See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/385546576

"Assessing the Need for Project-Based Learning: Student Engagement and

Outcomes in Engineering Disciplines"

Article in International Journal of Intelligent Systems and Applications in Engineering · April 2024

CITATIONS READS

0 41

4 authors, including:

Sanjaykumar Ingale Samindar Vibhute

Sanjay Ghodawat University Sanjeevan Group of Institutions
8 PUBLICATIONS 8 CITATIONS 6 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Samindar Vibhute on 05 November 2024.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of
INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS AND APPLICATIONS IN
ENGINEERING
ISSN:2147-67992147-6 799www.ijisae.org Original Research Paper

"Assessing the Need for Project-Based Learning: Student

Engagement and Outcomes in Engineering Disciplines"

Sanjaykumar Ingale1*, Vivek Kulkarni2, Arun Patil3, Samindar Vibhute4

Submitted: 07/02/2024 Revised: 15/03/2024 Accepted: 21/03/2024

Abstract: In traditional education system the focus is on content based learning. There was a shift to outcome-based education
as a philosophy of teaching and learning in engineering education. But the, challenge of active student engagement could not
be resolved. This study evaluates student engagement and academic outcomes in traditional outcome-based education within
the engineering departments of Computer Science & Engineering, Artificial Intelligence & Machine Learning, Artificial
Intelligence & Data Science, Mechanical Engineering, Aeronautical Engineering and Civil Engineering. The goal is to
determine the necessity of implementing a Project-Based Learning (PBL) system in these disciplines. A comprehensive survey
assessed students’ learning experiences, engagement levels, and educational outcomes. The results will guide the development
of a customized PBL system aimed at improving educational effectiveness and student satisfaction in these evolving fields.

Keywords: Outcome-Based Education, Student Engagement, Academic Outcomes, Engineering Education, Project-Based
Learning (PBL), Learning Experience, Educational Effectiveness, Student Satisfaction

to lower levels of motivation and participation

Introduction:
(Freeman et al., 2014). Additionally, the traditional
Background and Context approach often limits real-world application, as it
Overview of Traditional Education may not adequately prepare students for practical
problem-solving in professional settings (Fink,
Traditional lecture-based education has long been 2013). This disconnect can result in graduates who
the cornerstone of higher education, including are less equipped to meet industry demands and
engineering disciplines. This approach typically adapt to rapidly changing technological landscapes
involves a professor delivering content through (Boud & Feletti, 1997).
lectures while students passively receive
information (Chickering & Gamson, 1987). In Importance of Student Engagement and Outcomes
engineering programs, lectures often focus on Definition and Relevance
theoretical knowledge and problem-solving
Student engagement refers to the level of interest,
techniques, with students expected to apply this
enthusiasm, and commitment students exhibit
knowledge through problem sets and exams (Prince,
towards their learning activities (Kuh, 2009).
2004). This model emphasizes a top-down
Academic outcomes encompass various indicators
transmission of knowledge, where students are
of student success, such as grades, retention rates,
generally assessed through written examinations
and the ability to apply learned knowledge
and quizzes.
effectively. Engaged students are more likely to
Current Challenges achieve better academic outcomes, demonstrating
Despite its widespread use, traditional lecture-based that engagement is a critical component of
learning faces several challenges. One significant educational success (Astin, 1999).
issue is the lack of student engagement; research Impact on Learning
shows that passive learning environments can lead
Student engagement significantly impacts learning
1*Sanjay Ghodawat University, Kolhapur effectiveness and long-term success. Research
2Sanjay Ghodawat University, Kolhapur indicates that active engagement in learning
3Sanjay Ghodawat University, Kolhapur
4Sanjay Ghodawat University, Kolhapur processes leads to deeper understanding and better
retention of material (Carini, Kuh, & Klein, 2006).
High levels of engagement also correlate with
International Journal of Intelligent Systems and Applications in Engineering IJISAE, 2024, 12(21s), 4763–4771 |4763
improved problem-solving abilities and higher that are crucial in the professional environment,
academic achievement (Tinto, 1997). Therefore, such as teamwork, project management, and
enhancing engagement can foster a more effective adaptive problem-solving (Boud & Feletti, 1997).
and rewarding learning experience, particularly in Aligning educational practices with industry trends
fields requiring complex and adaptive skills. ensures that graduates are well-equipped to
contribute effectively in their fields (Boud & Feletti,
Introduction to Project-Based Learning (PBL)
1997).
Concept of PBL
Literature Review
Project-Based Learning (PBL) is an instructional
approach that emphasizes learning through engaging The implementation of Project-Based Learning
with complex, real-world problems (Thomas, 2000). (PBL) in engineering education has been a subject
In PBL, students work on projects that require of increasing interest over the past few decades. The
critical thinking, collaboration, and the application study contributes to this growing body of research
of knowledge to solve problems (Barrows, 1996). by evaluating the need for PBL in specific
This method contrasts with traditional lecture-based engineering disciplines, focusing on student
approaches by focusing on hands-on, student- engagement and academic outcomes.
centered activities that promote deeper learning and
Historical Context of Engineering Education
practical skill development (Hmelo-Silver, 2004).
Traditionally, engineering education has relied
Benefits of PBL
heavily on lecture-based instruction, a method that
The benefits of PBL are well-documented. It fosters has been criticized for its limitations in developing
enhanced student engagement by involving students practical skills and maintaining student engagement
in meaningful, real-world tasks that are relevant to (Felder & Brent, 2005). Seely (2005) traced the
their interests and career goals (Bell, 2010). PBL evolution of engineering education, noting that the
also supports the development of critical thinking emphasis on theoretical knowledge often came at the
and problem-solving skills by challenging students expense of hands-on experience. This disconnect
to apply their knowledge in practical contexts between academic preparation and industry needs
(Gijbels, Dochy, Van den Bossche, & Segers, 2005). has been a persistent concern in the field (Sheppard
Moreover, PBL prepares students for real-world et al., 2008).
challenges by simulating professional scenarios and
Student Engagement in Higher Education
encouraging collaborative work (Thomas, 2000).
The importance of student engagement in higher
Relevance to Engineering Disciplines
education has been well-established in the literature.
Field-Specific Needs Kuh (2009) emphasized that engagement is a critical
factor in academic success and retention.
In engineering disciplines such as Computer Science
Specifically in STEM fields, Gasiewski et al. (2012)
& Engineering, Artificial Intelligence, Data Science,
found that active learning environments
and Machine Learning, PBL offers particular
significantly improved student engagement and
advantages. These fields demand not only
performance. The study builds upon the research by
theoretical understanding but also practical skills
examining engagement levels in traditional lecture-
and problem-solving abilities that PBL can
based engineering courses.
effectively develop (Mills & Treagust, 2003). PBL
aligns well with the need for students to work on Project-Based Learning in Engineering
complex projects, integrating knowledge from
PBL has emerged as a promising approach to
various areas and applying it to real-world problems
address the challenges of traditional engineering
(Cunningham & Duffy, 1996).
education. Mills and Treagust (2003) argued that
Alignment with Industry Trends PBL provides students with practical, hands-on
experience that bridges the gap between theoretical
The rapid evolution of technology and industry
knowledge and real-world application. Kolmos et al.
practices further underscores the relevance of PBL.
(2013) conducted a comprehensive review of PBL
As the engineering sector faces increasing demands
in engineering education, highlighting its potential
for innovation and adaptability, PBL prepares
to develop not only technical skills but also soft
students to meet these challenges by fostering skills

International Journal of Intelligent Systems and Applications in Engineering IJISAE, 2024, 12(21s), 4763–4771 |4764
skills such as teamwork and communication.The They emphasized the importance of tailoring PBL
effectiveness of PBL in engineering has been approaches to specific institutional and disciplinary
demonstrated in various studies. For instance, contexts, a consideration that aligns with the goals
Fernandes et al. (2014) reported improved student in developing a customized PBL system.
motivation and problem-solving skills in a PBL-
Future Directions
based software engineering course. Similarly, Helle
et al. (2006) found that PBL enhanced students' The research contributes to an ongoing dialogue
professional identity and self-efficacy in about the future of engineering education. As noted
information systems design. by Graham (2018) in a global state-of-the-art report,
there is a growing trend towards more integrated and
Discipline-Specific Considerations
experiential learning in engineering programs
The focus on Computer Science & Engineering, worldwide. The findings will inform the broader
Artificial Intelligence and Data Science, and conversation and contribute to the development of
Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning is more effective educational strategies in rapidly
particularly relevant given the rapid evolution of evolving technical fields.In conclusion, the study
these fields. Li et al. (2020) emphasized the addresses a critical need in engineering education by
importance of project-based approaches in evaluating the potential benefits of PBL in
developing students' digital skills in data science and specialized fields. By assessing student engagement
AI. Similarly, Marques (2016) argued for the and outcomes in traditional lecture-based courses,
integration of real-world projects in computer this research provides a foundation for evidence-
science education to keep pace with industry based curriculum reform. The results will contribute
demands.In the field of AI and Machine Learning, to the ongoing efforts to align engineering education
Balaji et al. (2021) reported on the successful with the needs of a rapidly changing technological
implementation of a PBL approach, noting landscape.
improvements in students' ability to apply
theoretical concepts to practical problems. This Methodology
aligns with the goals in assessing the potential Participants
benefits of PBL in these specialized disciplines.
This study utilized a survey to assess the necessity
Assessment and Implementation of PBL of implementing Project-Based Learning (PBL) in
The comprehensive survey approach used reflects a engineering education. A total of 816 students from
growing emphasis on evidence-based practices in six engineering branches participated in the survey:
engineering education. Borrego et al. (2014) Computer Science & Engineering (CSE) (n=180),
advocated for such data-driven decision-making Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning
processes in curriculum development. However, (AIML) (n=140), and Artificial Intelligence and
implementing PBL is not without challenges. Hung Data Science (AIDS) (n = 140), Mechanical
(2011) identified several obstacles, including faculty Engineering (ME) (n =150), Aeronautical
resistance and resource constraints, which need to be Engineering (AE) (n =70) and Civil Engineering
considered in any PBL implementation plan.Chen et (CE) (n =136)A pie chart in Fig. 1 showing the
al. (2021) conducted a review of PBL distribution of students across the six departments.
implementation in engineering education, CSE has the largest share at 22%, followed by ME,
highlighting various models and their effectiveness. AIML, AIDS, CE and AE.

Fig. 1 Students Distribution across Departments

International Journal of Intelligent Systems and Applications in Engineering IJISAE, 2024, 12(21s), 4763–4771 |4765
Survey Instrument 10. Overall Satisfaction with Traditional
Teaching: How satisfied are you with the
A Google Form survey was designed to gather data
overall experience of traditional lecture-
on student engagement and satisfaction with the
based teaching in your department?
traditional lecture-based teaching approach. The
survey consisted of ten questions, each rated on a Data Analysis
scale from 1 to 10, where 1 represented the lowest
The collected survey data were analyzed using
level of satisfaction or engagement, and 10
various Machine Learning techniques to visualize
represented the highest. The questionnaire included
and interpret student responses. The analysis
the following items:
included the following steps:

1. Engagement During Lectures: How 1. Box Plot Rating: Box plots were used to
engaged do you feel during traditional display the distribution of ratings for each
lecture-based classes? survey question, highlighting the median,
quartiles, and potential outliers in student
2. Understanding of Course Material: To
responses.
what extent do you feel that the traditional
lectures help you understand the course 2. Average Rating: The mean rating for each
material? survey question was calculated to provide
an overview of general student satisfaction
3. Relevance to Real-World Applications:
and engagement levels.
How well do you think the content
delivered in traditional lectures relates to 3. Correlation Heatmap: A correlation
real-world applications? heatmap was generated to examine the
relationships between different survey
4. Interaction with Instructors: How
questions, revealing patterns and potential
effective do you find the level of
correlations in student responses.
interaction with instructors in traditional
classes? 4. Distribution Charts: Distribution charts
were created to show the frequency of
5. Opportunities for Hands-on Learning:
ratings for each question, providing insight
How satisfied are you with the
into the overall distribution of student
opportunities for hands-on learning in the
responses.
current traditional setup?
5. Pie Chart: Pie charts were used to
6. Retention of Knowledge: How well do
illustrate the proportion of different
you retain the knowledge from traditional
satisfaction levels across various survey
lecture-based teaching?
questions.
7. Ability to Apply Theoretical Concepts:
6. Violin Plot Rating: Violin plots were
How confident are you in applying the
employed to visualize the distribution of
theoretical concepts learned in traditional
ratings and the density of responses for
classes to practical problems?
each question, allowing for a detailed view
8. Classroom Participation: How often do of the data's spread.
you actively participate in discussions
Software and Tools
during traditional lectures?
The data visualization and analysis were conducted
9. Preparation for Future Career: To what
using Python with libraries such as Matplotlib,
extent do you believe that traditional
Seaborn, and Scikit-learn. These tools facilitated the
lectures prepare you for your future career
creation of various plots and charts to effectively
in your field of study?
interpret and present the survey results.

International Journal of Intelligent Systems and Applications in Engineering IJISAE, 2024, 12(21s), 4763–4771 |4766
Results

Fig.3 Understanding of Course Material

Fig.2 Engagement During Lectures distribution
distribution

Fig.4 Relevance to Real World Applications

Fig.5 Interaction with Instructors distribution
distribution

Fig. 6 Opportunities for Hands on Learning

Fig. 7 Retention of Knowledge distribution
distribution

Fig.8 Ability to Apply Theoretical Concepts

Fig. 9 Classroom Participation distribution
distribution

International Journal of Intelligent Systems and Applications in Engineering IJISAE, 2024, 12(21s), 4763–4771 |4767
 Fig. 10 Preparation for Future Career Fig. 11 Overall Satisfaction with Traditional
distribution Teaching distribution

Fig.12 count plot overall satisfaction

Fig. 13 Average Ratings

These figures in Fig.2 to Fig. 11 represent a summary view of student sentiment towards
distribution charts for each of the ten survey traditional teaching methods.
questions. Each chart shows the frequency of ratings
A bar chart in Fig. 13 displaying the average ratings
from 1 to 10 for its respective question, providing a
for each of the ten survey questions, allowing for
visual representation of how students responded to
quick comparison of student responses across
each aspect of their educational experience.
different aspects of their educational experience.
A count plot in Fig.12 showing the overall
satisfaction levels across all respondents, providing

Fig. 14 Boxplot Ratings Fig. 15 Violin Plot Rating

A box plot in Fig. 14 showing the distribution of A violin plot in Fig. 15 illustrating the distribution
ratings for each survey question, including median, and density of ratings for each survey question,
quartiles, and potential outliers, providing a offering a detailed view of response patterns and
comprehensive view of response patterns. concentrations.

International Journal of Intelligent Systems and Applications in Engineering IJISAE, 2024, 12(21s), 4763–4771 |4768
 Fig. 16 Correlation Heat map
A correlation heat map in Fig. 16 displaying the suggests that traditional lectures may not
relationships between responses to different survey be equally effective for all students, and
questions, helping identify patterns and potential alternative methods like PBL could help
correlations in student feedback. address these learning gaps.
3. Relevance to Real-World Applications:
Discussion
The perception of real-world relevance
shows a similar spread, with ratings from 1
This study, involving 816 students from the
to 7. This indicates that while some
engineering departments of Computer Science &
students can connect lecture content to
Engineering, Artificial Intelligence & Machine
practical applications, others struggle to
Learning, Artificial Intelligence & Data Science,
see this relevance. PBL could potentially
Mechanical Engineering, Aeronautical Engineering
bridge this gap by providing more concrete,
and Civil Engineering provides valuable insights
real-world contexts for learning.
into the effectiveness of traditional lecture-based
education and the potential need for Project-Based 4. Interaction with Instructors: Ratings for
Learning (PBL) in these disciplines. instructor interaction range from 1 to 8,
suggesting significant variability in
1. Student Engagement During Lectures: The student-teacher engagement. Lower ratings
survey reveals a wide range of engagement indicate a need for more interactive
levels, with responses spanning from 1 to learning environments, which PBL could
7. While some students report high provide through its collaborative nature.
engagement (ratings 5-7), a significant 5. Opportunities for Hands-on Learning: This
number indicate low to moderate aspect shows some of the lowest overall
engagement (ratings 1-4). This variability ratings (mostly 1-5), indicating a critical
suggests that traditional lectures may not shortfall in traditional lecture-based
consistently capture students' attention and teaching. The lack of hands-on learning
involvement, highlighting a potential area opportunities in rapidly evolving fields like
for improvement through PBL approaches. AI and ML underscores a pressing need for
2. Understanding of Course Material: more practical, experiential learning
Responses regarding understanding of approaches like PBL.
course material also vary widely. While 6. Retention of Knowledge: Knowledge
some students report high levels of retention ratings vary widely (1-8),
understanding (ratings 5-8), others indicate suggesting that traditional lectures have
struggles (ratings 1-4). This disparity

International Journal of Intelligent Systems and Applications in Engineering IJISAE, 2024, 12(21s), 4763–4771 |4769
 mixed effectiveness in helping students Conclusion:
retain information. PBL's emphasis on
These findings strongly support the need for
active learning and application could
implementing a Project-Based Learning system in
potentially enhance knowledge retention
these disciplines. PBL's emphasis on practical
across the student body.
application, collaborative problem-solving, and
7. Ability to Apply Theoretical Concepts: The real-world relevance could address many of the
generally lower ratings (mostly 1-5) in this shortcomings identified in the current traditional
category highlight a crucial weakness in approach. By integrating PBL, these engineering
traditional teaching methods, especially for departments could potentially enhance student
engineering disciplines where practical engagement, improve the application of theoretical
application is vital. This finding strongly knowledge, and better prepare students for their
supports the need for PBL to help students future careers in these rapidly evolving fields. The
bridge the gap between theory and practice. next step would be to design and implement a
customized PBL system that addresses the specific
8. Classroom Participation: The varied
needs and challenges identified in this study, with
responses (ratings 1-8) in classroom
the goal of improving educational effectiveness and
participation suggest that traditional
student satisfaction in these cutting-edge
lectures may not consistently encourage
engineering disciplines.
active student involvement. PBL's
collaborative nature could foster more References
uniform and higher levels of participation.
[1] Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: A
9. Preparation for Future Career: Ratings developmental theory for higher education.
ranging from 1 to 8 indicate diverse Journal of College Student Development, 40(5),
perceptions of career preparedness. Lower 518-529.
ratings suggest that traditional lectures may [2] Barrows, H. S. (1996). Problem-based learning
not adequately prepare all students for their in medicine and beyond: A brief overview. New
future careers in rapidly evolving fields Directions for Teaching and Learning, 68, 3-14.
like AI and ML. PBL's focus on real-world [3] Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the
problems and teamwork could enhance 21st century: Skills for the future. The Clearing
career readiness. House: A Journal of Educational Strategies,
Issues and Ideas, 83(2), 39-43.
10. Overall Satisfaction with Traditional
[4] Boud, D., & Feletti, G. (1997). The challenge of
Teaching: The wide range of satisfaction
problem-based learning. Kogan Page.
levels (ratings 1-7) indicates that traditional
[5] Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Klein, S. P. (2006).
teaching methods do not uniformly meet
Student engagement and student learning:
student needs and expectations in these
Testing the linkages. Research in Higher
cutting-edge fields.
Education, 47(1), 1-32.
[6] Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987).
In conclusion, this comprehensive survey reveals
Seven principles for good practice in
significant variability in student experiences with
undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 3-7.
traditional lecture-based education in Computer
[7] Cunningham, D. J., & Duffy, T. M. (1996).
Science & Engineering, Artificial Intelligence &
Constructivism: Implications for the design and
Machine Learning, Artificial Intelligence & Data
delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.),
Science, Mechanical Engineering, Aeronautical
Handbook of research for educational
Engineering and Civil Engineering. The data
communications and technology (pp. 170-198).
highlights several areas where traditional methods
Macmillan.
may fall short, particularly in providing hands-on
[8] Fink, L. D. (2013). Creating significant
learning experiences, fostering the application of
learning experiences: An integrated approach
theoretical concepts, and consistently engaging all
to designing college courses. Jossey-Bass.
students.
[9] Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M.,
Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., &
Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning

International Journal of Intelligent Systems and Applications in Engineering IJISAE, 2024, 12(21s), 4763–4771 |4770
 increases student performance in science, education. European Journal of Engineering
engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of Education, 39(1), 55-67.
the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), [22] Gasiewski, J. A., Eagan, M. K., Garcia, G. A.,
8410-8415. Hurtado, S., & Chang, M. J. (2012). From
[10] Gijbels, D., Dochy, F., Van den Bossche, P., & gatekeeping to engagement: A multicontextual,
Segers, M. (2005). Effects of problem-based mixed method study of student academic
learning: A meta-analysis. Learning and engagement in introductory STEM courses.
Instruction, 15(5), 377-393. Research in Higher Education, 53(2), 229-261.
[11] Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based [23] Graham, R. (2018). The global state of the art in
learning: What and how do students learn?. engineering education. Massachusetts Institute
Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235- of Technology (MIT) Report, Cambridge, MA.
266. [24] Helle, L., Tynjälä, P., & Olkinuora, E. (2006).
[12] Kuh, G. D. (2009). What student affairs Project-based learning in post-secondary
professionals need to know about student education–theory, practice and rubber sling
engagement. Journal of College Student shots. Higher Education, 51(2), 287-314.
Development, 50(6), 683-706. [25] Hung, W. (2011). Theory to reality: A few
[13] Mills, J. E., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). issues in implementing problem-based learning.
Engineering education – Is problem-based or Educational Technology Research and
project-based learning the answer?. Development, 59(4), 529-552.
Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, [26] Kolmos, A., Fink, F. K., & Krogh, L. (2013).
3(2), 2-16. The Aalborg PBL model: Progress, diversity
[14] Prince, M. J. (2004). Does active learning and challenges. Aalborg University Press.
work? A review of the research. Journal of [27] Kuh, G. D. (2009). What student affairs
Engineering Education, 93(3), 223-231. professionals need to know about student
[15] Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on engagement. Journal of College Student
project-based learning. Report prepared for the Development, 50(6), 683-706.
Autodesk Foundation. [28] Li, W., Ahmed, F., Shahbaz, M., & Ullah, A.
[16] Tinto, V. (1997). Classrooms as communities: (2020). The role of project-based learning in
Exploring the educational character of student improving students' digital skills in data science
persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 68(6), and artificial intelligence. Sustainability,
599-623. 12(24), 10345.
[17] Balaji, K. V. G. D., Santhanam, R., & Sarkar, [29] Marques, M. (2016). Project-based learning
A. (2021). Project-based learning in artificial applied to computer science education. In
intelligence education: A case study. Procedia Research on Technology in Education:
Computer Science, 185, 428-435. Innovations in Digital Learning for Inclusive
[18] Borrego, M., Foster, M. J., & Froyd, J. E. Development (pp. 257-275). Springer.
(2014). Systematic literature reviews in [30] Mills, J. E., & Treagust, D. F. (2003).
engineering education and other developing Engineering education—Is problem-based or
interdisciplinary fields. Journal of Engineering project-based learning the answer? Australasian
Education, 103(1), 45-76. Journal of Engineering Education, 3(2), 2-16.
[19] Chen, J., Kolmos, A., & Du, X. (2021). Forms [31] Seely, B. E. (2005). Patterns in the history of
of implementation and challenges of PBL in engineering education reform: A brief essay.
engineering education: A review of literature. Educating the engineer of 2020: Adapting
European Journal of Engineering Education, engineering education to the new century, 114-
46(1), 90-115. 130.
[20] Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2005). [32] Sheppard, S. D., Macatangay, K., Colby, A., &
Understanding student differences. Journal of Sullivan, W. M. (2008). Educating engineers:
Engineering Education, 94(1), 57-72. Designing for the future of the field. Jossey-
[21] Fernandes, S., Mesquita, D., Flores, M. A., & Bass.
Lima, R. M. (2014). Engaging students in
learning: Findings from a study of project-led

International Journal of Intelligent Systems and Applications in Engineering IJISAE, 2024, 12(21s), 4763–4771 |4771

View publication stats