Practical Implementation of Project-Based Learning at the University

The modern system of higher education involves the active implementation of the practice-oriented approach, which is based not only on the educational process, but also on the formation of a student’s personality. The introduction of a practice-oriented approach implies students’ acquiring both practical and social competencies, which will be necessary for them in their future professional activity. Project activity in Higher School of Economics (HSE) is presented as a separate type of students’ educational activity within an educational program, credit units for it corresponding to specific forms of organization and control. The project seminar is an educational form of organizational and educational support for project activities. The project seminar is not directly related to the forms of projects implementation. It aims at forming students’ project competencies, skills of project interaction, and project management. The practice of implementing a project seminar within undergraduate programs began in 2014, within graduate programs – in 2018. This paper analyzes the undergraduate students’ practice of project work in educational programs of economic profile. The study is based on the analysis of HSE – Perm. The survey involved 117 respondents, including 8 teachers, 5 customer representatives, and 104 students of different years (the sample corresponds to the confidence accuracy of 95 % with 10 % room for possible error and a total population of 983 students).

Research question. Since 2014, HSE has been introducing a special practice of project-oriented training in undergraduate programs, which is to implement projects and a project seminar and to involve students in practical programs (applied projects). This practice has methodological support in the form of local regulations, but, in fact, there are ample opportunities for educational programs, as far as the peculiar features of implementation are concerned. At the same time, a large number of participants have been included in the process of implementing this practice. It is this research that is supposed to identify common benefits and difficulties in implementing this approach. Accordingly, the purpose of the study is to evaluate the practice of introducing project-oriented education on the example of undergraduate economic programs at HSE – Perm, to find out corresponding problems, and to identify ways of improving this process.

1. Barnett R. Being a University (1st ed.). New York: Routledge, 2010. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203842485. (Eng.).

2. Barnett R., Coate K. Engaging the Curriculum in Higher Education. Maidenhead: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press, 2005. 190 p. (Eng.).

3. Brundiers K., Wiek A. Do we teach what we preach? An international comparison of problem and project-based learning courses in sustainability. Sustainability, 2013 no. 5(4), pp. 1725–1746. https://doi.org/10.3390/su5041725. (Eng.).

4. Wissema J. G. Towards the third-generation university: Managing the university in transition. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2009. (Eng.).

5. Lapteva A.V, Efimov V. S. New Generation of Universities. University 4.0. Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences, 2016, no. 11(9), pp. 2681–2696. https://doi.org/10.17516/1997-1370-2016-9-11-2681-2696. (Eng.).

6. Altbach P. G. Globalisation and the university: Myths and realities in an unequal world. Tertiary Education & Management, 2004, no. 10(1), pp. 3–25.. (Eng.).

7. Prinz C., Morlock F., Freith S., Kreggenfeld N., Kreimeier D., Kuhlenkötter B. Learning factory modules for smart factories in industrie 4.0. Procedia CIRP, 2016, no. 54, pp. 113–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.05.105. (Eng.).

8. The university, state, and market: the political economy of globalization in the Americas / edited by Robert A. Rhoads and Carlos Alberto Torres. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. 2006. 400 p. (Eng.).

9. Siegel D., Waldman D., Atwaterb L., Link A. Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: improving the effectiveness of university-industry collaboration. The Journal of High Technology Management Research. 2003, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp. 111–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/ s1047–8310 (03) 00007-5. (Eng.).

10. Chubb J., Watermeyer R. Artifice or integrity in the marketization of research impact? Investigating the moral economy of (pathways to) impact statements within research funding proposals in the UK and Australia. Studies in Higher Education, 2017, Volume 42, Issue 12, pp. 2360–2372. https:// doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1144182. (Eng.).

11. Slaughter S., Leslie L. Expanding and Elaborating the Concept of Academic Capitalism. Organization Overviews. 2001, Volume 8(2), pp. 154–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508401082003. (Eng.).

12. Bell S. Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 2010, no. 83(2), pp. 39–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098650903505415. (Eng.).

13. Walker A. E., Leary H., Hmelo-Silver C. E., Ertmer P. A. Essential readings in problembased learning. West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University Press, 2015. 384 p. (Eng.).

14. Stanley T., Marsden S. Problem-based learning: Does accounting education need it? Journal of Accounting Education, 2012, no. 30(3), pp. 267–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccedu.2012.08.005. (Eng.).

15. Kavanagh M. H., Drennan L. What skills and attributes does an accounting graduate need? Evidence from student perceptions and employer expectations. Accounting & Finance, 2008, no. 48(2), pp. 279–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–629x.2007.00245.x. (Eng.).

16. Tan O. S. Students’ experiences in problem-based learning: three blind mice episode or educational innovation? Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 2004, no. 41(2), pp. 123–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/1470329042000208693. (Eng.).

17. Milne M. J., McConnell P. J. Problem-based learning: A pedagogy for using case material in accounting education. Accounting Education, 2001, no. 10(1), pp. 61–82. https://doi. org/10.1080/09639280122712. (Eng.).

18. Dowling C., Godfrey J. M., Gyles N. Do hybrid flexible delivery teaching methods improve accounting students’ learning outcomes? Accounting Education, 2003, no. 12(4), pp. 373– 391. https://doi.org/10.1080/0963928032000154512. (Eng.).

19. Drennan L. G., Rohde F. H. Determinants of performance in advanced undergraduate management accounting: An empirical investigation. Accounting & Finance, 2002, no. 42(1), pp. 27–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-629x.00065. (Eng.).

20. Sterns H. L., Spokus D. M. Lifelong learning and the world of work. In P. Taylor (Ed.), Older workers in an ageing society: Critical topics in research and policy (pp. 89–109). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, Ltd., 2013. (Eng.).

21. Donnelly R., Fitzmaurice M. Collaborative project-based learning and problem-based learning in higher education: A consideration of tutor and student role in learner-focused strategies. In G. O’Neill, S. Moore, & B. McMullin (Eds.), Emerging issues in the practice of university learning and teaching, 2005, pp. 87–98. (Eng.).

22. Proektnoe obuchenie. Praktiki vnedrenija v universitetah. [Project-based learning. Implementation practices at universities] Under red. L. A. Evstratovoj, N. V. Isaevoj, O. V. Leshukova. M., Skolkovo, 2018. 152 p. (In Russ.).

23. Dai C. X., Wells W. G. An exploration of project management office features and their relationship to project performance. International Journal of Project Management, 2004, no. 22(7), pp. 523–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.04.001. (Eng.).

24. Pemsel S., Wiewiora A. Project management office a knowledge broker in project-based organisations. International Journal of Project Management, 2013, no. 31(1), pp. 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.03.004. (Eng.).

25. Desouza K. C., Evaristo J. R. Project management offices: A case of knowledgebased archetypes. International Journal of Information Management, 2006, no. 26(5), pp. 414–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2006.07.002. (Eng.).

26. Bettin A. X., Tobar C. M., Prado D. P., Da Silva I. B. A PMO Installation for TI Project Management in a R&D Institution. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on the Quality of Information and Communications Technology (QUATIC), IEEE, 2010. (Eng.).