Impact of Project-Based Learning on Computer Science Education

CHIMI DEMA & UGYEN CHODEN

Abstract

Project-based learning (PBL) has gained prominence as an effective approach to fostering

autonomous learning in Computer Science education. This study investigated the impact of
PBL on student learning experiences, involving 169 participants. Data collection employed a
closed-ended questionnaire and semi-structured interviews. Quantitative analysis, utilising
descriptive and inferential statistics, revealed strong student performance in the Analysis,
Planning, Design, and Communication and Presentation phases. However, challenges were
noted in the Development and Testing phases, with Project 3 (PRJ303) students exhibiting
significantly better performance than Project 1 (PRJ101) and Project 2 (PRJ202) peers.
Qualitative analysis of interview data unveiled key themes, including independent learning,
team dynamics, guide relationships, real-life project experiences, output orientation, and
challenges associated with project-based learning. Despite challenges such as time constraints
and team complexities, the study underscores the myriad benefits of PBL, ranging from real-
world application and critical thinking development to collaboration and independent learning.
The findings advocate for the integration of PBL in university curricula, emphasising the
cultivation of skills such as independent learning, teamwork, mentorship, experiential learning,
and project management. The positive outcomes observed in students' learning and skill
development outweigh the challenges, making a compelling case for the widespread adoption
of PBL in Computer Science education.

Keywords: Computer science, instructional method, project-based learning, project

management, software development project

1
Introduction

Computer science education has become essential to modern education systems, and teaching
methods are critical to shaping learning outcomes. There is a growing demand for Information
Technology (IT) professionals. The full range of skills required for future IT professionals is
determined by the tasks that arise in their work environment, and as the complexity of
technology increases, the skills of the relevant professionals must also increase (Yu et al.,
2016). Traditionally, IT programmes were designed to separate academic learning and
professional practice through internships and cooperative placements (Clear et al., 2012).
However, this approach has contributed to a mismatch between the topics within the
programmes and industry expectations and graduate skills (Hogue et al., 2015). Today's IT
industry requires candidates to have in-depth theoretical knowledge and diverse technical skills
and competencies. Existing higher IT education programmes have been criticised for not
teaching sufficient soft skills such as leadership, project management, critical thinking, and
change management. Further, traditional teaching methods in Computer Science classes have
been criticised for their inability to create an interactive and engaging learning experience for
students. Thus, to address the shortcomings of traditional pedagogical approaches, project-
based learning approach was developed (Sindre et al., 2018).
Project-based learning has been recognised as a practical teaching approach in
Computer Science education that improves student engagement and learning outcomes
(Domínguez & Jaime, 2010). Project-based learning (PBL) is an instructional approach that
emphasises the completion of complex, real-world projects to enhance student learning,
engagement, and problem-solving skills (Thomas, 2000). Moursund (1999) opined that it is
based on three constructivist principles: context-specific learning, active learner participation
in the learning process, and learning through social interaction (as cited in Thomas, 2000). PBL
is gaining popularity in education because it can improve students' technical and professional
skills and their ability to collaborate and think critically (Almulla, 2010).
Several studies have examined the effectiveness of PBL as a pedagogical approach in
schools and universities. For example, Almulla (2020), in a study of the effectiveness of PBL
approach, found that PBL technique improved student engagement by facilitating the sharing
of knowledge, information, and discussion. Similarly, Sindre et al. (2018), in a study of PBL
in an introductory programming course, indicated that the implementation of PBL led to
increased student motivation and improved programming skills. Tous and Freitag (2020) found
that students who took a PBL-based computer science engineering course gained the skills to
work with current technologies for immediate industrial applicability. Knowing the basics
helped them adapt to rapid changes in technology. Chen and Yang (2018) also reported that
project-based learning positively impacted students' academic performance compared to
traditional instruction.
Research on the effectiveness of PBL in computer science education has yielded mixed
results. Although numerous studies have reported the benefits of PBL in computer science
education, others have expressed concerns that PBL may be time-consuming, difficult to
assess, and inappropriate for all types of learning outcomes (Gardiner & Robinson, 2009). For
example, Nokes et al. (2008) stated that project supervision may be time-consuming and
require specialised skills and knowledge. In addition, students may require help with project
management and team dynamics and additional support and guidance from instructors and
project supervisors (Bashan & Holsblat, 2012). However, a common theme in most research
on PBL in computer science education is the importance of providing students with
opportunities to apply their knowledge and skills in real-world contexts (Teixeira et al., 2020).

2
 Despite the widespread use of PBL in computer science courses, there has been limited
research on its effectiveness. After a thorough search of various academic databases, there is
limited literature on implementing project-based learning, especially in Bhutanese schools. A
study conducted by Dorji (2018), which investigated the perceptions of the project-based
learning approach in schools showed that the project-based learning approach improved the
quality of learning by promoting collaboration and teamwork, planning and organisation,
creativity, and innovation among children. Project-based learning also promoted collaboration
among teachers, students, and parents to make learning meaningful for children. However,
there is no extensive research on the experiences of university students as participants in PBL
processes, particularly the experiences and personal insights of computer science students in
developing a project.
To fill this gap in the literature, this study examined the impact of PBL by evaluating
the phases of the software development life cycle (SDLC) used by students in developing a
project. The software development life cycle methodology (SDLC) clearly defines the
processes for creating high-quality software. Specifically, the SDLC methodology focuses on
the following phases of software development: analysis, planning, design, development,
testing, and communication and presentation (Synopsys, 2023). Thus, the study explored the
following research questions:

1. How does PBL affect Computer Science students' skills in implementing Software
Development Life Cycle (SDLC) stages: analysis, planning, design, development,
testing, communication, and presentation?
2. What are the benefits and challenges of PBL for students in computer science courses?

Literature Review

The literature review thoroughly examines pertinent themes, starting with Project-Based
Learning (PBL) and its instructional significance. It delves into the benefits and challenges of
PBL and explores its application in computer science courses for connecting theoretical
knowledge with real-world application. It also introduces the Software Development Life
Cycle (SDLC) as a guiding framework in PBL for practical project implementation within
computer science education.

Project-Based Learning
The educational strategy, project-based learning (PBL), structures learning around projects. It
is a form of student-centred instruction that involves students examining issues or obstacles in
the real world (Mergendoller & Thomas, 2005). This method is intended to be dynamic and
captivating, allowing students to actively engage in the learning process by being involved in
designing projects, solving problems, making decisions, and conducting investigations. It
enables students to create realistic products or presentations over extended periods while
working largely independently. Some of the distinctive features of the PBL curricula include
authentic content, authentic assessment, teacher facilitation but not direction, explicit
educational goals, cooperative learning, reflection, and incorporation of adult skills (Thomas,
2000).
Project-Based Learning is a teaching strategy connected to other pedagogical
approaches, including problem-based learning (Helle et al., 2006). Both are learner-centred

3
instructional strategies where students work together to build their knowledge and become
proficient in the course material. Problem-based learning and project-based learning are
frequently combined together. The primary distinction between the two is that, in project-
based learning, students must create a product to show that they have mastered a particular
subject, while in problem-based learning, students must present a solution to an authentic
problem that has been clearly specified (Kokotsaki et al., 2016). Assigning students
assignments to complete is not a novel concept. Projects, practical exercises, interdisciplinary
topics, field visits, and lab research have all been staples of educational institutions for years.
As a result, PBL has been contrasted with other pedagogical strategies such as design
experiments, purposeful learning, and experiential learning. The current study conceptualises
PBL by drawing on Thomas's (2000) explanation aiming to capture its distinctiveness and
enhance its effectiveness as a teaching strategy. Within this framework, effective PBL classes
are categorised by the following essential components:

i. Centrality: PBL projects are the curriculum's main and most important part, and
teaching and student learning are planned around them (Thomas, 2000).
ii. Driving questions: PBL projects concentrate on inquiries or issues that compel
students to learn a topic’s core ideas and tenets (Thomas, 2003).
iii. Constructive investigations: During projects, students conduct a constructive
investigation. An investigation is a procedure with a specific aim that comprises
gathering information, inquiring, and coming to a conclusion. For a method to be
deemed PBL, the students must investigate and transform knowledge.
iv. Collaboration: Students work together on projects while they undertake their
investigation (Krajcik & Blumenfeld, 2006).
v. Autonomy: The nature of the projects must be directed toward serious disciplinary-
related topics and material; they are not scripted, packaged, or teacher-led. Projects
are, to a significant extent, student-driven (Thomas, 2000).
vi. Teacher facilitation: During projects, students are scaffolded to some extent by the
teacher or educational technology, aiding the development of cognitive skills that will
support future learning and enable them to think more cleverly (more like experts)
when working on their projects (Krajcik & Blumenfeld, 2006).
vii. Realism: Projects are located in real-world situations that are meaningful to students
(Krajcik & Blumenfeld, 2006). They're "realistic, not academic," (Thomas, 2000, p.
4).

Project-Based Learning aims to teach students content while also enhancing their
knowledge of and capacity for using that content in practical contexts (Almulla, 2020). PBL
enables students to work together, exchange ideas, and apply what they have learned in real-
world circumstances. According to Kingston, PBL is effective at fostering 21st-century skills
such as problem-solving, critical thinking, communication, cooperation, and creativity
(2018). Studies exploring the effects of the PBL approach on student teachers have shown
that it enhances problem-solving skills, academic performance and fosters a favourable
impression of the teaching profession (Mettas & Constantinou, 2008). PBL has been used to
teach a variety of courses and subjects, including engineering, physics, mathematics, English,
and computer science, across various education levels, from preschool to secondary school
and continuing on to postsecondary education.

4
Benefits of Project-Based Learning

Numerous studies support the assertion that students exposed to PBL outperform those taught
through traditional methods (Hung et al., 2012; Siswono et al., 2018). Balemen and Keskin's
(2018) meta-analysis, encompassing subjects, such as science, biology, physics, and chemistry,
indicated PBL's effectiveness, especially in biology, but also across other scientific disciplines.
Notably, PBL's efficacy was found to be highest in secondary education, followed by tertiary
and primary education. Interestingly, PBL demonstrated effectiveness across studies with
varying sample sizes.
Kolikant (2016) emphasises that PBL provides a platform for students to apply
theoretical knowledge to practical projects, fostering the development of technical skills.
Crucially, the collaborative nature of PBL enhances teamwork and communication skills,
valuable attributes in industries like software development. Working in groups enables
effective communication, idea sharing, and collaborative problem-solving, contributing not
only to practical skills but also to interpersonal skills highly sought after by industry employers.
Moreover, PBL encourages students to take ownership of their learning by allowing
them to choose projects, set goals, and monitor progress. Kim et al. (2017) note that this
approach nurtures independence, accountability, and motivation. Students, by assuming
responsibility for their learning, become more engaged and invested in the educational process,
leading to improved learning outcomes.
A comprehensive literature review by Handrianto and Rahman (2019) highlights the
multifaceted positive contributions of PBL to students' learning experiences. PBL has been
shown to enhance knowledge, abilities, intellectual skills, collaborative and social skills,
attitudes, high-level or critical thinking, and exposure to real-world problem-solving.

Challenges of Project-Based Learning

Despite PBL's effectiveness, a study claimed that it was difficult to implement PBL
simultaneously. According to Kokotsaki et al. (2016), teachers find it challenging to manage
their class time as the projects take longer than anticipated. Another challenge was creating
reliable evaluation tools that required comprehension from the students. PBL presented
difficulties for the students since they lacked the abilities required for collaborative work. As
a result, some students took control of the project and forced their opinions on others.
A review conducted by Handrianto and Rahman (2019) found that sometimes
students struggle to produce new ideas to address the problem while designing the solution.
Moreover, due to a lack of interaction time with peers and lecturers, it is challenging for
students to reach a consensus and collaborate on the same idea. Another issue affecting the
smooth implementation of PBL is inadequate resources and materials (Aldabbus, 2018).
Besides, the successful implementation of PBL in computer science courses requires careful
planning and preparation by instructors. First, instructors need to identify appropriate projects
that align with the course objectives and are suitable for students’ skill levels. Second,
instructors need to set clear guidelines and expectations for the projects, including the
project's scope, deliverables, and evaluation criteria. Third, instructors need to facilitate
student's learning by providing feedback, resources, and support throughout the project which
increases the instructor's workload.
Furthermore, PBL can be challenging for both students and instructors, especially when
dealing with complex projects. Instructors need to be able to provide guidance and support to

5
students throughout the project, while also balancing their workload and responsibilities.
Students, on the other hand, need to be able to effectively manage their time, work
collaboratively with their peers, and overcome challenges that arise during the project
(Aldabbus, 2018).

Importance of Project-based Learning in Computer Science Course

Students work independently or in groups to complete projects that require them to apply
technical skills to solve real-world problems. The project's scope may vary depending on the
student's area of study, such as full-stack development, block chain technology, data science,
or cyber security. PBL approach provides students the opportunity to choose and
independently research projects of their interests. Students are responsible for creating a
structured and detailed project plan or schedule to ensure that the project is on track. This
approach helps students improve their time management skills. Project advisors meet with
the students once a week (or as often as needed) to discuss student’s project progress and
provide constructive feedback and technical assistance (McManus & Costello, 2019).
Moreover, project-based learning allows students to plan, organise, and lead their
education independently, personalising the educational process (Balyk et al., 2021).
Implementing project methodology fosters in students a lifelong interest in the computer
domain and deepens and organises their knowledge across various disciplines. Additionally,
it assists students in developing a comprehensive perspective and integrated strategy to
address real-world problems.
Computer science students are found to have benefitted from project-based learning,
despite the challenge they face in organising and planning (Pucher & Lehner, 2011). In many
cases, project ideas proposed by students achieve remarkable results. Student's high levels of
motivation and enthusiasm drive them to such successful outcomes. However, such projects
do not receive positive remarks from faculty members. This can be a result of the project's
complexity in computer science. The project advisor is equally responsible for defining project
goals. Nevertheless, a lack of experience in creating these goals renders them unattainable and
results in a failure to produce the defined output. Even though all the project goals could not
be achieved, the learning outcomes were found to be beneficial to the students.

Software Development Life Cycle

The term, Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC) refers to a methodology for producing
high-quality software that includes well-defined processes. The phases of software
development that SDLC approach focuses on are requirement analysis, planning, design,
development, testing, and maintenance (Sahu et al., 2014). Each phase is designed with specific
objectives to be achieved by its conclusion.
The requirement analysis phase studies the current problem gathering requirements
from the users. Risks are identified and evaluated since they can occur during any phase of the
SDLC, including the requirement phase. This phase performs asset and threat identification to
have a proper plan for the project. In the planning stage, the team estimates the cost and
resources needed to implement the analysed requirements. Additionally, it describes the threats
involved and makes alternative plans to mitigate such risks. The team should also decide
whether the project is feasible and how to implement it successfully with the least amount of

6
risk. The design phase transforms all the requirements gathered into a design plan with detailed
specifications. All the parties involved review this plan and provide feedback.
The development phase converts the design prototype into a working system. It
involves the initiation of coding to construct the solution components. The team continues to
identify all risks throughout the phase and address new risks as they emerge. The team performs
code review, Pair programming Unit testing, and static testing to find and fix all errors. The
testing is carried out to ensure the complete application works per the users’ requirements and
test cases.
The testing process enables developers to produce high-quality software that satisfies
users' needs and expectations by finding and fixing any bugs or problems in the programme
code. The maintenance phase continuously assesses user satisfaction, security, and system
performance to find new methods to enhance the current product. By including new features
for the product, it updates or upgrades the application. Since the applications that the students
created are not maintained and used in the real world, there is no maintenance phase in this
research. It is a one-time project that has ended. However, the students must present their
projects for assessment purposes. Students demonstrate their work through live
demonstrations, power presentations, promotional videos, project banners, project
documentation, and application manuals.
There are various software development life cycle models, such as waterfall, iterative,
spiral, prototype, and v-type models. Each process model for successful software development
adheres to a set of procedures specific to its nature. A suitable software development lifecycle
model can be chosen based on the software project's requirements (Salve et al., 2018).

Methodology

This section discusses the methodology employed for conducting the study and is divided
into the following parts: (i) research design, (ii) research participants, (iii) data collection
instruments, and (iv) data analysis.

Research Design

Using a pragmatist paradigm, the study employed a mixed-methods convergent parallel

research design. The pragmatist paradigm allowed the researchers to integrate quantitative and
qualitative perspectives to gain a comprehensive understanding of real-world problems such as
the impact of PBL on computer science education while the convergent parallel approach
involved the simultaneous collection of quantitative and qualitative data (Creswell & Creswell,
2017), enabling a comprehensive exploration of the multifaceted effects of PBL. Quantitative
data was collected using a closed-ended questionnaire. Concurrently, qualitative data were
gathered through semi-structured interviews to delve into the subjective experiences and
attitudes of students towards PBL. By combining the strengths of quantitative and qualitative
approaches, this research design enhanced the depth and breadth of insights into the impact of
PBL in the realm of computer science education.

Project-Based Learning Framework at GCIT

The main objective of integrating project modules such as Project I (PRJ101), Project II
(PRJ202), and Project III (PRJ303) as detailed in Figure 1 was to allow students to apply
their knowledge and practical skills to solve real-world problems. Through this module, the

7
 first and second-year students were expected to demonstrate development of ability on
responsive web and mobile applications as solutions to respective problems and
requirements. Third-year students, on the other hand, were expected to use data analytic and
machine learning technology to provide insights and realistic solutions to real-world
problems. This included the full development cycle starting from requirement analysis and
conceptualisation to system design, prototyping, testing, and finally to 'live' deployment.
The module was based on self-directed learning sessions. During self-directed learning
sessions, students were required to work on the proposed project with team members. Team
meeting with the supervisor was required for progress reporting (on average, every three
weeks). There were arrangements for face-to-face weekly consultation sessions to support and
brief students on the module requirements, principles of project management, and
development life cycle.
In order to successfully pass the project module, students were required to submit
several project requirements. These requirements were designed to ensure students
understand the project's objectives and can practically apply their knowledge and skills. The
following were the main requirements students were expected to submit:

CA1 Project Proposal: The first requirement is submitting a project proposal. This proposal
should outline the project's scope and clearly demonstrate that the student clearly understands
the project's objectives and can communicate their ideas effectively.

CA2 HQ Wireframe prototype and presentation: The second requirement is the submission
of a high-quality (HQ) wireframe prototype and presentation. The wireframe prototype
should demonstrate the student's ability to represent the project's design and functionality
visually.

CA3 Milestone Prototype: The third requirement is submitting a milestone prototype. This
prototype should demonstrate the progress made by the student toward achieving the project
objectives.
CA4 Final Delivery and Presentation: The fourth requirement is the submission of the final
project deliverables and presentation. This should demonstrate that the student has successfully
achieved the project objectives and has effectively communicated their product. Figure 1 below
shows the process of implementing the project-based learning framework at GCIT.

8
Figure 1
Project-Based Learning Framework at GCIT

Participants

The participants in this study consisted of 169 students who were selected using purposive
sampling from three project groups based on their academic year: First year, second year,
and third year as reflected in Table 1. The three project groups were PRJ101, PRJ202, and
PRJ303, and all participants were from Gyalpozhing College of Information Technology.
The participants were selected from various academic programmes offered by the college,
including Bachelor of Computer Science (BCS) in AI Development and Data Science, BCS
in Block chain Development, BCS in Full Stack Development, and Bachelor of Science in
Information Technology (BSc IT).
The first-year group who were taking project module PRJ101 consisted of 61
participants. Students were to develop responsive, data-driven, dynamic, and interactive web
applications using popular web technology. The second-year group enrolled in project
module PRJ202 consisted of 55 participants. Their task involved the development of usable
real-time responsive mobile applications using mobile technology for use on smartphones,
tablets, and other smaller touch devices for Android or iOS. The third-year group who were
taking project module PRJ303 consisted of 53 participants. Students were to utilise data
analytics technologies and life cycles to extract features, pre-process, clean, analyse,
interpret, and visualise large real-world raw datasets to derive a conclusion regarding the
information they hold.
All participants were required to have completed a course on project management
as part of their academic curriculum. Informed consent was obtained from each
participant prior to their participation in the study. Participants were assured that their
participation was voluntary, and that their responses would be kept confidential. The
inclusion criteria for the study were enrollment in one of the three project courses
(PRJ101, PRJ202, or PRJ303) and providing informed consent. Exclusion criteria were

9
 the inability to provide informed consent. Their participation in this study provided
valuable insights into the project management practices of students from different
academic years at Gyalpozhing College of Information Technology.

Table 1

Participants in the Study

No. of Participants
Project Project Project Curren Actual
Programme
Code Type year t Year Expected Participant
Participants
s
Bachelor of Computer
Science (BSC) in (AI
Web Development & Data AS202
PRJ101 2nd 62 61
App Science), (Blockchain 2
Development) and (Full
Stack Development)
Bachelor of Science In
Mobile
PRJ202 Information Technology SS2022 3rd 63 55
App
(BSc in IT)
Bachelor of Science In
Deep
PRJ303 Information Technology SS2022 4th 61 53
Learning
(BSc in IT)
Total Participants 186 169
*Exclusion criteria- inability to provide informed consent
- absent while administering the questionnaire and semi-structured interview

Data Collection Tools

Data collection tools section outlines the methodology employed to gather insights for the
study. A closed-ended questionnaire and semi-structured interviews were employed as detailed
below.

Closed-Ended Questionnaire

A closed-ended questionnaire was administered using Google Forms to examine student’s

perspective on the impact of Project-Based Learning. The questionnaire included two
parts: the first part was designed to collect the participant’s demographic information,
including their gender, academic program, and other related information. The second part
of the questionnaire investigated the impact of PBL by evaluating the phases of the
software development life cycle (SDLC) used by students in developing a project.
Specifically, the questionnaire items were developed based on phases of software
development: analysis, planning, design, development, testing, and communication and

10
presentation. A five-point Likert scale was used to indicate the respondents’ degree of
agreement.
A pilot study was conducted, and the questionnaire used for the investigation was
examined for validity and reliability: Item Objective Congruence (IOC) was tested to analyse
the validity of the questions. Two experts were identified to validate the questionnaire’s
items, and all items got an IOC rating of 1 which was acceptable. After the items were
validated using the IOC rating, Cronbach’s coefficient α was used to calculate the internal
consistency coefficients of the items included in the questionnaire through a pilot study with
29 BS in Information Technology students who were not part of the study. The questionnaire
was analysed using Microsoft Excel. Cronbach α scores greater than .70 indicated acceptable
reliability (Tavakol & Dennick, 2011). Thus, for overall reliability, Cronbach’s alpha value
was at an acceptable level with a value of 0.89 as reflected in Table 2.

Table 2
Values of Cronbach’s Alpha

Semi-structured Interview

Semi-structured interview is a qualitative research method used to gather information and

better understand participants' perspectives regarding PBL. This sort of interview is
conducted using a planned set of questions or subjects, but the interviewer has the freedom
to probe participant's responses and ask additional questions. To gain insights into
participants' perspectives on PBL, their experiences, and its impact on their learning, the
current research used a semi-structured interview. Random sampling technique was used to
select 18 participants. Six students from each of the three project modules—PRJ101, PRJ202,
and PRJ303—comprised this group of students. In-person interviews lasted between 20 to
30 minutes and were video recorded. They were then analysed to identify common themes
and patterns.

Data Analysis

The questionnaire data was analysed using Microsoft Excel. To examine the impact of
Project-Based Learning on computer science students, descriptive statistics: means,

11
 mode, and standard deviation were analysed. The interpretation of means involved five
levels, as shown in Table 3 (Pimentel, 2010).

Table 3

Interpretation of the Mean Values

Mean
Value Meaning
Strongly
1.00 - 1.80 Disagree
1.81 - 2.60 Disagree
2.61 - 3.40 Neutral
3.41 - 4.20 Agree
4.21 - 5.00 Strongly Agree

To investigate the impact of PBL across different levels of students, First Year
(PRJ101), Second Year (PRJ202), and Third Year (PRJ303), data were analysed using an
independent t-test. Data obtained from semi-structured interviews was analysed using
Creswell and Creswell’s (2018) thematic analysis. Thematic analysis was employed in this
study due to its suitability for extracting and analysing patterns, themes, and underlying
meanings within qualitative data. By utilising thematic analysis, the research aimed to
systematically identify recurring themes and patterns from the collected interview data,
offering a comprehensive understanding of participants' perspectives on the impact of
Project-Based Learning in computer science education.

Results

This section presents the findings in alignment with the two research questions. The data are
organised into two distinct categories: quantitative and qualitative. The researchers utilised
quantitative data to address Research Question 1 (RQ1), focusing on numerical and statistical
analysis. Qualitative data were employed to address Research Question 2 (RQ2), allowing a
deeper exploration of the themes on the impact of Project-Based Learning (PBL) on Computer
Science students.

Questionnaire Results

Effect of Project-Based Learning on SDLC Skills

Table 4 presents descriptive statistics for the six phases of PRJ101. The sample size (N) for
each phase is 61. The mean represents the average score for each phase. The Design phase has
the highest mean score of 4.04, followed closely by the Analysis and Communication &
Presentation phase, with a mean of 4.02. Planning phase has a mean score of 4.0, Development
phase has a mean score of 3.87, and Testing phase has the lowest mean score of 3.86. Overall,
Table 4 shows that the students performed well in the Analysis, Design, and Communication

12
& Presentation phases but performed relatively poorer in the Development and Testing phases.
The Planning phase had consistent scores with a relatively small range.

Table 4

Descriptive Statistics for PRJ101

Descriptive Statistics for PRJ101

Mea Media Mod Varianc
Phases N Range SD
n n e e
Analysis 61 4.02 4 4.17 3 0.71 0.51
Planning 61 4 4.14 4.14 3.57 0.84 0.73
Design 61 4.04 4 4 3.25 0.69 0.48
Development 61 3.87 4 4 3.67 0.74 0.55
Testing 61 3.86 5 5 3.25 0.76 0.58
Communication &
61 4.02 4 4 2.5 0.64 0.42
Presentation
Remark **: significant at 0.01 or 0.05 level.

Table 5 gives an overview of the distribution of scores for each of the six phases of
PRJ202. The sample size (N) for each phase was 55. The highest mean score was obtained
in the Planning phase (4.09), and the lowest in the Development phase (3.68). This suggests
that the Planning phase was the most successful in terms of performance. In five of the six
phases, the median score was 4, indicating that the majority of scores were clustered around
this value. The lowest standard deviation was obtained in the Analysis phase (0.66), and the
highest in the Development phase (0.82). This means that the scores for the Analysis phase
were tightly clustered around the mean, while scores for the Development phase were more
spread out. Overall, the Planning phase had the highest mean score, while the Development
phase had the lowest. It can be concluded that the Planning phase was the most successful
phase of the PRJ202 project, while the Development phase exhibited the least success.

Table 5
Descriptive Statistics for PRJ202

Descriptive Statistics for PRJ202

Rang
Phases N Mean Median Mode SD Variance
e
Analysis 55 4.03 4 3.83 2.33 0.66 0.44

Planning 55 4.09 4.29 4.29 3.14 0.69 0.49

Design 55 3.83 4 4 3.25 0.8 0.64
Development 55 3.68 4 4 3.67 0.82 0.69

13
 Testing 55 3.75 4 4 3.75 0.72 0.52
Communication &
55 4.05 4 4 2.75 0.67 0.45
Presentation
Remark **: significant at 0.01 or 0.05 level.

As shown in Table 6, it can be observed that the highest mean score was in the Design
phase, with a value of 4.39. This suggests that the Design phase was the most successful
phase, on average. The lowest mean score was in the Development phase, with a value of
4.11, which indicates that there may be areas for improvement in this phase. Overall, data
suggests that the PRJ303 student generally performed well, with high scores across most
phases, but there was room for improvement in the Development phase.

Table 6
Descriptive Statistics for PRJ303

Descriptive Statistics for PRJ303

Mea Media Mod Ran Varianc

Phases N SD
n n e ge e
Analysis 53 4.16 4 4.17 4 0.83 0.69
Planning 53 4.37 4.14 4.14 2 0.58 0.34
Design 53 4.39 4.25 4.5 2 0.6 0.37
Development 53 4.11 4 4 3 0.75 0.58
Testing 53 4.17 4 4 3.25 0.77 0.59
Communication &
53 4.34 4.5 4.75 2.75 0.73 0.54
Presentation
Remark **: significant at 0.01 or 0.05 level.

Significant Difference Between PRJ101, PRJ202, and PRJ303

Table 7 presents the means and standard deviations of six phases of two different projects,
PRJ101 and PRJ202. The table also includes the results from an independent t-test conducted
between the two projects at a 0.01 or 0.05 significant level.
T-test was conducted to determine if there was a significant difference between the
performance of PRJ101 and PRJ202 in any of the six phases. Based on the t-test results, there
are no statistically significant differences between the mean scores of PRJ101 and PRJ202 at
both 0.01 and 0.05 significance levels for all project phases except for the Design phase. The
p-values for all six phases are as follows: Analysis (0.90), Planning (0.41), Design (0.05),
Development (0.09), Testing (0.30), and Communication & Presentation (0.81). For the
Design phase, the mean score for PRJ101 (4.04) is slightly higher than that for PRJ202 (3.83),
with a p-value of 0.05, which is close to the 0.05 significance level. Therefore, there is a

14
 difference in the mean scores between PRJ101 and PRJ202 for the Design phase at a
significance level of 0.05. Overall, the mean scores for PRJ101 and PRJ202 are similar, with
a mean score of 3.97 for PRJ101 and 3.90 for PRJ202, and the difference is not statistically
significant at both 0.01 and 0.05 significance levels. This means that both projects are equally
effective in terms of their performance in all these phases except for the Design phase.
Table 7
Results of the Independent t-test between PRJ101 and PRJ202

PRJ101 PRJ202

t-
Phases Mean SD Mean SD
test
Analysis 4.02 0.71 4.03 0.66 0.90
Planning 4 0.84 4.09 0.69 0.41
Design 4.04 0.69 3.83 0.8 0.05
Development 3.87 0.74 3.68 0.82 0.09
Testing 3.86 0.76 3.75 0.72 0.30
Communication &
Presentation 4.02 0.64 4.05 0.67 0.81
Overall 3.97 0.43 3.90 0.40 0.39
Remark **: significant at 0.01 or 0.05 level.
Independent t-test results between PRJ101 and PRJ303 were conducted at 0.01 or
0.05 level of significance, and Table 8 shows the mean and standard deviation (SD) of each
project phase for both projects. Overall, PRJ303 has a significantly higher mean (4.26) than
PRJ 101 (3.97) with a p-value of 0.00, indicating that PRJ303 students had a more effective
project management approach than PRJ101. At the 0.01 or 0.05 level, the t-test showed a
significant difference in the means with p-values of Planning (0.00), Design (0.00),
Development (0.04), Testing (0.01), and Communication & Presentation (0.00). This indicates
that PRJ303 students performed significantly better than PRJ101 students in these phases.
However, the t-test did not show a significant mean difference between the two projects for
the Analysis phases, with p-values of 0.19. In conclusion, the results of the independent t-test
suggest that PRJ303 students performed better than PRJ101 in most project phases, except for
the Analysis phase. The differences in the means are statistically significant in the planning,
design, development, testing, communication, and overall phases.

Table 8
Results of the Independent t-test between PRJ101 and PRJ303

PRJ101 PRJ303

15
 Mea t-
Phases Mean SD SD
n test
Analysis 4.02 0.71 4.16 0.83 0.19
Planning 4 0.84 4.37 0.58 0.00
Design 4.04 0.69 4.39 0.6 0.00
Development 3.87 0.74 4.11 0.75 0.04
Testing 3.86 0.76 4.17 0.77 0.01
Communication &
Presentation 4.02 0.64 4.34 0.73 0.00

Overall
3.97 0.43 4.26 0.47 0.00
Remark **: significant at 0.01 or 0.05 level.
Table 9 shows the results of an independent t-test comparing the mean scores for the
different phases of two projects, PRJ202 and PRJ303. The t-test was conducted at the 0.01
or 0.05 level. The results show that for all phases except Analysis, the mean scores for
PRJ303 are significantly higher than those for PRJ202. The p-values for Planning (0.00),
Design (0.00), Development (0.00), Testing (0.00), Communication & Presentation (0.00),
and Overall (0.00) are all less than 0.01 or 0.05, indicating a significant difference between
the two projects. The Analysis phase (0.24) is the only phase where the mean score for
PRJ303 is slightly higher than PRJ202, but the difference is not statistically significant as the
p-value is greater than 0.01 or 0.05. Therefore, the t-test results suggest that PRJ303 students
performed significantly better than PRJ202 in most of the phases, except for the Analysis
phase.

Table 9
Results of the Independent t-test between PRJ202 and PRJ303

PRJ303
PRJ202

Phases Mean SD Mean SD t-test

Analysis 4.03 0.66 4.16 0.83 0.24

Planning 4.09 0.69 4.37 0.58 0.00

Design 3.83 0.8 4.39 0.6 0.00

Development 3.68 0.82 4.11 0.75 0.00

Testing 3.75 0.72 4.17 0.77 0.00

16
 Communication &
Presentation 4.05 0.67 4.34 0.73 0.00

Overall 3.90 0.40 4.26 0.47 0.00

Remark **: significant at 0.01 or 0.05 level
Interview Results

A semi-structured interview was conducted with 18 participants to provide insights into the
experiences, perspectives, and attitudes of participants toward Project-Based learning
approach. Encoded identifiers were employed to ensure the convenience and confidentiality
of the participants while presenting interview results. For instance, Student 1 is represented
by a code S1, and S2 is used to represent Student 2, and so on. Several themes highlighting
the benefits and challenges of Project-Based Learning emerged, which are elaborated below:

Independent Learning and Self-exploration

One of the significant themes that emerged from the interviews was independent learning.
Most of the participants reported that project-based learning approach allowed them to take
control of their learning. They said that their ability to identify learning needs and set goals,
select learning resources and materials, seek social assistance, and transfer acquired skills to
real-life contexts improved. For example, Student 2 (S2) expressed:

I felt happy because I was responsible for every small aspect of the project, which
helped me learn more and complete the project. I am happy to be responsible through
project-based learning.

PBL also allowed students to explore and choose what they wanted to learn and
how they wanted to learn it. It enabled them to develop problem-solving skills and
self-directed learning abilities. S1, for example, described PBL motivated her to learn
beyond the classroom:

Firstly, to talk about the interesting part, compared to classroom learning,

where only basics are taught, we get to explore and learn unexpected things
through project-based learning. When we explore and keep learning new
things, it’s interesting and motivates us to learn more.

Team Dynamic

The dynamic of the team was another theme that emerged. Working as a team reportedly
allowed the participants to benefit from one another's knowledge and skills. They could
collaborate, exchange ideas, and work on the project, which led to a deeper comprehension
of the project topics. The following excerpts demonstrate how students negotiated differences
in opinions, communicated effectively, and shared responsibilities to achieve their goals. For
instance, S4 reported:

17
 It was fun to learn about friends and work in a group. When you work individually,
you do all the work; in a group, we divide the work, which is a bit easier. It is easy to
complete the project in a group, some members work on development of the front
end, some on the back end. And if we don't know some concepts, other members
teach us.

However, some participants noted that managing a team's various personalities and
working styles was difficult with S5 stating:

I think it’s like coins with two sides. Although working in a team was enjoyable, there
were some clashes as team members had personality differences. Some members just
wanted their ideas to be considered, and some were not really into doing the project.

Moreover, some students expressed their dissatisfaction over team formation and
division. They said successful team dynamics can contribute to the project's success, while
dysfunctional team dynamics can impede progress. One of the participants (S3) highlighted
the unfair division of team members in the group:

I think there should be some changes in the team formation because most final-year
students are currently experiencing team dynamics issues. I am curious to know how
the groups have been divided, as some teams have all the good coders. And there are
some teams with members who need more skills. So I think we have to look at the
students' skills and not just their grades.

Majority of the students also recommended having an equal number of males and females in
the group. For instance, S6 expressed:

With regard to team formation, there should be a mixture of boys and girls. So
currently, in my team, we don't have any girls, which impacts the evaluation process
when the examiner is male. We should have both boys and girls in the group. The
next thing is the hygiene of the boy. So whenever we have a discussion, if we have
one or 2 girls in our group, boys might tidy themselves, wash their face and come and
we could have the proper discussion.

Relationship with the Guide

Relationship with the guide was another recurring theme that emerged. Participants said that
having a knowledgeable, skilled, and encouraging guide was crucial to their learning
experience. They valued their guide’s advice and criticism because it kept them motivated
and on course. S1 expressed:

Like during the first year project, it was just static, so there was not much
involvement of the project guide. I think it depends on the guide. Some guides
just give the idea but don't tell us what to do. They make us do it by giving us
ideas. If I mainly focus on the current project, our guide, for now, they clarify
our doubts and give direction whenever we approach them. They don't really tell
us about the development process but provide generic ideas on the project.

18
 Most students reported feeling supported by their guide and described their
experiences as largely positive; however, few students did not share a positive relationships
with their guide, which led to disengagement and reduced motivation to participate in the
project. For example, S6 described their relationship with their supervisor as follows:

As it was our first time using Figma, our design was not good and we got scolded
by our guide. It would be better if they gave us constructive feedback instead of
scolding us upfront. After the scolding, we were really demotivated and after that,
we gathered among ourselves and tried to do better in the second phase. She was
impressed by our progress and we got a bit of support from her thereafter. The
other groups approached her repeatedly but we only met her once or twice a week.

S3 is of the same view when he expressed:

We only approached our guide a little during PRJ101 because we found our guide
strict and then not friendly and not approachable. We worked on our own.

Students also recommended assigning a project guide with expertise or knowledge in

the subject matter of the project. The students shared that the guide with specialised knowledge
in the subject matter usually provides valuable expertise and feedback, which contribute to a
practical and effective learning experience. For instance, S4 opined that:

It would be better if the guide were assigned according to their specialisation. For
instance, PRJ101 deals with web application development. It would be good to
have a guide with a certain knowledge of web applications, or it would be even
better if the assigned guide specialises in web development.

Real-life and Output-oriented Project

According to most of the participants, project-based learning strategy was more authentic and
engaging than traditional classroom instruction. They valued the opportunity to work on real-
life projects because it made it easier to see their learnings and its practical application in the
real world. For instance, S1 expressed:

For me, I have gained real-life project implementation experience and development
skills. Unlike classroom learning, where the projects are restricted to small and minor
group work, in project-based learning, we get to work on advanced real-life projects.

Another theme that emerged was that project-based learning was output-oriented. Majority
of participants reported that the end product helped them stay focused and motivated to
complete their projects to the best of their ability. For instance, S2 reported:

While doing the project, I enjoyed it when there was a successful output. If I happen
to develop a website and it works well, then that is the happiest, most successful
feeling. The well-functioning end product is satisfying.

19
 Benefits and Challenges of Project-Based Learning

Through Project-based learning, most students felt their presentation and research skills
improved. For example, S2 expressed:

Firstly, my confidence level improved because we usually have more presentations.

And secondly, how to conduct research because we can't start a project directly. I feel
that my research and presentation skills and confidence level are like improved
compared to the first year.

In addition to honing research skills, students also improved their project management
abilities and explored new design tools. For instance, S4 articulated this growth by stating:

Working in a team with different individuals who have different personalities has
taught me to be adaptable and work with them. And I learned new skills and discovered
new designing tools such as Figma, AdobeXD, and Canva through self-exploration.

However, implementing PBL can also pose challenges. Majority of the participants
reported that managing their time and balancing competing demands was difficult. For
example, S5 said,

We get lots of stress at the last moment. Sometimes the workloads are too heavy to
handle because we get too many pressures simultaneously, so it is difficult to manage
the time. Time management was kind of an issue for me.

Additionally, some participants reported that they found it challenging to collaborate

and manage team dynamics. For instance, S2 expressed:

Usually, in the planning phase deciding on a project topic is challenging. All the
group members come up with different project ideas, and usually, we have clashes
among team members.

Furthermore, of the six software development lifecycles (SDLC), the majority of the
students expressed difficulty in the development and implementation phase. For example, S4
said:
Back-end coding was challenging. Since it was our first time doing the project, and
as Golang was a new concept, we couldn't give our best to the project. Although we
completed the project, the final product could have been better.”

Discussion
The current study examined the impact of project-based learning on computer science
education from students' perspectives. The findings from the closed-ended questionnaire and
semi-structured interviews unveiled that project-based learning has the potential to enhance
students' skills and knowledge in various areas. Computer science students are required to
have a set of skills that can help them in the software development process, including
analysis, planning, design, development, testing and communication, and presentation
(Synopsys, 2023). These skills are essential in every phase of the software development

20
process. However, statistical findings showed that students tend to perform better in the
Analysis, Planning, Design, and Communication and Presentation phases but relatively
poorer in the Development and Testing phases. This could be because students studying
computer science do not have the necessary hands-on experience for development and
testing. There is little room for practical experience in the curriculum, which frequently
concentrates on theoretical ideas. According to Sindre et al. (2018), “IT study programs
maintain a share of more traditional courses in which the dominant learning activities are
textbook reading, lectures, and weekly exercises, so the education as such is not fully project-
based” (p. 148). This finding echoed participants’ interview responses, which reported that
the development phase, which involved coding, programming, testing, and debugging, was
more challenging than documentation and designing wireframes, and prototyping.
Furthermore, lack of exposure to and experience with real-world software
development projects may also be a factor. Before graduating, the majority of students do not
get the opportunity to work on actual software development projects. The development and
testing phases of the software development process may not be understood due to this lack
of exposure and expertise (Sindre et al., 2018). This variation in performance suggests that
students require more direction and assistance in the project's later stages and should be given
a chance to work on real-life projects.
One notable finding was that PRJ303 students performed significantly better than
PRJ101 and PRJ202 students in most phases. This suggests that the higher-level course
provided students with better preparation and knowledge in project-based learning.
Additionally, third-year students, having completed PRJ101 and PRJ202 in the first and
second year, bring in more experience compared to students in their first and second years.
They have foundational concepts, exposure to the project development process, and
independent research skills, which are crucial for project-based learning. This might have
influenced the difference in performance among PRJ101, PRJ202, and PRJ303 students. This
finding reveals the importance of giving students a solid project-based learning foundation
before progressing to more challenging levels.
The semi-structured interview results revealed that project-based learning enhanced
independent learning skills, improved teamwork, provided experiential learning, and
developed project management skills among students. These findings were consistent with
previous research (Almulla, 2020; Barak, 2012; Bell, 2010; Kapp, 2009; Kokotsaki et al.,
2016), that highlighted the benefits of project-based learning. Research that investigated the
influence of PBL approach on students found that PBL enhanced their independent learning
skills (Barak, 2012; Bell, 2010), and team dynamic (Almulla, 2020; Kapp, 2009), and
knowledge retention and academic performance (Karaçalli & Korur, 2014 as cited in
Kokotsaki et al., 2016). Collaboration and teamwork are essential components of project-
based learning. Qualitative data indicated improvement in communicating and resolving
conflicts by leveraging each other's strengths. This finding corroborated Kaldi’s et al. (2011
as cited in Thoma, 2000) study on the effectiveness of PBL in Greece as the result showed
that PBL instruction helps students gain subject-matter expertise, group-work skills,
motivation, and favourable attitudes toward teammates from different ethnic backgrounds.
Additionally, PBL approach is effective at fostering 21st-century competencies such as
critical thinking along with problem-solving, interpersonal communication, information and
media literacy, cooperation, leadership and teamwork, innovation, and creativity (Bell,
2010).
The results also highlighted several challenges, such as time management, multiple
projects, and dysfunctional team dynamics. Project-based learning requires students to

21
“construct knowledge by solving real problems through asking and refining questions,
designing and conducting investigations, gathering, analysing, and interpreting information
and data, drawing conclusions, and reporting findings” (Kokotsaki, 2016, p. 150). This gives
students the freedom to learn but also demands rigorous commitment from students while
solving the problems that arise in designing and building their projects. Participants’
responses indicated that this increased student engagement has resulted in learners not being
able to manage their time and work effectively. This finding was similar to the study
conducted by Gardiner and Robinson (2009), which highlighted that the increased workload
of project-based learning was rather time-consuming for students. Furthermore, the finding
also sheds light on the challenges of working in a team. Students faced difficulties navigating
team dynamics which led to poor communication, lack of accountability, conflict, and
reduced performance. Bashan and Holsblat (2012) confirmed that unfriendliness among
group members could lead to negative experiences for all participants throughout the project
development process.
Moreover, the importance of the relationship dynamic between the student and their
guide was one of the noteworthy findings. Hmelo-Silver et al. (2007) asserted that a teacher's
capacity to successfully scaffold students' learning, inspire, assist, and lead them along the
way is essential for the success of PBL in the classroom. Responses from participants showed
that they valued their guide's suggestions, criticism, and recommendations since they were
encouraging and valuable. Students' cognitive load will be lessened by effective scaffold
instruction embedded in high-quality experiences (Hmelo-Silver et al., 2007), allowing them
to take successful small steps toward cognitive growth that is just out of reach (Bell, 2010).
However, findings also reported that students had demotivating encounters with their guide
and faced difficulty approaching their guide because of their unfriendly personalities and
negative feedback. This echoes findings from Pieratt’s (2011) study on teacher-student
relationships in project-based learning.
Based on these findings, it is recommended that Gyalpozhing College of Information
Technology (GCIT) and similar institutions offering computer science courses take tangible
steps to enhance project-based learning by incorporating specific elements into their
programmes. Firstly, they should actively promote independent learning by introducing self-
directed project modules that encourage students to take ownership of their learning.
Secondly, fostering teamwork can be achieved through interdisciplinary project groups,
ensuring students gain valuable collaborative skills. Additionally, mentorship programmes
should be established, pairing students with experienced mentors who can provide guidance
and real-world insights. Incorporating experiential learning opportunities, such as internships
or industry partnerships, will further enrich students' educational experiences. To develop
project management skills, structured training and resources should be offered, including
access to project management tools. Lastly, implementing time management workshops and
tools can assist students in effectively balancing their project commitments. By implementing
these specific recommendations, institutions can empower students with practical skills and
support to excel in project-based learning and prepare them for success in their future careers.

Conclusion

This study offers valuable insights into the effects of project-based learning (PBL) in
Computer Science education from students' perspectives. The study’s findings suggest that
PBL is an effective approach for encouraging students to learn autonomously through
constructive investigations, collaboration, communication, and reflection within real-world
22
 practices. Data collected from a closed-ended questionnaire and semi-structured interviews
revealed that PBL has both benefits and challenges that should be considered when designing
and implementing the PBL approach in schools and colleges.
The findings from descriptive statistics identified areas that required development. In
particular, the students did well in the phases of Analysis, Planning, Design, and
Communication and Presentation, while lacking in the Development and Testing phases.
However, the t-test results suggested that PRJ303 students performed significantly better than
PRJ101 and PRJ202 in most stages. Moreover, semi-structured interviews revealed several
themes, including independent learning, team dynamics, relationship with the guide, real-life
projects, output-oriented, and project-based learning benefits and challenges. These themes
highlighted the importance of developing independent learning, teamwork, mentorship,
experiential learning, and project management skills.
There is a growing demand for IT professionals. Today's IT sector has considerably
more needs than just developing core software applications. Employers seek graduates who
can integrate knowledge from various disciplines and address complex problems with
creative problem-solving and innovative thinking (Hogue et al., 2015). Hence, IT students
must develop computational thinking, critical thinking, team building, and creativity skills
through real-life experiences. Based on the findings from this study, it is recommended that
institutes offering computer science courses implement project-based learning, prioritising
the development of industry-ready skills and preparing students for real-world practices.

Limitation and Future Work

One of the limitations of this study is selection bias. The study included students who
completed the projects in their first, second, and third years. Thus, the findings cannot be
generalised to a broader population. Further, the study could not fully capture the long-term
effects of this approach. While project-based learning can effectively improve students’
independent learning and collaboration skills, the benefits may take some time to become
fully apparent. The current study examined the short-term effects; and thus, may not provide
a comprehensive picture of the impact of PBL on computer science students.
Considering these limitations, the researchers plan to conduct a longitudinal study to
comprehensively understand the long-term implications of project-based learning on
computer science students. Moreover, the current research specifically focused on students'
perspectives on PBL, and thus a scope for examining the project guide’s perspective on PBL
approach and their experiences and challenges can be a future endeavour.

Acknowledgment
The authors of this paper would like to sincerely thank all the students who participated in
this study. A special thanks goes to Mr. Ronnie Peh and Mr. Yonten Jamtsho, who accepted
our request to become IOC raters and ensured the reliability and validity of our research
questionnaire. We would also like to thank Ms. Kezang Yuden for helping us with statistical
analysis.

23
References

Aldabbus, S. (2018). Project-based learning: Implementation & challenges. International

Journal of Education, Learning and Development, 6(3), 71-79.
Almulla, M. A. (2020). The effectiveness of the project-based learning (PBL) approach as
a way to engage students in learning. Sage Open, 10 (3), 1-15.
[Link]
Balemen, N., & Keskin, M. Ö. (2018). The effectiveness of project-based learning on
science education: A meta-analysis search. International Online Journal of
Education and Teaching, 5(4), 849-865.
Barak, M. (2012). From ‘doing’ to ‘doing with learning’: Reflection on an effort to promote
self-regulated learning in technological projects in high school. European Journal
of Engineering Education, 37, 105– 116.
Bashan, B., & Holsblat, R. (2012). Co-teaching through modeling processes:
Professional development of students and instructors in a teacher training
program. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 20(2), 207-226.
Balyk, N., Grod, I., Vasylenko, Y., Oleksiuk, V., & Rogovchenko, Y. (2021).
project-based learning in a computer modelling course. Journal of
Physics: Conference Series, 1840 (1). IOP Publishing.
Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The
Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 83, 39–43.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research
in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Chen, C. H., & Yang, Y. C. (2018). Revisiting the effects of project-based learning
on students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis investigating
moderators. Educational Research Review, 26, 71-81.
Clear, T., Claxton, G., Thompson, S., & Fincher, S. (2012). Cooperative and work-
integrated education in information technology. In R. K. Coll & K. E. Zegward
(Eds.), International Handbook for Cooperative and Work Integrated Education:
International Perspectives of Theory, Research and Practice. 141–15.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and
mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications.
Dorji, T. (2018). Children, parent and teacher perception on project-based learning
approach in school. Educational Innovation and Practice, 3, 55-74.
Domínguez, C., & Jaime, A. (2010). Database design learning: A project-based
approach organized through a course management system. Computers &
Education, 55(3), 1312-1320.
Gardiner, W., & Robinson, K. (2009). Paired field placements: A means for collaboration.
The New Educator, 5, 81-94.
Handrianto, C., & Rahman, M. A. (2019). Project-based learning: A review of literature
on its outcomes and implementation issues. LET: Linguistics, Literature and
English Teaching Journal, 8(2), 110-129.

24
Helle, L., Tynjälä, P., & Olkinuora, E. (2006). Project-based learning in post-secondary
education–theory, practice and rubber sling shots. Higher Education, 51, 287-
314.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement
in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and
Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99-107.
Hogue, A., Percival, J., El-Khatib, K., & Hayes, G. (2015). Reflection on integrative
project-based learning in business and information technology programs.
Higher Education in Transformation Conference (pp. 132–144). Dublin.
Hung, C. M., Hwang, G. J., & Huang, I. (2012). A project-based digital storytelling
approach for improving students' learning motivation, problem-solving competence
and learning achievement. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(4),
368-379.
Kapp, E. (2009). Improving student teamwork in a collaborative project-based course.
College Teaching, 57(3), 139-143.
Kingston, S. (2018). Project-based learning & student achievement: What does the
research tell us? PBL Evidence Matters, 1 (1). Buck Institute for Education.
Kim, J. H., Cho, Y. J., & Lee, J. H. (2017). A study on the effect of project-based learning
on students' learning motivation and problem-solving ability in computer
programming education. Journal of Educational Technology, 33(1), 1-19.
Kolikant, Y. B. (2016). Project-based learning in computer science: A vehicle for active
learning. Computer Science Education, 26(1), 1-19.
Kokotsaki, D., Menzies, V., & Wiggins, A. (2016). Project-based learning: A review of
the literature. Improving Schools, 19(3), 267-277.
Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (2006). Project-based learning.
[Link]
McManus, J. W., & Costello, P. J. (2019). Project-based learning in computer science:
A student and research advisor's perspective. Journal of Computing Sciences in
Colleges, 34(3), 38-46.
Mergendoller, J. R., & Thomas, J. W. (2005). Managing project-based learning:
Principles from the field. Buck Institute for Education.
Mettas, A. C., & Constantinou, C. C. (2008). The technology fair: A project-based
learning approach for enhancing problem-solving skills and interest in design and
technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education,
18, 79-100.
Nokes, J. D., Bullough, R. V., Jr., Egan, W. M., Birrell, J. R., & Hansen, J. M.
(2008). The paired-placement of student teachers: An alternative to
traditional placements in secondary schools. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 24(8), 2168-2177.
Pieratt, J. R. (2011). Teacher-student relationships in project-based learning: A case study
of high-tech middle North County. The Claremont Graduate University.

25
 Pimentel, J. L. (2010). A note on the usage of Likert scaling for research data analysis.
USM R&D Journal, 18(2), 109-112.
Pucher, R., & Lehner, M. (2011). Project-based learning in computer science–a review
of more than 500 projects. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 1561-
1566.
Sahu, K., Shree, R., & Kumar, R. (2014). Risk management perspective in SDLC.
International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software
Engineering, 4(3), 1247-125.
Salve, S. M., Samreen, S. N., & Khatri-Valmik, N. (2018). A comparative study on
software development life cycle models. International Research Journal of
Engineering and Technology (IRJET), 5(2), 696-700.
Siswono, T. Y. E., Hartono, S., & Kohar, A. W. (2018). Effectiveness of project-based
learning in statistics for lower secondary schools. Eurasian Journal of
Educational Research, 18(75), 197-212.
Sindre, G., Giannakos, M., Krogstie, B. R., Munkvold, R., & Aalberg, T. (2018).
Project-based learning in IT education: definitions and qualities.41 (2), 147-163.
Synopsys. (2023). Software development life cycle (SDLC).
[Link]
Teixeira, R. L. P., Silva, P. C. D., Shitsuka, R., de Araújo Brito, M. L., Kaizer, B. M., & e
Silva, P. D. C. (2020). Project-based learning in engineering education in close
collaboration with industry. In 2020 IEEE Global Engineering Education
Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 1945-1953). IEEE.
Thomas, J.W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. The Autodesk
Foundation.
Tous, R., & Freitag, F. (2020). Open project-based learning for dynamic adaptability of
IT education. The International Journal of Electrical Engineering & Education.
[Link]
Yu, P. L., Fang, S. C., & Wang, Y. L. (2016). Improving IT professionals’ job skills
development: The use of management styles and individual cultural value
orientation. Asia Pacific Management Review, 21(2), 63–73.

______________________________
About the authors

CHIMI DEMA is an Associate Lecturer at Gyalpozhing College of Information Technology.

She completed her Master’s degree in Teaching English as an International Language at Prince
of Songkla University, Thailand. She has published two papers in peer-reviewed journals. Her
research interest lies in the area of Conversation Analysis, the development of learners’ English
conversation skills, and learner autonomy. She was awarded the 2021 Outstanding Dissertation
and Thesis Award by the Graduate School, Prince of Songkla University.

26
UGYEN CHODEN is an Associate Lecturer at Gyalpozhing College of Information
Technology, Bhutan. She has a Master’s degree in Computer Engineering from Naresuan
University, Thailand. Her degree has a specialisation in the fields of Artificial Intelligence and
Computer Vision. Her research interests are in the area of Artificial Intelligence, Machine
Learning, Data Science, and Computer Vision. She presented and published a paper in an
International Conference Proceedings.

27