Interdisciplinary Approach within Project-Based Learning of University Students

AUTHOR(S) / АУТОР(И): Milan Čavić , Milica Pavkov-Hrvojević , Milica Beljin Čavić , Ivana Bogdanović

Download Full Pdf   

DOI: 10.46793/STEAM-X24.056C

ABSTRACT / САЖЕТАК:

In lower elementary school levels, an interdisciplinary approach is
implied, but as students progress to higher grades, subjects become
more differentiated, even within the realm of natural sciences. This
content differentiation is particularly pronounced in university ed-
ucation. The research aimed to investigate the correlations between
students’ attitudes toward the applied approach, motivation, and
metacognition when implementing an interdisciplinary approach
along with modern technology within project-based learning. A ped-
agogical experiment was conducted with a sample of 62 first-year
students at the University of Novi Sad, utilizing a questionnaire. In
group work, students prepared their video materials about the topic
of Diffusion and Osmosis. The research results showed that there is a
positive correlation between students’ motivation for learning phys-
ics and metacognition, as well as between students’ attitudes toward
the applied approach and metacognition and students’ motivation.
Since students have positive attitudes about the project-based learn-
ing, based on the obtained results, the potential and necessity of im-
plementing this approach in university education can be highlighted.

KEYWORDS / КЉУЧНЕ РЕЧИ:

• Arends, R. I. (2001). Learning to Teach. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Bandura, A. (1991). Human agency: The rhetoric and the reality. American Psychologist,  46(2), 157-162. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.46.2.157
• Bogdanović, I. Z., Rodić, D. D., Rončević, T. N., Stanisavljević, J. D. & Zouhor, Z. A. (2022). The relationship between elementary students’ physics performance and metacognition regarding using modified know-want-learn strategy. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 20, 1907–1926. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-021-10231-9
• Bower, M., Dalgarno, B., Kennedy, G. E., Lee, M. J. & Kenney, J. (2015). Design and implementation factors in blended synchronous learning environments: Outcomes from a cross-case analysis. Computers & Education, 86, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.03.006
• Condliffe, B., Quint, J., Visher, M. G., Bangser, M. R., Drohojowska, S., Saco, L. & Nelson, E. (2017). Project-based learning, a literature review. Oakland, CA: MDRC.
• Čavić, M., Beljin Čavić, M., Horvat, S., Bogdanović, I. & Stanisavljević, J. (2023). The impact of project-based learning in physics education on university students’ motivation to learn and metacognition. Journal of the Institute for Educational Research, 55(2), 275–299. https://doi.org/10.2298/ZIPI2302275C
• Čavić, M. R., Stanisavljević, J. D., Bogdanović, I. Z., Skuban, S. J. & Pavkov-Hrvojević, M. V. (2022). Project-Based Learning of Diffusion and Osmosis: Opinions of Students of Physics and Technology at University of Novi Sad. Sage Open, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211069147
• Danford, G. L. (2006). Project-based learning and international business education. Journal of Teaching in International Business, 18(1), 7-25. https://doi.org/10.1300/J066v18n01_02
• Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Teaching and learning for understanding. In L. Darling-Hammond, B. Barron, P. D. Pearson, A. H. Schoenfeld, E. K. Stage, T. D. Zimmerman, G. N. Cervetti & J. L. Tilson (Eds.), Powerful learning: What we know about teaching for understanding (pp. 11–70). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Frank, M., Lavy, I. & Elata, D. (2003). Implementing the project-based learning approach in an academic engineering course. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13(3), 273-288. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026192113732
• Garrison, D. R. & Akyol, Z. (2015). Toward the development of a metacognition construct for communities of inquiry. The Internet and Higher Education, 24, 66-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.11.005
• Gopalan, V., Bakar, J. A. A., Zulkifli, A. N., Alwi, A. & Mat, R. C. (2017, October). A review of the motivation theories in learning. In Aip conference proceedings (Vol. 1891, No. 1). AIP Publishing.
• Grant, M. M. (2002). Getting a grip on project-based learning: theory, cases and recommendations. Meridian: A Middle School Computer Technologies Journal, 5(1), 1-17.
• Griethuijsen, R. A. L. F. van, Eijck, M. W. van, Haste, H., Brok, P. J. den, Skinner, N. C., Mansour, N., Gencer, A. S. & BouJaoude, S. (2015). Global patterns in students’ views of science and interest in science. Research in Science Education, 45(4), 581–603.  doi:10.1007/s11165-014-9438-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9438-6
• Hanney, R. & Savin-Baden, M. (2013). The problem of projects: understanding the theoretical underpinnings of project-led PBL. London Review of Education, 11(1), 7-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/14748460.2012.761816
• Harmer, N. & Stokes, A. (2014). The benefits and challenges of project-based learning, a review of literature. Plymouth, MA: Pedagogic Research Institute and Observatory (PedRIO).
• Heering, P. & Höttecke, D. (2014). Historical-investigative approaches in science teaching. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 1473-1502). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7654-8_46
• 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. Educational Technology & Society, 15(4), 368–379.
• Jacobs, H. H. (1989). The growing need for interdisciplinary curriculum content. Interdisciplinary curriculum: Design and implementation, 1-11.
• Kankaraš, M. (2004). Metacognition: A new cognitive paradigm. Psihologija, 37(2), 149-161. https://doi.org/10.2298/PSI0402149K
• Kilpatrick, W. H. (1918). The Project Method: The Use of the Purposeful Act in the Educative Process. Teachers College Record, 19(4), 319-335.
• Kodžopeljić, J. & Pekić, J. (2017). Psihologija u nastavi: odabrane teme iz psihologije obrazovanja-udžbenik za studente nastavničkih grupa. Filozofski fakultet, Novi Sad.
• Krajcik, J. S. & Shin, N. (2014). Project-based learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Lacambra, W. T. (2016). Students’ academic performance in physics 1: basis for teaching and learning enhancement. Research on Humanities and Social Sciences, 6(4), 78-84.
• Lalić-Vučetić, N. (2015). Postupci nastavnika u razvijanju motivacije učenika za učenje (doktorska disertacija). Beograd: Filozofski fakultet.
• Lehmann, M., Christensen, P., Du, X. & Thrane, M. (2008). Problem-oriented and project-based learning (POPBL) as an innovative learning strategy for sustainable development in engineering education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 33(3), 283-295. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043790802088566
• Ma, H., Fulmer, G. W. & Liang, L. L. (2017). Science teaching practices in junior secondary schools. In L. L. Liang, X. Liu & G. W. Fulmer (Eds), Chinese Science Education in the 21st Century: Policy, Practice, and Research, (pp. 85-100). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9864-8_4
• Mansilla, V. B. & Duraising, E. D. (2007). Targeted assessment of students’ interdisciplinary work: An empirically grounded framework proposed. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(2), 215-237. https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2007.0008
• Mirkov, S. (2006). Metakognicija u obrazovnom procesu. Zbornik Instituta za pedagoška istraživanja, 1, 7-24. https://dx.doi.org/10.2298/ZIPI0601007M
• Payoungkiattikun, W., Intanin, A., Thongsuk, T. & Hemtasin, C. (2022). Project-Based Learning Model to Promote Preservice Science Teachers’ Metacognitive Skills. Journal of Educational Issues, 8(2), 576. https://doi.org/10.5296/jei.v8i2.20282
• Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory into practice, 41(4), 219-225.
• Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitionsand new directions. Contemporary educational psychology, 25(1), 54-67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
• Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: definitions and distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1), 9-20. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1002
• Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J. & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science education: Metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in Science Education, 36(1-2), 111-139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-005-3917-8
• Schraw, G. & Dennison, R.S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 460–475. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1994.1033
• Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. Autodesk Foundation. http://www.autodesk.com/foundation/news/pblpaper.htm
• Tohidi, H. & Jabbari, M. M. (2012). The effects of motivation in education. Procedia-social and behavioral Sciences, 31, 820-824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.148
• Tuan, H. L., Chin, C. C. & Shyang, S. H. (2005). The development of a questionnaire to measure student’s motivation towards science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 27(6), 639–654. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069042000323737
• Veenman, M. V., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and learning, 1, 3-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-006-6893-0
• Vilotijević, M. & Vilotijević, N. (2016). Modeli razvijajuće nastave II. Učiteljski fakultet, Beograd
• Voogt, J., Erstad, O., Dede, C. & Mishra, P. (2013). Challenges to learning and schooling in the digital networked world of the 21st century. Journal of computer assisted learning, 29(5), 403-413. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12029
• Žerovnik, A. & Nančovska Šerbec, I. (2021). Project-based learning in higher education. Technology Supported Active Learning: Student-Centered Approaches, 31-57. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2082-9_3