to conventional in-person environments (Saghafian and O’Neill 2018). Some of these challenges include a lack of effective communication among team members (Clark and Gibb 2006), issues with building relationships (Gabriel and MacDonald 2002; Lee et al. 2006) and an increase in social loafing and or anxiety (Olson-Buchanan et al. 2007).

Research conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic on online PBL revealed that courses and student outcomes that had to rely on lab experiments and teamwork tended to be the ones significantly negatively affected (Khandakar et al. 2022; Supernak, Ramirez, and Supernak 2021). Khandakar et al., (2022) found that students’ ability to work within teams was negatively affected online, with some students not contributing at all to the project and others contributing heavily, leading to cases of team conflict. Challenges regarding effective communication were highlighted by a number of publications (Beneroso and Robinson 2022; Cruz, Dominguez, and Cerveira 2021; Naji et al. 2020). These challenges seem to link back to logistical and technical problems; as well as insufficient hands-on training for engineering educators (Asgari et al. 2021; Fewella 2023; Syauqi, Munadi, and Triyono 2020). It should be mentioned that some researchers argue that students in engineering have an aptitude for innovation and are therefore interested in online education (Bhat et al. 2020); hence, they interact with online learning more positively than others (Fewella 2023).

Although stakeholders’ attitudes towards the use of active learning strategies in online environments are mixed with both positive and negative perspectives (Mielikäinen 2022), most stakeholders agree on the need to further develop teaching and learning in online environments (Asgari et al. 2021; Graham 2018; Syauqi, Munadi, and Triyono 2020). But, the literature on online engineering PBL environments seems to be lacking sufficient attention to develop trusted evidence-based practices.

3. Research methodology

3.1. Approach

This multi-method study was carried out at an Irish university over an academic semester in a first-year common-level engineering module. The data was gathered in two consecutive rounds. The qualitative data was gathered with the use of open-ended questions (Round 1) and semi-structured interviews (Round 2). Themes and sub-themes are derived from students’ responses to their experiences of online PBL.

The module was conducted using a strictly online and remote mode of delivery, due to the Irish Governments’ restrictions around COVID-19. Microsoft Teams was used to hold live meetings, which were recorded. The University’s Learning Management System, SULIS was used for submission of digital assignments and access to module notes.

The capstone project within the module was a team-based Conceive, Design, Implement and Operate (CDIO) project, which was underpinned by a PBL teaching and learning methodology and aligned with a CDIO philosophy (Edström and Kolmos 2014). During this project students designed and manufactured a miniature battery-powered vehicle to fulfil a given design brief.

The design brief outlines a number of restrictions and challenges for students to overcome in their teams. Students assume roles within their teams. Teams are made up of five students. The module seeks to promote the development of technical knowledge and essential skills by emulating real world situations where engineers work collaboratively on complex problems. More information relating to the PBL project and team roles are hosted on OSF.

3.2. Research participants

The module had 170 students enrolled, 34 female (20%) and 136 male (80%). Student’s ages varied; however, the majority of students were aged between 17 and 19 years. The questionnaire had a participation rate of 55% (n = 94), 19 female (20.2%), 74 male (78.7%) and 1 preferred not to say (1.1%). The semi-structured interview had a participation rate of 4% (n = 7), 1 female (14%) and 6 males (86%).

3.3. Online module teaching team and structure

The teaching team for Introduction to Design for Manufacture is made up of two joint module leaders with the support of additional teaching assistants (TA) and laboratory technicians. The module goal is to develop knowledge around basic manufacturing processes and fundamental design skills. The lectures were delivered by the lecturers, while the laboratories were delivered by teaching assistants using Microsoft Teams. The laboratory technicians provided technical support through recorded videos, which was required during the manufacturing phase of the project. The project was designed, built and tested by students in teams over a twelve-week semester. The project was broken down into three challenges over 12 weeks as shown in Table 1. Supplementary material on the module outline and overall structure is hosted on the OSF.

Table 1. Twelve-week breakdown.

Week/s	Description of tasks
1–4	Week 1–4 was an individual challenge (Challenge 1) where students developed individual design ideas.
6–8	Weeks 6–8 saw a teamwork challenge (Challenge 2) introduced, where students were paired into teams of 5 based on their results from the individual challenge and their preferred role on the team. Team leaders were also appointed based on results from the individual challenge. On completion of the teamwork challenge, teams submitted a design portfolio.
9–11	Week 9–11 was a manufacturing challenge (Challenge 3) where teams used their design portfolio to develop a physical artifact. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic the teaching team prepared all components and sent them out to a nominated student from each team for final assembly.
12	Week 12 was vehicle time trials, where all completed projects were tested and timed.

3.4. The design of the open-ended questions (Round 1)

Round 1 included three open-ended questions which were developed by Ku et al. (2013), with the remaining question being developed by the authors of the paper. The open-ended questions, shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Open-ended questions.

No.	Open-ended questions
1	Did you like or dislike working collaboratively as a group in an online environment? Please explain your answer.
2	Do you think you would have learned more in this class if you had done your project alone? Please explain your answer.
3	In your opinion, what elements should be embedded in a successful online collaborative setting?
4	Do you think you would have learned more and engaged in better teamwork if you had been on campus? Please explain your answer.

3.5. The design of the semi-structured interviews (Round 2)

The design of the semi-structured interview was informed by survey data from the previous round of data collection and interviews were completed on a one to one basis. Interviews were audio recorded and later transcribed. Each semi-structured interview lasted approximately 30 minutes. Thematic analysis was completed using NVivo 12. All related transcription and coding documents from the semi-structured interviews are available on OSF.

3.6. Data collection

The questionnaire and open-ended questions were collated into one Microsoft Forms document. The questionnaire was distributed to students of the module over email and at the end of a weekly lecture after completing the capstone team-based project. Microsoft Forms recorded all the participants’ responses. The semi-structured interviews were voluntary; participants of the questionnaire opted in or out of participating in a follow-up interview by choosing one of the two options ‘Yes, I’m willing’ or ‘No, I’m not willing’.

3.7. Data analysis

Figure 1a six-phase inductive thematic analysis was undertaken to investigate both the open-ended questions and the semi-structured interviews (Braun and Clarke 2022), shown in Figure 1. The thematic analysis was used to identify factors that affect students’ perceptions and experiences of PBL in the online environment. All data from the open-ended questions and semi-structured interviews were uploaded to NVivo 12; however, the process was carried out with a mixture of physical and digital documents to help identify all relevant codes, themes and sub-themes. Each of the six phases used in the thematic analysis are discussed in the following paragraph.

Figure 1. Data analysis.

Phase one involved familiarising ourselves with the data. This was accomplished by repeatedly listening to the recordings of the interview, transcribing the data, and actively re-reading the open-ended question responses provided by participants. The second phase involved coding points of interest within the datasets. To reduce omissions, the data was screened three times, once physically with pen and paper and twice digitally on NVivo 12. Phase three involved generation of initial themes from the codes. This process began by grouping codes under initial themes that evolve and merge over time. Braun and Clarke describe this stage as ‘identifying shared patterned meaning across the dataset’ (Braun and Clarke 2022). Phase four, developing and reviewing themes, can be viewed as a reflective step. The remaining themes, codes, and linked data were examined again by the authors. This process supported the consistency of coding and helped to refine the initial themes. Phase five involved refining, defining and naming themes. The themes and sub-themes used in this paper were derived from the initial themes and codes. The sixth and final phase was to write up the themes in detail.

3.8. Trustworthiness

Several additional processes were followed to strengthen the reliability and validity of this study including, 1) preregistration on OSF to ensure sufficient transparency, 2) themes and sub-themes were both discussed and refined by all authors, 3) a systematic audit trail outlining all study procedures and finally, 4) open access anonymised data file and semi-structured interview script provided on OSF to facilitate independent re-analysis of research findings.

3.9. Ethical considerations

The study explained in detail to participants the aim and objectives of the research. All participants provided consent. Students were clearly informed that participation was voluntary and that they could withdraw from the study at any stage without any consequences. All data was collected, coded and stored according to the host university’s data handling policy which is GDPR compliant. All student identifiers were removed to protect anonymity. Ethical approval was provided by the host university’s ethics committee.

4. Results and discussion

On review of the results, the thematic analysis has highlighted high levels of participant satisfaction with the online learning environment. This is clearly reflected in participant responses within the semi-structured interview and open-ended questions.

From this dataset, we were able to identify several themes and sub-themes linked to students’ perceived successes and limitations online PBL mode of delivery. The following six themes and 18 sub-themes, shown in Figure 2, were identified to affect students’ perceptions of PBL in the online environment.

Figure 2. Thematic analysis flow diagram.

4.1. Themes and sub-themes

4.1.1. Theme 1: communication

Existing research has identified communication to be a major problem for students during remote teamwork (Belanger, Bartels, and She 2021). Communication was the second most common theme of discussion by students in both the open-ended questions and semi-structured interviews. It was clear from the student responses that effective communication is essential for online PBL in a engineering learning environment. Three sub-themes emerged from the data that showcased the success criteria for effective communication, including A) clear communication, B) ease of communication and C) frequency of communication.

Sub-theme A) Clear communication: Many students mentioned the necessity of clear communication between both their peers, and educators when working online. As many students felt that clear, concise and unambiguous communication reduced confusion: (P.64) ‘To be honest we struggled enough understanding the class and project as a team never mind on my own’. However, this doesn’t come as a surprise as effective communication is seen as one of the most important elements to success in the online environment (Tang et al. 2020).

Sub-theme B) Ease of communication: Although many comments were made referring to communication, students’ main point of concern seemed to reflect the ease of communication. Students felt that their ability to communicate ideas with team members were limited in the online environment when compared to the traditional on-campus environment: (P.66) ‘It would have been easier to discuss problems and portray your ideas face to face compared to WhatsApp group chats etc’.. Wandel (2011) demonstrated that among the several factors that influence student performance in teams, the most significant factor for enhancing performance is ease of communication between team members.

Sub-theme C) Frequency of communication: It’s visible within the data that students find the frequency of communication to be of importance, especially within their teams. One student stated that due to the online environment they held regular virtual meetings (P88.) ‘We set Teams meetings every second day and it was very handy’. Students also appreciated frequent communication from the module leader’s (P1.) ‘he made sure there was regular communication with students to ensure that we got everything done’. When students were asked would they prefer working in a traditional on-campus environment, frequency of communication was highlighted by multiple students: (P.53) ‘I might have interacted more but I probably wouldn’t be able to meet the team as often’. The importance of frequent communication is also presented in Belanger et al. (2021) research where they found students agreed that fast, convenient, and frequent communication is an effective strategy when working in teams.

4.1.2. Theme 2: flexibility of online environment

The increased flexibility of the online environment was seen as an improvement by many students. Two sub-themes under flexibility of the online environment emerged from the data, including A) flexibility of time and B) flexibility of location.

Sub-theme A&B) flexibility of time and flexibility of location: One student stated how the increased flexibility was one of the benefits of working online: (P.19) ‘I liked it in the sense I didn’t have to actually set time aside to travel and meet the team’. Increased flexibility is often highlighted to be a positive impact of online education. Students, in general, perceive that online learning allows for more effective use of time than traditional on-campus courses (Bir and Ahn 2017; Young Roby and Hampikian 2002). Although it is worth noting some researchers believe that online learning results in an excessive amount of independent time and flexibility leading to a lack of structure that negatively impacts engagement (Dhawan 2020).

4.1.3. Theme 3: limitation of the online environment

The students outlined two limitations to teaching and learning in the online environment. These two limitations include A) access to facilities, such as the workshop, library and collaborative workspaces due to the closure of on-campus services during the COVID-19 pandemic and B) poor internet connection.

Sub-theme A) Access to facilities: A few students felt that limited access to the workshop and other on-campus collaborative workspaces impacted them negatively: (P. 27) ‘we weren’t able to go into the workshop […] mess around and create prototypes of the car […] we couldn’t modify it in case something was wrong’, (P. 89) ‘if we were in the labs and holding the material and you’re able to go over to your partner beside you and show them what you’re trying to explain physically rather than just trying to communicate’. A lack of access to facilities in online engineering education is also shared in other publications (Anbahan Ariadurai and Manohanthan 2008; Esche 2006; Kinney, Liu, and Thornton 2012). Naji et al. (2020) suggests that low levels of motivation can be linked to a lack of active and interactive laboratory sessions providing hands on experiences and skill development. Naji et al. (2020) adds that many engineering courses have not adopted full scale online learning due to the need to develop psychomotor skills in a traditional face to face environment.

Sub-theme B) Poor internet connection: Students also highlighted concerns around poor internet access: (P.23) ‘There are still drawbacks with online as not everyone can take a call or a live meeting due to internet issues’. This concern is also shared by many other students, post and during the COVID-19 pandemic, working in online and blended learning environments (Asgari et al. 2021; Missildine et al. 2013; Widarto et al. 2020; Young Roby and Hampikian 2002).

4.1.4. Theme 4: module planning

Three sub-themes were identified under the theme ‘module planning’. These sub-themes included A) instructor support and engagement, B) planning for psychological issues such as increased anxiety and decrease in motivation and lastly, C) well-defined and well-organised instruction.

Sub-theme A) Instructor support and engagement: Students spoke highly of instructors who were actively engaged in the module: (P. 1) ‘he made sure there was regular communication with students to ensure that we got everything done and we had plenty of time to do it’. Berge (2002) points out that learning is a social activity which becomes more effective when carefully and thoughtfully implemented by a facilitator.

Sub-theme B) Planning for psychological issues: On 16 separate occasions, students mentioned psychological issues experienced while working within the online environment. This included varying levels of anxiety: (P. 32) ‘Didn’t like online, rather in person… less anxiety’, stress: (P. 64) ‘(Working on-campus) would’ve reduced the stress of the project. We also would’ve received a practical or “hands-on” experience’, and depression: (P. 57) ‘at home all the time has been depressing and lonely’. During the COVID-19 pandemic, it was not new to hear of both students and educators report psychological issues such as stress and anxiety. Park et al. (2020) suggest that this negative emotional experience can be linked to the abrupt move from an on-campus face-to-face environment to an online environment, the lack of resources provided by institutions and an unfamiliar remote learning environment. Some students add that working in the online environment decreased their motivation to work: (P. 57) ‘Being at home […] it’s hard to motivate yourself sometimes’. Reduced student motivation has been experienced by other practitioners during and prior to the COVID-19 pandemic in online engineering education (Alkhatib 2018; Naji et al. 2020). However, this was not the case for all students, many of whom stated that they enjoyed the experience (P. 93) ‘Personally I’ve been having a great time learning from home[…] I think it would be great for students with anxiety or going through some sort of hardship, who are unable to completely engage in an in-person classroom’.

Sub-theme C) Well-defined and well-organised instruction: Most frequently, under this theme, students expressed the need for well-defined and well-organised instruction. When one student was asked to provide advice to the module leader planning a team-based project online he recommended: (P. 89) ‘Always start on the right foot, start early and communicate roles effectively and clearly, and set deadlines and timelines for things to be finished at’. This also aligns with the finding of Ku et al. (2013) publication on online collaborative learning. Ku et al. (2013) findings indicate that students expect instructors to provide a supportive collaborative learning environment and deliver well-defined and well-organised instruction for students. Hamilton (2008) and Sockalingam (2013) outline that students value being clearly informed on learning goals, what they are required to achieve and also how it will be assessed.

4.1.5. Theme 5: student relationships

Two sub-themes emerged underneath the theme entitled student relationships. These sub-themes were A) relationship with peers and B) relationship with teaching staff.

Sub-theme A&B) Relationship with peers and relationship with teaching staff: Students regarded making and maintaining good relationships with peers and staff members to be of a high priority. Students had both positive and negative feelings towards building relationships in the online environment. Students felt that the team-based project gave them an opportunity to develop friendships that were not usually possible in less collaborative modules: (P.1) ‘it helped me to make friends and to communicate with my classmates in a way that hasn’t been possible through online learning’. However, some students felt that the online environment in general made forming relationships with peers and teaching staff harder: (P.27) ‘I would have gotten to get know my group members better and been able to be more interactive with my teachers’. Stenman (2007) highlights that students perceive online courses as a negative experience when they feel a large transactional distance between instructors and their peers. She adds that online students view others as a number on a list rather than individuals, and this issue can influence whether a student will stay in or drop out of a course.

4.1.6. Theme 6: team structure, strategies and performance

Team structure, strategies and performance was the most common theme of discussion by students in both the open-ended questions and semi-structured interviews. Six sub-themes emerged from this theme included A) clear objectives and goals, B) distribution of workload, C) increased motivation in teams, D) peers sharing perspectives’, experience, information and skills, E) team commitment and finally F) team roles.

Sub-theme A) Clear objectives and goals: On several occasions students mentioned the use of setting timed objectives and goals when working collaboratively in the online environment: (P. 60) ‘Usually I have problems with teamwork as I like being in control of my own work and how a project is going, however as I got to be a team leader for this module I got to control how the project was progressing and set deadlines for us’, (P. 81) ‘being online for teamwork is also a positive. we have a list of things to discuss in each meeting and once everything has been ticked off and decided, the meeting is over’. During one of the semi structured interviews, a student expressed how poor oganisation of timely goals and objectives lead to his team nearly running out of time: (P. 5) ‘it does feel like we left things a small bit last minute. Now, we were fine. We maybe had a half a day to spare, which is, I suppose, loads for a lot of people. But we could have done more in the first week so that we’d had less to do in the second week. Because we didn’t get much time to really review what we did together […] So we’d probably try and get stuff moving a bit faster’. Tannenbaum et al., points out that while all teams are groups, not all groups can be considered teams: ‘For a group to qualify as a team, its members must rely on each other and share a common goal’ (Tannenbaum, Beard, and Salas 1992, 118).

Sub-theme B) Distribution of workload: The benefits received from sharing the workload can be seen in many of the responses given by students: (P. 21) ‘As a team, we covered more ground working together’, (P. 8) ‘it made it easier to focus on specific elements while others completed different tasks’. One of the students stated that he would have been overwhelmed and stressed if he was to complete the project alone: (P. 44) ‘I do not think I would have learned more doing this project solo as I think that the sheer amount of work would cause me to become bogged down and stressed’. The distribution of workload is one of the variety of reasons that PBL is used within engineering education. The distribution of work simulates the experience of an authentic engineering project, where engineers work as a team to achieve a great solution in more timely manner than would be possible as individuals (Palmer and Hall 2011). This in turn also develops a variety of team associated soft skills such as communication, reflection, self-regulation and commitment (MacíMacíAs-Guarasa et al. 2006; Doppelt 2005; Helle, Tynjälä, and Olkinuora 2006; Mills and Treagust 2003; Palmer and Hall 2011).

Sub-theme C) Increased motivation in teams: It was very common to hear students outlining that they experienced increased levels of motivation when working as a team in the online environment: (P. 50) ‘it great to meet other people and helps motivate me to do more work’. One of the students shared that he was able to motivate others to do work while working within the team: (P. 60) ‘I also learnt I am able to motivate people to complete work to a quality I would do myself’. But most commonly, students shared the increase in motivation due to social accountability experienced in the team: (P. 27) ‘I mean, a bit more motivating because it’s not just your grade that matters, it’s sort of everyone’s grade at that point’, (P. 41) ‘I think I produced a higher quality of work while working in a team as I did not want to let my team down’ and (P. 1) ‘I’m also responsible for other people’s marks […] you want to do well for everyone’.

Sub-theme D) Peers sharing perspectives’, experience, information and skills: The most discussed sub-theme by students was peers sharing perspectives, experience, information and skills. The following comments highlight some of the sharing experienced by students: (P.48) ‘everyone brings something else to the table and we had ideas that others came up with that I wouldn’t have gotten myself’ (P. 1) ‘I would have struggled with the maths and mechanics of the project had it not been for my teammates’. This coincides with the findings presented by Volkov and Volkov (2015) who found that students reported they attained deeper understanding through the sharing of students’ skill sets while participating in teamwork.

Sub-theme E) Team commitment: A concern among many of the students was the level of commitment other members of their team would be willing to apply to receiving good grades within the project: (P. 62) ‘I enjoy teamwork however it was very easy for a team member to simply not look at their phone and disappear’ (P. 14) ‘I thought working collaboratively would be a hassle but thankfully my team members were all good workers and I ended up liking the process more than I thought I would’. Some students mentioned that they were dissatisfied with team members due to a lack of engagement: (P. 5) ‘A major problem for our team is that many of them are working during college hours as there is no need to physically attend the lectures and thus it’s difficult to organise times for everybody to meet up’, (P. 5) ‘Most of the time my teammates just muted their mics when they weren’t talking and disengaged from our discussions’. One of the students outlined how he only liked working collaboratively when he can be in control of recruiting group members: (P. 37) ‘I like working collaboratively when i can choose who is in my group, I don’t like it as much when the group is randomly assigned’. In a research review conducted by Borrego et al. (2013), they outline how many engineering facilities struggle with the accordance of social loafing and team conflict. Borrego et al. (2013), states that this is can be combated by ensuring the project is sufficiently complex and building trust within the team to ensure equal effort by all team members.

Sub-theme F) Team roles: Students stated that assigning team roles helped with completing the project: (P. 7) ‘I have enjoyed it this year as roles are more clearly laid out and everybody knows what they have to do, last semester I found that most of the work fell to me as the deadlines approached’ and (P. 51) ‘It was ok as my group leader organised it very well’. Many practitioners improve team operations and processes with the use of clarifying team role (Tannenbaum, Beard, and Salas 1992).

5. Relevance of the findings in a post-pandemic context

In part, this paper seeks to support the development of evidence based pedagogical practices to assist engineering education practitioners to prepare for engineering educations anticipated challenges and trends (Fomunyam 2019; Graham 2018; Hadgraft and Kolmos 2020; Lantada 2020). Although a strong argument can be made for the differing context that during and post-COVID-19 pandemic sets for online PBL research, the authors posit that valuable lessons can be learned for this period of mass adoption (Asgari et al. 2021; Syauqi, Munadi, and Triyono 2020). The themes outlined within the findings all link back to existing pre-pandemic literature as shown in the previous section. Additionally, the literature discussed within the context of the pandemic also shared several links with the findings. This further highlights the need for engineering education practitioners and engineering education researchers to pay particular attention to these recurring themes in a post pandemic context to support and improve the teaching and learning process.

Furthermore, it’s also important to note that although most of the findings can be linked back to existing online learning literature, this is not the case in the context of online PBL in engineering education. As previously stated, with the use of outdated or less relevant pedagogical guidance it becomes increasingly difficult to support students in their learning. PBL effectiveness and optimal design has been constantly linked to context (Almulla 2020; Chen, Kolmos, and Du 2021; Du, de Graaff, and Kolmos 2009).

6. Conclusion

Existing research suggests that PBL has both advantages and disadvantages associated with its use for participants in the traditional classroom environment (Crosthwaite et al. 2006; Kolmos, Fink, and Krogh 2004). The findings of this study align with the existing literature within the context of engineering education. Participants’ responses have clearly identified six significant factors for educators to consider when using PBL in an online setting. Four of the six factors identified within the findings present themselves as both enhancers and inhibitors to teaching and learning within the online PBL environment. However, this distinction depends on student perception. These four factors included communication, module planning, student relationships, and team structure, strength and performance. However, two themes were consistently perceived to be either an enhancer or inhibitor. These themes included flexibility of online environment, which was seen as decisively positive by participants and the theme limitations of the online environment, which was seen as decisively negative. Although some of the findings are confirmatory in nature, when viewed against the wider educational literature base, many haven’t been reported within the context of online PBL in engineering education. As such, the current study addresses a contextual gap by reporting on student engineers’ perceptions of PBL within an online environment.

The research also suggests that the online environment poses new challenges to PBL. Some researchers have stated that online PBL suffers from issues surrounding effective communication between team members (Belanger, Bartels, and She 2021). Forms of synchronous or asynchronous (Violante and Vezzetti 2014) communication can be used to great effect when the communication is carefully planned and facilitated by the educator in the online environment. However, in PBL environments, communication happens primarily between students in their teams which for the most part is self-regulated. Communication approaches can vary radically between individual students and teams. This leaves the potential for the implementation of ineffective communication methods and practices by students, which will lead to decreased learning to occur.

Of all the themes unearthed from students’ response the theme communication seems to be one of the most discussed by participants. From the findings we can see that in the online environment, clear, ease and frequency of communication is perceived to be of high importance by participants. Similar, strong communication skills is also perceived to be of importance by industry (Ford and Riley 2003). The findings outline ease of communication to be the most common issue among students. Many stating that they found sharing information, ideas and concepts online to be more difficult than in a traditional classroom setting. As such, when implementing online PBL in engineering education, there seems to be a need for understanding the mechanisms underlying successful and unsuccessful communication in team-based activities. This finding emphasises the need to develop interventions to support lecturers to explore effective scaffolds of communication in the online environment. This communication should not be limited to verbal communication but should enhance verbal and non-verbal modes of communication.

Students’ perceptions of courses influence the likelihood of success or failure when working online. It is reported that satisfied students are more likely to be successful in the online environment (Levy 2007; Morris 2010). Overall students’ perceptions of PBL in the online environment during the module were overwhelmingly positive. However, the findings have uncovered many areas that require more attention by both researchers and educators to further improve student perceptions. As previously stated, there is a known publication bias in reporting positive findings over negative in PBL research (Kolmos and de Graaff 2014). Although some findings might not be considered sensational, they are essential for the forward progression of online PBL in engineering education. In this paper we have developed a clear report of the limitations and successes of online PBL experienced by our student participants. Armed with this knowledge future efforts in online PBL by educators can avoid some of these perceived pitfalls while simultaneously maximising on the success.

7. Implementation checklist

The authors have formulated a checklist, as shown in Table 3, to demonstrate the practical application of their findings for engineering educators intending to develop and implement a PBL module in an online setting. While the checklist is not exhaustive, it aims to leverage insights from the study to guide the implementation efforts of others, thereby optimising success rates and circumventing common design and implementation obstacles. Specifically, this checklist is intended for utilisation throughout the planning and development process of the proposed module. The primary objective is not to achieve affirmative answers for each item listed, but to ensure comprehensive consideration is afforded to every aspect by the instructional team. It is recommended that this checklist be employed alongside additional PBL guidance documents, thereby enriching the overall development process of the course or module.

Table 3. Checklist for online pbl implementation (Prior to implementation).

Item No.	Item	Has the question been considered? (Yes/No)
1	Clear Communication: Have you developed clear project/s and or task/s where students understand the design brief, challenges and restrictions presented?
2	Resource accessibility: Is all information relating to the PBL module easily accessible to students working remotely online?
3	Frequency Communication: Are there mechanisms for students to maintain regular contact with peers and the teaching team (Module leader/s, teaching assistant/s, and technician/s)?
4	Frequency Communication: Have you planned for both synchronous (Examples include live video conferencing such as Microsoft Teams or Zoom, chat rooms and virtual classroom) & Asynchronous forms (Examples include email, discussion forms, prerecorded lectures) of communication with students?
5	Flexibility: Have you considered the implications for students who are completing the module remotely, and thus do not have access to on-campus facilities (Examples include: Library, workshop and group workspaces)?
6	Limitations of the Online Environment: Have you considered alternatives for students with poor internet connections who potentially won’t be able to attend module elements such as live-streamed lectures?
7	Student Relationships: Have you provided opportunities for students to develop working relationships with peers and teaching staff?
9	Team Structure, Strategies and Performance: Does the module provide opportunities for student teams to develop clear goals and objectives?
10	Team Structure, Strategies and Performance: Does the module encourage and or provide students to assign team roles?
11	Assessment and feedback: Have you designed assessments that accurately reflect both individual and group learning outcomes in the PBL context? Are there mechanisms in place for timely and constructive feedback that support learning progression?
12	Group and individual support: Are there structured opportunities for students to seek help when they encounter obstacles in their projects, including technical issues, conceptual misunderstandings, psychological support or group dynamics challenges?
13	Peer Evaluation and Reflection: Does the module incorporate mechanisms for peer evaluation and self-reflection, allowing students to critically assess their contributions and learning process?

8. Future research and limitations

This study provides an overarching view of themes, but a more detailed view of each theme could provide further insights into effective pedagogical approaches that may be applied to eliminate some of the perceived challenges by students. In addition, the authors would recommend a muti-stakeholder perspective on students’ perceptions. This study prioritises the perspective of the student. To ensure quality and equitable online PBL for engineering students, a whole faculty approach that takes into consideration multiple stakeholder needs is recommended.

A point worth noting in the current study centres on the nature and level of themes derived from the data. The vast majority of themes related to logistical and system-based barriers. Few related to personal capacities or attributes. Future research in this area could employ targeted questions if using a survey instrument or adopt a more reflexive technique such as semi-structured interviews with the express intent of examining this potential gap.

The data for this paper was gathered during the COVID-19 pandemic and that students were experiencing many changes to everyday life in Ireland, due to governmental restrictions. This change in lifestyle may have affected students’ responses during all data gathering elements of the study.

Registration and Data set

Open Science Framework (OSF) registration and open data set [https://osf.io/eg4mz/?view_only=447deaf791354300a6c0447f8f6ba53a].

Acknowledgments

Early data from this paper were initially presented in the form of a conference paper (O’Connor et al. 2022). This paper represents a significantly more developed version of this early version and has benefitted from feedback received in this early stage.

Disclosure statement

In the interest of full transparency, we would like to identify that the fourth author was co-leading the module used within the study.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Irish Research Council (IRC) under Grant number: [GOIPG/2021/352].

Notes on contributors

Sean O’Connor

Mr. Sean O’Connor presently is a PhD candidate in the School of Education at the University of Limerick. His current research is on examining problem and project based learning (PBL) in blended and online environments. This research effort is being funded by the Irish Research Council (IRC) under the 2021 Government of Ireland Postgraduate Scholarship award.

Jason Power

Dr. Jason Power is a lecturer within the School of Education at the University of Limerick, Ireland. His research interests are focused on affective and cognitive factors that are associated with student performance in STEM education environments.

Nicolaas Blom

Dr. Nicolaas Blom is a lecturer in the School of Education at the University of Limerick where he lectures in design and communication graphics and engineering education pedagogy modules. He completed his PhD at the University of Pretoria in 2019, which explored the design cognition of students involved in integrated STEM tasks. Nicolaas’ research interests include learning and teaching in integrated STEM environments and exploring the nature of organizational relationships in post-primary schools.

David Tanner

Prof. David Tanner is a faculty member in the School of Engineering where he lectures undergraduate students in manufacturing process technology, researches and implements best pedagogic practice, and is an active researcher in manufacturing processes including metal casting and additive manufacturing techniques.