IEE REVIEW

Undergraduate projects andtheir assessment

J. Allison, B.Sc.(Eng.), Ph.D., C.Eng., F.I.E.E., andProf. F.A. Benson, D.Eng., Ph.D., C.Eng., F.I.E.E., D.L.

Indexing term: Education and training

Abstract: Undergraduate projects are now generally regarded as forming an essential part of degree educationfor engineers. The authors have made a wide study of the objectives, strategies of conduct and particularlymethods of assessing final-year undergraduate projects mainly, but not entirely, in electronic and electricalengineering. Information has been obtained from most British university and polytechnic electronic and electri-cal engineering departments, and a wide variety of departments in other disciplines. Views have also beensought from the Open University, the Council for National Academic Awards and the Institution of ElectricalEngineers. The findings are reported here and a critical evaluation of project work and assessment methods ismade.

1 Introduction

Most engineering degree courses in universities and poly-technics include some form of project work for final-yearundergraduates, usually of an experimental nature and cul-minating in the submission of a fairly lengthy formalreport. Of the sixty or so institutions included in oursurvey, all had some sort of final-year project. The projectnormally accounts for between a tenth and a quarter of thetotal marks allocated, but in some departments it is muchmore, up to around 45%, so its assessment can stronglyinfluence the award made, either in the class of honoursdegree or at the pass-fail level.

Difficulties of assessment arise because of the widerange of topics studied, the extent of the resources whichcan be made available to any individual student and,perhaps most important of all, the variation in the abilities,enthusiasm, motivation and powers of assessment of therelatively large number of academic staff involved assupervisors. Another complication arises if project topicsare broadened, which is a growing tendency, to includedesign exercises, extensive computational work or eco-nomic and social problems which do not involve experi-mental methods or techniques.

In an attempt to improve this chaotic situation, muchthought has been given by the authors and others tomethods of assessment and, in particular, to ways ofachieving uniformity of marking in a department wheremany members of staff are acting as supervisors. It is gen-erally agreed that assessment of projects is difficult andmost departments are continuously attempting to reform.The accuracy of marking required depends on the weight-ing of the project in the final-degree assessment. In somecases, the project work may only have to reach a satisfac-tory standard; in others, candidates for a first-classhonours degree may be faced with the double hurdle ofhaving to achieve a first-class mark both in examinationsand for the project. A set of objectives for project work isnow frequently drawn up, and assessment usually involvescontinuous or accumulative assessment by the supervisorand probably others, plus an end-of-course assessment viathe report. Some universities issue project specificationsand then ask students to submit reports outlining how theproblems are to be tackled.

Paper 2781A, received in final form 5th September 1983. Commissioned IEE reviewThe authors are with the Department of Electronic & Electrical Engineering, Uni-versity of Sheffield, Sheffield SI 3JD, England

402

The authors have made an extensive study of the objec-tives, strategies of conduct and particularly methods ofassessing final-year projects. Information has beenobtained from a wide variety of sources. The results of theinvestigation are presented here, together with a criticalevaluation of project assessment, following a few generalcomments on principles of learning and attractions of theproject method.

2 Some principles of learning and attractions ofthe project method

In 1961 Saupe [1] gave a list of axioms relating to theprinciples of learning in higher education. These are asfollows:

(a) learning is the process by which experience developsnew, and reorganises old, responses

(b) without appropriate readiness a learning experiencewill be inefficient and learning will not occur

(c) learning proceeds much more rapidly, and is retainedmuch longer, when that which has to be learned possessesmeaning, organisation and structure

(d) the learner learns only what he himself does(e) only those responses which are learned are confirmed(/) transfer can only occur when there is a recognised

similarity between the learning situation and the transfersituation

(g) transfer will occur to the extent that students expectit to occur

(h) knowledge of a model(s) of problem finding andsolving, or aspects of critical thinking, can contribute to itsimprovement.

Within his discussion, Saupe used such terms as motiva-tion, creativity and critical thinking, which are commonjargon among teachers in higher education.

Heywood [2] has considered these principles in thelight of results of various, more recent, investigations. Analternative approach would have been for him to compareinstructional techniques in the degree that they achievedthese learning objectives. Shulman [3], however, hasundertaken this task for guided and discovery learning andcame to similar conclusions. He also makes the point thatwhile there is substantial agreement about the goals oflearning as expressed in lists like Saupe's, psychologists areby no means agreed about the techniques which willobtain them. Shulman, moreover, has shown that the dif-ferences between such authorities as Ausubel [4], Bruner

IEE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 130, Pt. A, No. 8, NOVEMBER 1983

[5] and Gagne [6] originate in different epistemologicalpositions. It is not, however, the purpose of this paper toreview research on instructional procedures in any detail,since this is done most adequately by Shulman and themany other authorities who have written on higher educa-tion.

The principles of learning, as they relate to criticalthinking and the transfer of learning, have been discussedby Heywood [2]. He has illustrated with a number ofexamples the need to relate teaching and learning stra-tegies to assessment procedures if they are to help studentsdevelop the skills of learning.

Saupe [1] suggested that a knowledge of the steps ofproblem solving aids the development of critical thinking.The particular steps he suggested are:

(a) ability to recognise the existence of a problem(b) ability to define the problem(c) ability to select information pertinent to the problem(d) ability to recognise assumptions bearing on the

problem(e) ability to make relevant hypotheses(/) ability to draw conclusions validly from assump-

tions, hypotheses and pertinent information(g) ability to judge the validity of the processes leading

to the conclusion(h) ability to evaluate a conclusion in terms of its assess-

ment.

Heywood [2] says: 'It will be seen that these steps arelittle different from those required for project procedures inengineering science'.

Various aspects of motivation have been considered byHeywood [2]. The variety of attitudes held by teachersabout students, he says, can be explained by the particularassumptions they hold about the factors which motivateindividuals to learn. In the light of recent research in suchthings as personality, emotional needs, interests, relevance,types of course and learning strategies Heywood pointsout that simple assumptions about the influence of teach-ing on motivation and the drive of the learner are nolonger tenable. The interaction between teaching andlearning styles may create a climate within a course whicheither enhances or retards learning.

Projects methods are attractive, not only because theymake learning active, rather than passive, but also becausethey make the student responsible for his own education[7]. Many teachers in higher education are becomingincreasingly uneasy about the 'de haut en bas' postureimplied by many traditional teaching techniques. Projectmethods, as discussed in Section 4, depend upon arelationship of co-operation between teacher and student;consideration is given to the implication of this relation-ship for the selection, conduct and assessment of projects,because higher education is believed to be not only ameans to some other end (of acquiring knowledge, qualifi-cations, etc.) but also an end in itself; one involving humantransactions of a complex and rewarding kind [7].

Project methods provide one way in which knowledgefrom different disciplinary traditions can be combined.They allow a student to broaden his education beyond theconception of his tutors, giving scope for inventiveness andoriginality [7]. Project methods also allow a student tolook deeply into a field of knowledge. Because this is pre-cisely what a university teacher is expected to do (in hisresearch), it is not unusual for the common quest to gener-ate tremendous interest in both teachers and students. If,for example, a teacher guides a student towards a projectin the field of his own personal research, opportunities for

discussion between teacher and student multiply. The aca-demic approach to knowledge can be made explicitly, andthrough project methods a student can become deeplyinterested in the technique through which knowledge isgenerated and handled [7].

Projects offer considerable flexibility in higher educa-tion [7]. Not only do they recognise the different speedswith which students study (acknowledging that some stu-dents, for example, think deeply but not quickly, a qualitynot recognised by traditional three-hour examinations),they also recognise different interests and personal motiva-tions in study.

Project work, like other forms of discovery learning, hasthe advantages claimed for such learning by Belbin [8]:(a) it enables the trainee to build up his own concepts(b) it is found to be more effective when judged by theability to apply what has been learned in a new setting(c) it is singularly free from failure of both attention andretention. Adults understand better when we refrain fromexplanation since they prefer to explain things to them-selves, and they remember better when they are free of thestrain of remembering.

Adderley et al. [7] state that perhaps because projectsare complex, open-ended activities, their effectiveness hasnot been thoroughly researched. It is, however, possible toarrive at an idea of what part projects play in the curric-ulum because project methods overlap with some methodswhich have been well researched and contrast with others.A brief comparison of the advantages and disadvantages ofproject and other methods of teaching has therefore beenpresented [7] to help a teacher to choose the best com-bination.

3 Projects and their characteristics

A project has been defined by Good [9] as 'a significant,practical unit of activity having educational value andaimed at one or more definite goals of understanding;involves investigation and solution of problems and, fre-quently, the use and manipulation of physical materials;planned and carried to completion by the pupils andteacher in a natural "real-life" manner'. Adderley et al. [7]stress that not all projects in higher education involve themanipulation of physical materials but list the followingcharacteristics which projects commonly have:

(a) they involve the solution of a problem often, thoughnot necessarily, set by the student himself

(b) they involve initiative by the student or group ofstudents and necessitate a variety of educational activities

(c) they commonly result in an end product (thesis, dis-sertation, report, dossier, design plans, computer program,model, oral report)

(d) work often goes on for a considerable length of timethough the time span may range from a single afternoon tothree years!

(e) teaching staff are involved in an advisory rather thanan authoritarian role at any or all of the stages of initi-ation, conduct and conclusion.

These authors [7] have presented a brief historicalsketch of the development of the project method, includingthe massive influence of Dewey [10] on the domination ofeducational theory in the United States during the earlyyears of the 20th century. They also mention Kilpatrick'simportant paper [11] which gave the first systematicaccount and rationale of the project method, comment onone of the earliest books on the subject by a British author

IEE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 130, Pi. A, No. 8, NOVEMBER 1983 403

[12] and point out that a small number of British uni-versity departments were using the project method as earlyas the 1920s. Adderley et al. [7] also list the merits anddemerits of individually based projects as shown in Table1. Some of these are debatable, such as point (iii) under'Disadvantages and problems'. It may also be argued thatindividually based projects do not usually develop lead-ership qualities as is claimed in point (viii) under 'Advan-tages'. One might have expected to find under thedisadvantages column a reference to the lack of team expe-rience, a factor which will be mentioned again briefly laterin connection with group projects. Point (vi) under thedemerits heading leads to the question, must project workbe assessed?, and arguments for assessment are given inSection 5.

Table 1 : Merits and demerits of individually-based projects

Advantages Disadvantages and problems

(i) The one-to-one teacher/ (i)student relationship andthe topic-based project (ii)offer great opportunities toplan a programme thatmeets the needs and theability of the student (iii)

(ii) This movement towardsjoint planning develops amarked attitude in the (iv)student towards sharingthe responsibility for plan-ning his education

(iii) The teaching flexibility in (v)this situation is similar tothat in the one-to-onetutorial

(iv) Teaching materials, spe-cially related to the talentsand ability of the student,can be used without theconcern or need to providethese materials for anumber of students

(v) The supervisor systemallows the speed of (vi)progress to be adjustedautomatically and naturallyto the abilities of thestudent

(vi) The one-to-one situationprovides the greatestopportunity for the studentto delve and question andchallenge, thus creatingthe optimum teaching/learning environment

(vii) Provides a means of bothassessment and teaching

(viii) Develops the higher-ordereducational objectivesspecified in e.g. the Halereport and Robbins; think-ing for oneself, resource-fulness, initiative, thecreative process, lead-ership, responsibility, etc.

The method is costly interms of teaching timePersonality clashesbetween teacher andstudent can be an obstacleto progressIt is probably of greatestadvantage to the most ablestudentsThere is the problem ofselecting the project topicsand judging the relativedifficulty of theseThere are great difficultiesin selecting assessmentprocedures. These includedeciding what factorsshould form the basis ofassessment and their rela-tive weighting, and decid-ing on the techniques ofmeasurement, e.g. pass/failbasis, five-point scale,overall percentage mark,etc.Assessment may offset theadvantages of feedback

The conference in Reference 13 was organised aroundthree major themes:

(a) the aims and role of project work within the conven-tional undergraduate physics curriculum

(b) putting project work into practice; ways in which itcan be planned, organised and evaluated

(c) the wider possibilities and issues; the more extensiveuse of projects and project-based courses.

The conference report [13] contains a wealth of informa-tion. The proceedings of an international seminar onproject orientation in higher education in science [14] arealso most useful.

Cornwall [15-18] has written extensively on projects.His main theme has been the need for more explicit struc-turing of the activities of students in project work. Hestates that in one sense the most unsatisfactory aspect ofconventional projects is their uniqueness, and, closelyrelated to this, the arbitrary and fortuitous way in whichstudents are expected to pick up the various skills associ-ated with research-like activity [15-18]. The developmentof a project can be divided broadly into three stages: plan-ning, carrying out and reporting. Within each of the stagescertain skills and knowledge that are necessary, or at leasthighly desirable, for competent performance can easily bedistinguished. Many students do indeed 'pick up' theseskills, but the process is a rather hit-and-miss affair, subjectto the unpredictable and difficult-to control vagaries of atypical project. The difficulty of the problems of acces-sibility of the literature, the student's prior knowledge ofthe specific topic, his special interests and practical com-petence are just a few of the variables. Above all, therelationship between the tutor and the student and thequality of the tutorial supervision are probably the mostimportant and intangible parameters.

The associated knowledge and skills with each phase ofa scientific project are not those which can be assumed tobe acquired by students during a conventional lecture-/laboratory-based course [14-17]. Certainly, students douse libraries, perform laboratory experiments and writereports during their studies, but the abilities of students inthese respects as they enter the final year of a degreecourse often leave much to be desired. Some third-yearstudents have difficulty in seeking out a specified reference,and have only a vague awareness of the existence ofabstracting journals or how to use them. First drafts ofproject reports frequently indicate little knowledge of thestandard conventions of giving references or of writing anabstract. The final report submitted to an external exam-iner can often reflect more the editing and 'polishing' skillsof the supervisor than the communication skills of thestudent [15-18].

An obvious improvement would be the introduction otformal instruction in the skills needed, but it is generallybelieved that this should not be in the form of didacticteaching sessions (even more lectures) as a preliminary toproject work. Guides to the library, courses on scientificmethod, lectures on communication, handouts on how towrite reports and the like may have little impact, and'workshops' on the use of libraries, on report writing, etc.,alongside of, and as an integral part of, the projects them-selves are advocated [15-18]. The idea can be extended toinclude workshops on, say, the stimulation of creativityand on scientific reasoning and problem-solving, and it isargued [15-18] that the knowledge and skills students areintended to develop for project work could be introducedat an earlier stage of the course as part of 'preparatory'projects.

About a quarter of the Open University's (OU) coursesin 1976 contained projects. A project study group initiateda research programme aimed at collecting and collatingviews of project work based on experience with projects inOU courses. The findings and recommendations have beenpublished [19] and guidelines for designing OU projectwork and the educational value of projects have been dis-cussed [20].

The Council for National Academic Awards (CNAA)

404 IEE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 130, Pt. A, No. 8, NOVEMBER 1983

[21] strongly encourages the inclusion of project work,particularly in honours courses, but does not offer anygeneral guidance on their assessment or weighting, prefer-ring to leave it to boards in particular subject areas todevelop their own ideas. In electrical engineering, forexample, the board would be surprised to see a contribu-tion to the final assessment from the project of more than30%, whereas there are courses in architecture whereproject work can be 100% of the final assessment.

The CNAA's Electrical Engineering Board regards amajor individual project as an essential component of allits approved degree courses, and a review of this work is amajor factor taken into account by the Board on arenewal-of-approval visit. Although the majority of final-year projects in CNAA electrical engineering degreecourses are timetables on one day a week for most of thefinal year (or for two terms), there are several cases wherethe project is carried out in a block in the summer termafter completion of examinations.

The Accreditation Committee of the Institution of Elec-trical Engineers also pays a good deal of attention to therole and amount of project work in degree courses and tothe assessment procedures.

Group-project work is sometimes undertaken. Sims[22] points out that this may take the form of systemsprojects where a task, for example the design of a seaportsystem, is set for a group who will then go away, assess thesituation, prepare a specification and decide what kinds ofradar and computer facilities are necessary in the light ofthe shipping movements which occur, personnel cost andavailability, and so on. Sims [22] states: 'Most engineerswill need to exercise different skills at different times oftheir lives, and for the individual, unless he is one of thefew who remains "at the bench throughout his career", hewill need to be able to encompass an increasingly broaderrange of disciplines as his life matures. It is essential, there-fore, that his initial education should be one that opens hiseyes to the implications of greater breadth andresponsibility, rather than blinkering his vision in a waywhich is only appropriate to relatively narrow "design-function" considerations, which should perhaps be seenmore as the province of the skilled technician'. Sims alsobelieves that group projects encourage people to work as ateam, introduce students to the responsibilities of lead-ership and to think in the wider terms which he has arguedare necessary later in life.

All engineers are asked to work within an interdisciplin-ary group at some time during their careers. This groupmay be a project team, a committee or a department. Inorder to better prepare an engineer for such an experienceRiley [23] has presented a description of what to expectfrom an interdisciplinary study of a system. He has dis-cussed the phases encountered by a project team, namely,initial enthusiasm, data gathering, group divergence, groupconvergence, group panic, group effort and group accom-plishment. The success of the group depends on how theysolve the problems in these phases. The biggestresponsibility lies with the team leader who must providethe proper judgment and guidance as well as understand-ing of human behaviour to aid in avoiding and over-coming the stumbling blocks.

The interdisciplinary makeup of a group results in moregroup divergency while actually strengthening the finaloutput because the group is exposed to the various view-points. Group and personal interactions influence thegroup's functions, but if a professional attitude of thegroup exists, integrity and valid results are of concern tothe group.

The team-project process is an important procedure bywhich many persons and organisations can gain [24]. Thegroup can provide a lot of data collection and analyses aswell as giving a critical look at its own output [25]. Sinceengineers are expected to function in such an environmentRiley [23] thinks it is wise to incorporate such an experi-ence during their academic education.

It is possible to set group projects on topics completelydivorced from the specialised subject areas of the course,such as is done at Imperial College by students of electricalengineering [18, 26]. The aims of socio-technical projectsin engineering have been described by Goodlad [27] whohas also given some examples of such projects, discussedfactors affecting their success and commented on how theyshould be assessed.

In the present study the authors have been concernedonly with large-scale projects running for one or two termsand which are usually carried out during the final year ofthe degree course.

4 Aims and objectives of project work

A satisfactory degree course in electronic and electricalengineering should set out to [28]:

(a) develop a critical approach to the definition and sol-ution of scientific and engineering problems

(b) develop the student's capacity to learn by his ownresources

(c) provide a sound knowledge of the scientific prin-ciples underlying any chosen field of technology

(d) provide some knowledge of current practice, includ-ing design, at a suitably advanced level

(e) introduce the student to the sociological implicationsof his work

(/) develop the latent individual character of the student(g) encourage facility in oral and written expression.

Evidently, project work will satisfy most of these require-ments.

Much laboratory work in the first two years of a degreecourse has well defined, but limited, objectives: to teachexperimental techniques, introduce students to a range ofmeasurements, illustrate principles and reveal the differ-ence between theory and practice. Although open-endedlaboratory schemes exist, the experiments are often limitedin scope, are reasonably predictable and have a definitetime scale. The drawbacks are that restraints are unreal;the initial evaluation and experimental solution are carriedout by. the staff and not by students, and if things go.wrong there is existing textbook knowledge and thecorrect answer available somewhere. It is now well estab-lished that in all learning situations the best learningoccurs when the student is actively involved and is not apassive absorber of transmitted knowledge. That is whymost laboratory work in the final year of a degree course ison a project basis whatever its length. Project work doesnot have to wait until the final year and many departmentsuse small-scale projects of short duration (often 5 to 20hours) during earlier years, the aims of which are much lessdemanding.

In fact, as Cornwall [15-18] points out, there does notseem to be any logical reason why students should beassumed to become able to benefit from project work onlyafter the end of the second year of a degree course, and, asmentioned in Section 3, he has suggested 'preparatory'projects in earlier years to develop knowledge and skillsrequired later. He has also proposed the replacement ofsome laboratory practicals in earlier years by genuine pro-

IEE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 130, Pt. A, No. 8, NOVEMBER 1983 405

jects, or the giving over of some time devoted to lectures toproject work because of the enthusiasm and interest stu-dents invest in projects.

In view of the importance attached to final-year projectwork in the University of Lagos an attempt to improve itsquality was made in the Department of Electrical Engi-neering by introducing project work much earlier in thedegree course and thereby providing proper laboratorytraining prior to the final year [29]. Four projects wereincluded in the second-year laboratory work which wasdivided into four groups. The student was informed at thebeginning that each group of experiments would be fol-lowed by a project. Usually the project was given aboutmid-way through the group; this enabled the student tostart thinking about the problem and also motivated himto be more careful with the laboratory work. The schemehas produced significant improvement in the final-yearindependent work, and student reaction to the scheme isencouraging.

It has been stated that 'Until the objectives have beendefined clearly, no assessment process can be meaningful'[30, 31]. A few of the aims of final-year undergraduateprojects, previously given by one of the authors [32] arelisted below, some of which overlap.

(a) to give students experience of(i) experimental techniques and analysis of experimental

results(ii) practical constraints, e.g. time and resources avail-

able(iii) matching theoretical knowledge to practical situ-

ations and comparing results with those achieved else-where in order to establish or question them

(iv) problem-solving techniques(v) an in-depth theoretical study(vi) detailed design(vii) conceptual design(viii) preparing detailed reports of their own work,

writing briefly, explicitly and with authority(ix) presenting verbal reports to an audience and reply-

ing to a discussion(b) to improve the student's ability and/or motivation to(i) identify the critical features of a problem(ii) organise his work to meet a specification and a

deadline and adapt to the implications of changes as workproceeds

(iii) stick to an approach and 'worry it to death'(iv) know when the approach is 'dead'(v) survey progress and problems ahead(vi) self-learn(c) to increase a student's self-confidence(d) to assess the student's performance.

Although many of these aims can be satisfied in otherways, projects are of value because they give the student aproblem that is extended, open-ended and often realistic.The student is given a high degree of individualresponsibility for controlling the direction of his work. Hisexperience of experimental work is enlarged, and he isintroduced to the technical literature and to the idea ofdoing a library search. The project also presents thestudent with a useful exercise in writing a fairly extendeddocument which is not a duplication of something that isdone by generation after generation of students.

Many advantages have been claimed for projectmethods over traditional methods in higher education,which has been translated into a list of aims identifyingspecial features of projects [7]. Those who use a projectmethod, either alone or in conjunction with other methods,

do so because it has some or all of the following valuablepurposes:

(a) to encourage students to make their own choice of asubject to study and thus encourage a sense of com-mitment and personal responsibility, rather than employ-ing the ritual performance of a task where the onlyresponsibility is seen as meeting the tutor's requirements

(b) to give students practice in learning by undertakinga piece of personal research involving activities such asplanning the work, hunting out resources, collectingmaterial, selecting from it and deciding on presentation,rather than undertaking set exercises requiring a minimumof personal initiative and organisation

(c) to enable students to experience the satisfaction ofworking on a complex task over a period of time with thepossiblity of producing a result of permanent value andinterest to themselves and others rather than unconnectedexercises which, however conscientiously performed, rarelylead to any but throw-away results

(d) to provide scope for a degree of co-operation amongstudents in an atmosphere of emulation rather thanrestraint, implied by purely private work in which com-petition with others takes precedence over the intrinisiccharacter of the work itself

(e) to provide opportunities for the practice of commu-nication skills in a framework where language is used in anumber of ways for real communication: seeking informa-tion, oral and written reporting, discussing, synthesising,revising and editing, etc. rather than a 'dummy run' wherelanguage is being used not to communicate information,but to tell the tutor what he already knows merely todemonstrate that the student knows it too (something thetutor probably told the student in the first place).

A more systematic classification of what are consideredto be some important aims of projects [7] is given in thefollowing Sections.

4.1 InvolvementAt its best the project method is characterised by highlevels of student activity, interest, enthusiasm, commitmentand satisfaction. It therefore aims to enable the student

(a) to commit himself wholeheartedly to a piece of workby allowing him to make his own choice of a study topicusually from a list of suggestions made by academic staff

(b) to select, realistically wherever possible, areas withinwhich he can work

(c) to take responsibility for making decisions which hemust later justify

(d) to engender enthusiasm for the work being done(e) to gain satisfaction in meeting a challenge over a

period of time and producing a result of permanent valueand interest to himself and others

(/) to be creative, or to develop ideas based on a knowl-edge of the topics and/or on a study of its literature.

4.2 Skills for individual workA university graduate is expected to be able to think andwork independently. Specific aims will be to develop thestudent's ability

(a) to recognise a problem or task(b) to define a problem or task(c) to solve a problem or task.

The third of these breaks down into discrete steps whichare largely governed by the methodology of the subject.The process of solving most final-year projects will developthe student's ability

406 IEE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 130, Pt. A, No. 8, NOVEMBER 1983

(i) to use his initiative and resourcefulness(ii) to plan his work(iii) to analyse the factors involved in solving a problem

noting any interdependencies or constraints(iv) to hunt out sources, collecting data or materials in a

systematic manner(v) to select relevant material and reject the remainder(vi) to generate material or data by making investiga-

tions and analysing the results(vii) to synthesise his findings and formulate conclusions(viii) to integrate data from a number of sources(ix) to be critical(x) to use his commonsense, e.g. to be realistic in seeking

further advice or knowing when to stop(xi) to present his findings in an appropriate form and

to communicate them clearly.

4.3 Skills for group workWhilst the graduate is expected to demonstrate a degree ofindependence in his professional activities, these activitieswill almost always involve other people. Project work willthus aim to develop the student's ability

(a) to cooperate with others(b) to manage people and direct the operations they

perform(c) to participate in discussion and to share in decision-

making processes(d) to exercise tact and diplomacy.

4.4 Skills for communicationOpportunities for practising communication skills can bepresented to the student through a variety of activitieswithin the overall framework of the project, which encour-age the student to think and write clearly as well as com-municating effectively by word of mouth.

In scientific and technological areas, the ability to arguelogically is intrinsic to the subject's methodology, but it istoo often forgotten that the ability to communicate anidea, a theory, a design, or the findings of an investigationis not only of great practical importance, but also essentialto the fullest understanding of the principles or conceptsinvolved. This characteristic of the project method caneasily be lost sight of by staff as well as students where alarge part of the time is spent analysing numerical dataand solving problems mathematically. Specific aims in thisarea would be

(a) to develop oral skills by argument and discussionwith colleagues and supervisor

(b) to develop written and organisational skills by dis-cussing the problem (together with any limitations of thesolution) clearly, logically and cogently in a formal reportof a type published in the technical press.

4.5 KnowledgeDuring the early stages of his project, the student probablylearns how to make a systematic search of the literatureand all other source materials.

He acquires knowledge of his topic, of devices used inhis chosen area of study and of the means by which furtherdata are normally obtained in that discipline. The specificaims here are

(a) to become familiar with the methodology of hissubject and with certain devices, such as the computer, orconceptual tools, such as statistical analysis, which he willneed to use after graduation

(b) to deepen his understanding of his subject(c) to become familiar with a number of facts, views or

situations, etc.

(d) to become aware of the costs of or constraints onsolving problems in terms of time, materials, labour, over-heads etc.

(e) to learn to locate and use the literature of his subject(/) to acquire factual knowledge relating to his subject

(particularly in areas where ready recall may be relativelymore important than ability to use reference sources).

4.6 Personal developmentA common thread running through the above specific aimsis the development of personal qualities such as resource-fulness, self-confidence, clear thinking and the ability towork with others.

Adderley et al. [7] mention some specific criticisms ofproject work including reservations arising from a small-scale survey by Harding [33, 34]. Not everyone regardsprojects as an unmixed blessing. Though they certainlyarouse the student's enthusiasm, the experience gained bya student on a project may be rather narrow and special-ised compared with the broader experience of phenomenaand of equipment he would acquire in set experiments.

Bowron [35] has stated that perhaps the most impor-tant single exercise in an electrical engineering under-graduate degree course is the project investigation in thefinal year. This satisfies, in his view, a two-fold purpose, i.e.to provide

(a) a learning situation [33], essentially bridging the gap[36] between structured academic courses and the open-ended nature of research and development work, in prep-aration for a career in professional engineering

(b) an assessment vehicle [33] towards the classificationof degree.

While doubts have been expressed regarding the etti-ciency of learning and testing simultaneously, Bowron [35]considers that there is no better means of motivating stu-dents to acquire practical and investigative skills.

Bowron's first purpose stated above can be criticisedbecause professional engineering is more than research anddevelopment, and some see the emphasis on this aspect asa major weakness of the project activity. Cornwall [15-18]thinks there are two general reasons why the'undergraduate-research' model for project work in engi-neering degree courses is used. First it is believed to be avalid means of developing the abilities of students aspotential academic research workers; secondly, it isthought the skills and abilities fostered by this kind ofactivity have general 'transfer value' into any professionalsituation in which graduates may eventually find them-selves. Evidently, however, the majority of graduates donot enter academic research, and a large proportion do noteven enter employment that explicitly requires their engi-neering qualifications. However, a realistic assessment ofone's own capabilities is an essential qualification for suc-cessful work in almost any profession. The project cantherefore leave the student better equipped to face thechallenges of professional life by helping him to accept hisown limitations and to become aware of when and how toseek advice [7].

A few years ago Cornwall [18] collected together themany different aims for project work mentioned in pub-lications on the subject. He then asked, by means of aquestionnaire, some 15 colleagues in science and tech-nology departments to rate these purported aims in orderof importance [16]. Every aim on the list was indicated, byat least one respondent, as among the three most impor-tant. Indeed, almost everyone added at least one additional

1EE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 130, Pt. A, No. 8, NOVEMBER 1983 407

aim that Cornwall failed to include. The 'top' three aimsturned out to be as follows:

(a) to provide an additional means of assessment(b) to stimulate individual initiative(c) to provide training in the methods of the pro-

fessional scientist/engineer.

The aims and objectives for different types of laboratoryactivity, classified into controlled assignments, experimen-tal investigations and projects have been reviewed byCarter et al. [37]. Controlled assignments are normallyshort laboratory exercises extending over one or possiblytwo periods, devised and controlled by the staff who mayoften issue instruction sheets which direct and constrainthe student's activities, enforce conformity and implicitlygive assurance that compliance with the methods pres-cribed and adherence to the courses of action indicated,will inevitably ensure that the answer required (oftenpredictable) will be achieved.

Experimental investigations are normally longer exer-cises designed by the staff, but which include elements ofchoice and opportunity for student deviation in the pursuitof the prescribed goals; sometimes they take the form ofmore loosely controlled assignments with provocativequestions posed by the staff to encourage extrapolation ortranslation of the information/results obtained to otherassociated situations or problems. Generally, the purposesof experimental investigations are to provide experience inthe discipline and methods of scientific investigation aswell as experience in design and minor development exer-cises in the multisolution situation as preambles to futureexcursions into major projects. Table 2 lists some of theobjectives which may be achieved by experimental investi-gations.

Table 2: Objectives of experimental investigations [37]

To enourage the understanding of, and ability to define precisely,those questions which require to be answered

To foster the ability to determine what measurements will be requiredTo ensure that the students may gain confidence in the selection of

the appropriate apparatus and strategies required to obtain suchmeasurements

To promote initiative in the ability to select the correct measurementsand to arrange them in such a form as will give precise answers tothe questions posed

To inculcate an intelligent appraisal on a proper assessment of thesignificance of the results obtained

Carter et al. [37] state that a project is an attempt tosolve a practical problem and to assess the effectiveness ofa solution to it within the limitations of time, materialresources and experience available. Students may workindividually, in pairs, or as members of a project teameither designing, constructing and testing a device orsystem, or considering the designing, conducting and theevaluation of the results of an investigation or feasibilitystudy. The project method appears to be the logical conse-quence of the endeavour to involve the student emotion-ally, retain his interest and help him to identify the exercisewith the engineering field as well as exposing him to thedemands, stresses and realities of the industrial scene.

Table 3 indicates some of the objectives which Carter etal. [37] thought may be achieved by projects, additional tothose listed in Table 2.

These authors [37] also gave a more extensive list ofthe overall objectives which represents a wider selectiondrawn from a number of sources. The list is reproduced inTable 4 with the references to the sources.

Carter and Lee [60] tried to obtain a wide view of atti-

408

Table 3: Objectives of Projects [37]

To enable the student to appreciate better the existence of a problemcapable of solution and the extent and nature of the likely scale oftime and material resources required for such a solution

To demonstrate the greater range of thought that is necessary indetermining the possible solutions to the problem, as well as theextent of the difficulties which intervene

To underline the crucial role that decision making assumes in suchexercises

To develop and improve interpersonal relations and the social skillsessential for successful coordinated corporate activity

To demonstrate the depth of constructive criticism required, of boththe solution adopted and the methods used

tudes to and practices in undergraduate electrical-engineering laboratory studies by means of a questionnairesurvey to all departments of electrical and electronic engi-neering in British universities. They found that controlledassignments and experimental investigations predominatein the first and second years of study, during which timeprojects occupy an insignificant amount of time. However,75% of the practical course work in the final year isdevoted to projects. It was concluded from the survey [60]that there still appears to be confusion in the minds ofacademic staff about the aims and objectives and theintended learning outcome of practical studies. Thereappears to be little change too in methods of assessment,and it is suggested some means should be sought to under-line the relation between well defined objectives, theirassociated learning processes and methods of assessmentsuch that the student's actual experience and degree ofemotional involvement could also be the subject of ameaningful assessment, but it is admitted such an activityis no easy task.

According to Anderson [61], reasons why projects havebeen introduced in some mathematics departments are

(a) encouragement to students to develop independencein their work

(b) importance attached to the development of theability to select material, learn skills, organise time, andextract from sources (and supervisors)

(c) satisfaction expressed by students in the mastery ofan individual problem.

Through a project, a student can develop the skills of(a) problem formulation and modification, and model-

ling(b) report writing(c) interpretation and criticism of results.In a report by Hoare [62] important objectives of pro-

jects in chemistry degree courses are thought to be(a) to develop initiative in students who are expected

either to design an experiment or to respond to experimen-tal results by amending the design of experiments. At somestage students are expected to propose the course of theexperimental work or experimental detail for its accom-plishment

(b) to give students experience of research-, ordevelopment-, type problems, i.e. the analysis of previouswork, the design of experiments and the interpretation oftheir own results. Coupled with this is the hope they willso enjoy the taste of 'real' chemistry, that they will becomebetter motivated students and will see more clearly whythey need the chemical information and practical trainingreceived in their classes

(c) to enable students to communicate their experiencespreferably verbally as well as in a clear written account.The 'writing-up' of research requires skills not properlydeveloped in standard practical classes. In particular,

IEE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 130, Pt. A, No. 8, NOVEMBER 1983

Table 4: A selection of objectives of laboratory studies [37]

Objectives ReferencesTo illustrate, supplement, emphasise and reinforce

material taught in lectures [39, 43, 38, 44]To illustrate topics more readily understood jf

introduced via laboratory studies rather than bymeans of lectures [43, 45]

To achieve familiarity with, and facility in, the useof appropriate materials, techniques and instru-ments [43, 44, 46, 47]

Acquisition of an appreciation of the fact thatpractical results do not necessarily correlatewith the idealised theory [43, 38, 44]

To encourage emotional involvement in thesubject, so resulting in greater personal motiva- [43, 38, 47, 48,tion 49]

To provide the student with a valuable stimulantto independent thinking [39, 40]

To show the use of 'practicals' as a process ofdiscovery [39, 41 ]

To provide training in scientific method of inquiry [42, 38]To provide closer contact between student and

staff, and a means of direct transfer of knowl-edge from the tutor to the student [44, 47]

To stimulate an interest in design [42, 30]To give an appreciation of degrees of accuracy

expected and tolerances [35, 38]Training the student to maintain concise and

accurate records in adequate detail underlaboratory, field or workshop conditions [38, 42, 45]

The development of interpersonal relations andsocial skills essential for co-ordinated corporate [38, 43, 50, 51,activity 52,34]

To simulate conditions of graduate engineeringemployment [48, 53]

To further the ability accurately to define andspecify a problem [41, 42, 34]

To encourage the student to search out appropri-ate literature and other sources of informationrelative to the problem. This involves searchand retrieval and systematic recording of exist-ing information obtained from library, researchreports, professional journals, specifications, [41, 42, 44, 47,records etc. 34]

To inculcate an awareness of the social, eco-nomic and other nonscientific restraintsencountered in engineering problem solving [41, 53, 54, 55]

To encourage critical analysis of relevant and [42, 43, 44, 47,nonrelevant information 41]

To promote synthesis of knowledge from disci-plines associated with the subject area [42, 44]

To nurture an appreciation of the existence of'objective facts' [38]

To encourage investigation of several methods of [41, 42, 43, 56,solution prior to selection of optimum 34]

To encourage decision making on optimised sol-ution strategy [41, 42, 44]

To encourage creative ability and individual ini-tiative in the postulation and development ofoptimised solutions [41, 42, 48, 57]

To encourage a logical procedure towards anoptimised solution [41, 42, 43, 51 ]

To encourage evaluation of solution strategiesand their implications, and to be prepared toreconsider when faced with unsolvable diffi-culties [42, 44]

To generate in the student persistence in the faceof difficulties [46]

To encourage evaluation of final optimised solu-tion in terms of the initial specification and anunderstanding of the implications of the solu-tion [41, 42, 44]

To train the student in the compilation and modeof presentation of a report of methods used,results obtained and conclusions drawn, withappraisal of extrapolations to other problemareas, in a manner which is structured andintelligible, in language clearly comprehensibleto practitioners and nonpractitioners alike, indi- [38, 41, 42, 43,eating the degree to which it is considered the 44, 50, 58,problem has been solved 59]

defence of one's decisions and conclusions is a necessaryattribute to a professional chemist.

Hoare [63] has also reported that project work is carriedout in nearly all chemistry degree courses and normallyoccupies all the student's time in the practical laboratoryduring the final year of the course. In about 80% of theinstitutions only one project is performed, in the rest two.The length of study varies tremendously. It is normal for atyped report to be either advised or mandatory and for theformat to be very similar to a thesis. Reports for short pro-jects may be only 2000 words in length, but maximumlengths of 10000 words or 50 A4 pages have been specified.As with theses, the degree of involvement of the supervisorin the writing of the report varies markedly.

Orr and Stannard [64] argue that the 'process' of engi-neering, as exemplified in a well thought out and com-pleted project, is a vital part of engineering educationwhich is as important as the 'content'. By 'process' ismeant qualities such as logical reasoning ability, creativity,communication skills; all of those attributes which providethe framework which makes technical knowledge andskills ('content') useful for engineering work. One methodof teaching process-oriented skills is the project pro-gramme developed at Worcester Polytechnic Institute inthe USA. Details have been given [64] of the implementa-tion, conduct and results of the project-oriented curric-ulum at the Institute, based on eight years of experience inthe Electrical Engineering Department.

Gault and Snyder [65] believe that project-basedcourses offer one of the greatest education opportunities inan electrical-engineering student's undergraduate curric-ulum. They have found most students begin to worryduring their final undergraudate year that they cannotreally 'do' anything with what they have learned. Theythink the design/project course format provides newopportunity to model the experience the student may findin his first job. A successful experience with this type ofcourse goes a long way towards building a positive self-image in the student with respect to his ability to use hiseducation.

Law [66] has described individual and group designprojects at the University of Idaho; Giordano [67]believes design projects should be a part of undergraduateengineering courses; and Niederjohn and Schmitz [68]show that numerous opportunities for 'educationallyuseful' courses and 'real-life' design projects exist withinthe university environment. Krowne and Covington [69]discuss how technical communications skills can be suc-cessfully taught to students in engineering courses withoutthe expenditure of large amounts of class time if realisticdesign projects and reports are required of them. Designprojects have been commented on by Gorozyca [70] andHoyer, Jong and Stork [71]. Some objectives of projectwork have also been suggested by Brancher [72] and byCarter, Armour, Lee and Sharpies [37]. The aim of a bookby Howard and Sharp [73] is to provide degree anddiploma students and their supervisors with guidance inthe identification of reasearch projects and on how to com-plete them.

5 Assessment

Much has been written and spoken about the value of pro-jects as a method of learning, but rather less is knownabout how one should assess the project work of the stu-dents. What there is, seems to do little more than raisequestions in the mind rather than provide solutions.

IEE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 130, Pt. A, No. 8, NOVEMBER 1983 409

Perhaps this is the most important consideration indevising a project-assessment scheme: that the implica-tions and dangers be recognised at the outset [74].

The difficulties which have been encountered withproject assessment have been reviewed by Adderley et al.[7]. It may seem that, if the aims of project work havebeen clearly stated, assessment should be a relativelysimple matter, but the issue is not quite so easy. Some ofthe specific aims of projects listed earlier do not lend them-selves to simple behavioural measurement. Further, thequestion 'to what extent has the student achieved what heset out to do?' is a complicated one because it has to beexamined in relation to the student's status, the availabilityof time and resources, etc. Since a project normally passesthrough a series of stages, when should the student's per-formance be assessed? In the physical sciences [7] thestages might be: the statement of the hypothesis, the designof the experiment, the planning of time and resources, themethodology and techniques to be used, the apparatus andequipment to be employed, analysis of results and dis-cussion with suggestions for future work.

It has been argued [75] that the lecturer and studentshould establish a 'contract of expectation' at the start ofthe project. The stages and processes through which theproject is expected to pass, and the methods of assessingthem, could then be discussed. This method has the follow-ing advantages [7]:

(a) The student understands his role at the beginning, aswell as the role of his supervisor and other assessors

(b) It acts as a check against the tendency for expecta-tion of both supervisor and student to change during thecourse of the project

(c) It helps the student to plan his activities and thesupervisor to carry out his assessment.

However, although judging the project by the extent towhich the student has achieved what he set out to do isvery important, to use it as the only criterion seems todevalue the project as a learning tool. Subsidiary aims ofthe project may then also be overlooked, matters such aswhether the student has developed or changed or gainedanything in the course of the work [7]. Nevertheless therehave been some systematic attempts to relate assessmentsto aims [7].

Adderley et al. [7] have discussed the question of whatweighting should be given to project work in the finalassessment. Whether or not the effort which a student putsinto project work should contribute directly to his finalqualification depends, or should perhaps depend, on boththe overall course aims and the role in which project workis viewed. If the skills and level of competence the studentis expected to acquire stem from project-style activities,project assessment should play a substantial part in thefinal assessment. If, however, the project is viewed entirelyas a teaching/learning device it could be argued that whatthe student learns through project work will be assessed byexisting methods. A very wide spectrum of practice exists,and it is observed that the more likely the student is toutilise 'project-type' activities in his subsequent career, themore project assessment contributes to the final qualifi-cation [7]. There are two powerful arguments for assessingproject work and having such assessment count towardsthe degree [7]. The first is creditibility, because studentsmay be reluctant to put much effort into activities which,for them, have no tangible outcome in terms of their finalqualification. The second is validity. No assessmentmethod is on its own watertight; it can be argued that avariety of methods of assessment is better than just one or

two, and it is a pity to lose the opportunity of includingproject assessment.

Project assessment is even more vulnerable to 'subjec-tivity' among examiners than are most other forms ofassessment, and the problem should not be underestimated[7]. Methods of attempting to overcome this difficultyinclude having several independent assessments and defin-ing as clearly as possible a system of marking and using adetailed assessment form. Many other problems can arisein project assessment [7], such as what happens when astudent has been too dependent on his supervisor for helpand discussions, or a student meets particular unfore-seeable difficulties like a sudden scarcity of apparatus, orthe absence of his supervisor for part of the session owingto illness or an accident.

Consideration has been given [74] to the followingquestions:

(a) why assess project work?(b) what to assess?(c) who should assess the work?(d) how should the work be assessed?

Three possible reasons for assessing project work are: toprovide a grading, to give incentive and to give feedback.The last item raises the question 'does the project and thereturned assessment come early enough in the proceedingsfor the potential benefits of feedback to be realised?'. Thereis general agreement that a grading, an end result, isdesired by students as well as prospective employers.

There are usually two kinds of activity in typical projectwork. First there is an element of experience and practice,and secondly a tangible result in the form of a report, or acomputer program, or a piece of equipment. The tangibleelement is possibly more straightforward to assess, espe-cially for examiners other than the supervisor. Most tea-chers agree that it is inappropriate to base gradings solelyon the report. Some feel more weight should be given toqualities not assessed by other methods. The nontangible'carrying-out' aspects appear to be more difficult to assess,especially in a quantitative fashion, and one finds in theliterature a great variety of ideas about this. Variations inproject difficulty may cause problems, and another impon-derable as far as objective assessment is concerned may bethe 'dependence-on-supervisor' factor mentioned earlier.

The supervisor is clearly in a strong position tocomment on the student's work, particularly with respectto the 'nontangible' aspects of his performance. The effectsof partiality and involvement could be considered impor-tant, and the likelihood of variations between supervisorsin terms of supervisory practices and standards could callin question the validity, reliability and objectivity of theassessment. Frequently, a supervisor judges a project dif-ferently from a nonsupervisor, and a procedure for resolv-ing conflicts may be necessary. The supervisor may knowthe subject better than others; he knows the sources of thematerial in the report.

For such reasons, it is often thought desirable, as statedabove, to involve others in the assessment, and to agree onscales of marks or lists of criteria in advance. Mostschemes described in the literature appear to agree thatthere is safety in numbers, but it is by no means clear thatthe result is more objective or more reliable: 'these tech-niques only go part way towards solving the problem—inthat they make the subjectivity collective (between theexperts)' [74]. In any case, it seems sensible for examinersto arrive at their respective initial gradings independentlyand uninfluenced by performance in other activities, or, asnoted by Black [75], 'supervisors may be reluctant to give

410 IEE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 130, Pt. A, No. 8, NOVEMBER 1983

high marks precisely because they do not wish the projectto weigh unduly the overall awards of the examiners'.

There is a general feeling that at least two people shouldassess, including the supervisor. The second assessor maybe involved from the beginning, and need not necessarilybe a specialist in the subject area of the project. This isbecause there is merit in the student having to learn toexpress himself not only to specialists but also to laypeople. It is also clear that an examiner, including anexternal examiner, cannot get an overall picture by justreading the project report and asking a few questions on itat an oral.

For obvious practical reasons, the needs of a 'feedback-motivation' assessment scheme will be different from anend-of-session grading. In general, more satisfaction seemsto be expressed with schemes which attempt to assess thestudent's work in a variety of ways, for example, bymarking progress reports in addition to the final report,through oral presentation seminars, by 'site-visits' to theproject or similar.

Forms and 'grading criteria' lists help to establish somekind of common practice, and may be especially useful ifgiven to students at the outset as part of a 'contract ofexpectation' [75]. However, as always, the greatest risk ofsuch formalised procedures is that they begin to acquiretoo much importance and contribute to the pernicious ten-dency towards inflation of expectation in projects. It is feltthat students should be aware of the general markingscheme at the outset, and they should receive help in draft-ing their reports because of their lack of experience in pro-ducing documents of this length.

The relative merits have been outlined* for 'gut' feelingof the grade of a student's project work, compared with thedetailed assignment of marks. Those who have experienceof both tend to agree that the detailed assignment helps tofocus attention on salient merits (or demerits) of thestudent's work, but that in the end they would want it toagree with their 'gut' feeling and this would mean a com-promise between the two. It is, of course, easier to arguewith other examiners on details of assessment than on 'gut'feelings.

Hoare [62] discusses assessment of project work inchemistry degree courses and makes very similar com-ments to those given above. Other points he raises include:

(a) if one is assessing initiative and oral presentation,should not one also teach, or at least give practice in, theuse of such attributes, or abilities?

(b) should the mark distribution for practical work bethe same as for written examinations, because very lowmarks for project work are rare in many institutionsexcept where there is lack of effort?

(c) some staff use project work as a method of extendingtheir research activity, but the projects which are chosenare usually suitable for the learning activities to beincluded to meet the objectives of the project work

(d) it is useful for students to have access to previousreports as a guide to format, and for students to be toldwhat staff will be assessing them on.

Hoare found from his survey [63] on chemistry degreecourses that some students are told in writing the skills orachievements on which they will be assessed, but rarely theweightings given to the different assessments. Terms likeclarity of presentation, evidence of originality and quality,and quantity of research effort, are the norm. Students are,

* General discussion at the workshop mentioned in Reference 74

1EE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 130, Pt. A, No. 8, NOVEMBER 1983

however, usually told the weighting of the project marks indetermining the class of degree obtained (usually about20%). It is unusual for the project to be assessed entirelyby means of a report. Oral examinations are used by abouthalf the institutions, and it is normal for at least two staffto be present. Rarely is the supervisor the only person tocarry out the assessment. Hoare [63] states that stan-dardisation is the biggest problem of assessment of projectwork and the one to which greatest attention is given indevising assessment procedures.

Hoare [63] points out that despite guidance given tostaff, moderation of marks (i.e. changing them!) isoccasionally necessary. Most staff adapt to an agreed stan-dard, but some find it difficult and are either over-generousor over-critical. The survey also showed that most institu-tions allow as free a choice as possible for students in allo-cating projects. Few institutions give guidance or controlstaff in their suggestions for projects, but there appears tobe few problems with unsuitable student projects.

Some of the main issues involved in project assessmenthave been set out in a discussion paper [76] for the 'Nuf-field Group for Research and Innovation in Higher Educa-tion'. The paper states that an undergraduate projectcannot be assessed predominantly in terms of end prod-ucts. More important is an on-going assessment of behav-iour, both intellectual and in terms of higher level skillswhich the student can be expected to have acquired.Topics must be chosen so as to allow the studentopportunities to display the features for which the assessoris looking. Thus it is necessary to have some idea aboutthe stages through which the project might reasonably beexpected to pass and about the corresponding time scale.Allowance must be made for the unexpected, not only interms of dead-ends or failures, but also for originality onthe part of the student leading the work in an unexpecteddirection.

The paper also has a good deal to say on techniques ofassessment. In some cases, well defined objectives arespecified and carefully delineated rating scales compiled foreach. Whilst it is valuable to be clear at the outset whatone is looking for, the more open-ended the project, themore difficult it is to adhere too rigidly to preset condi-tions. The question also arises as to the relative weightingsgiven to the objectives, and whether these might changeduring the course of the project. At a later stage, how is theproject result to be combined with other examinationmarks or course work? Once decisions have been reachedabout objectives and their ratings, the problem of commu-nicating them to both staff and students has to be solved.

Another set of problems concerning the actual processof assessment is considered in the Nuffield Foundationpaper [76]. For example, what physical activity does onelook for in assessing initiative? and how will advice givento the student by his supervisor be taken into accountwhen assessing his initiative or skill in problem solving?Practical matters of this kind may get overlooked infavour of broader, philosophical issues when projectassessment is discussed. The paper also discusses thestudent-supervisor relationship which is critical, and theextent to which they get on together will almost certainlyaffect the student's performance.

Bowron [35] admits that ensuring justice in assessmentis fraught with difficulties owing to the multidimensionalvariables involved, but he outlines the advantages accruedby increased objectivity in both the conduct and markingof the project work. He has also compared project markswith final-year option examination results over a period often years.

411

The Electrical Engineering Board of the CNAA expects[21] to see the method of assessment of projects clearlylaid out. This usually involves a contribution from contin-uous assessment by the project supervisor, formal benchassessment and thesis assessment and in many cases anassessment derived from an oral presentation of the workby the student. It is usual for the thesis to be assessed by asecond member of staff as well as the supervisor and ofteninvolves the external examiner.

Assessment procedures in OU project courses have beenoutlined by Crooks, Henry and Morgan [77]. A finalreport of a project-marking study undertaken by the OUin 1978 [78] has interesting conclusions, including exis-tence of unreliability of grade, that tutors are extremelyloth to fail students' projects as they represent such aninvestment of effort, knowledge of the student which onlythe course tutor had did affect the grade and tutors'specialisms influenced their perception of particular pro-jects.

Another OU booklet of guidelines [79] states, 'We areanxious that the pressure of assessment does not prevent astudent asking for help. If you can assure students that anyrequests for help, through discussion or tutorials, on thetelephone or by letter will in no way affect their assess-ment, then we may overcome their reluctance to discusstheir uncertainties before it is too late'.

Bailey et al. [30, 31] have mentioned their experiencewith a design course in electronics which was assessed inpart by marking each of the circuit designs completedperiodically throughout the year by the students. The stu-dents' natural motivation towards the subject, coupledwith the knowledge that all their efforts were being assess-ed, led to a situation where students spent an excessiveamount of time on this subject and steps had to be takento curtail their enthusiasm. Many will have experiencedthe same problem with project work.

Assessment of student projects has been considered byBenson [32] and other authors [2, 37, 80, 81, 82]. Some ofthe major issues which are raised by project assessment areexamined by Carter et al. [37] and one detailed scheme isdiscussed [74]. Harris and Dowdeswell [80] survey fivemethods of assessing projects, strategies being suggestedfor each. A comparison of approaches is made and twomethods of moderation outlined. Finally, a brief compari-son is drawn between project assessment and othermethods of assessment.

6 Current practice

One of the authors has pointed out previously [32] thatassessment usually involves breaking down the student'sactivities under various headings so that features otherthan just a glossy final report are considered. It is thenpossible, with some effort on the part of the supervisor andother assessors, to bring more objectivity to bear in themarking, but to achieve this it is essential to try isolatingin the mind the various qualities which each categorycovers.

Assessment of the project work itself should take intoaccount appreciation and approach to the project, innova-tion, skill in experimental and theoretical work, extent ofachieving objectives and success in overcoming difficulties.In assessing initiative the examiners must pay regard tosuch things as diligence, resourcefulness, creative thinking,perseverance, amount of supervision required and libraryresearch. With regard to the report, the overall planning,quality of language and illustrations, freedom from errors,

and the standard of the introductory and concluding sec-tions must be considered. The relative weightings of theseindividual components must then be decided.

To achieve uniformity of marking it seems essential tohave a second assessor or marker as well as the supervisor.It is also advisable to invite two senior members of theacademic staff to interview each student and examine hisequipment, say, twice in the session. These interviews, inconjunction with a demonstration by the student on eachoccasion, can provide an additional project-demonstrationmark. Each supervisor can be informed at these times ofthe assessors' judgement of the standards reached by hisstudents and of the problems of work or of supervisionthat require attention.

It is often felt that a great deal of central assessment in adepartment is essential. In some cases each student has tosubmit interim reports outlining progress, which are readby the supervisor, second marker and a professor. Somedepartments hold 'open project days' on which eachstudent stands by his project and talks about it to otherstudents and members of staff who tour the laboratories.

At the end of the session each candidate should give aformal talk about his project and answer questions. Thistalk may be to all staff and students or to a small examin-ing board. In the latter case, the procedure develops intoan oral examination rather than a lecture. Some institu-tions distinguish clearly between these and hold both. Insuch cases the lecture itself is often not assessed, althougha prize may be offered for the best effort. The particularsystem adopted will yield a project-talk evaluation mark.A typical assessment form therefore might appear as inTable 5.

Table 5: Typical assessment form

a Assessment of project work(i) appreciation and approach to project, competence in planning(ii) originality, innovation, development of ideas(iii) practical skill in experimental or theoretical work(iv) extent of achieving objectives, success in overcoming diffi-

culties

b Report presentation(i) overall planning, logical development, readability(ii) quality of language, diagrams, freedom from errors(iii) clarity of introductory review and conclusions

c Assessment of initiative(i) diligence, initiative, application, supervision required(ii) extent of extra reading, library research

Section

a (i)(ii)(iii)(iv)

b(\)

(ii)(iii)

c (i)(ii)

Supervisor'scommentsand mark

/10/15/15/10/10/10/10/10/10

Second marker'scommentsand mark

/10/15/15/10/10/10/10/10/10

Averagemark

Project-demonstrationmark

Additional commentsby supervisor

Overall average mark

Project-talk evaluationAddition comments bysecond marker

Supervisors and second markers should make an inde-pendent assessment in the first instance on separate forms.Marks given for laboratory reports in the earlier years ofthe degree course are frequently higher than examinationmarks, so, to counter this tendency, the examiners shouldaward marks out of the maximum number indicated for

412 1EE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 130, Pt. A, No. 8, NOVEMBER 1983

each individual category, using as a guide the informationsuch as in Table 6. Some universities use scales of this type

Table 6: Guide for project assessors in awarding marks

Percentage ofmark for eachcategory

80-10070-7960-6950-5940-49

0-40

Description

ExcellentVery goodGoodAverageFairPoor

Class ofhonoursdegree

I, prizeI11.1II.2IIIFail

with up to 15 points. Average marks for each subsection inTable 5 can be obtained, and an average overall percent-age mark calculated. This, together with the project-demonstration mark and an evaluation of the project talkor oral examination, may then be used to produce a com-posite percentage grading for an examiners' meeting. Rele-vant additional comments by supervisor and secondmarker should be solicited and should be included in theappropriate sections of or at the foot of the form; e.g. arethere any allowable handicaps of the student to thisproject, or any exceptional aptitudes the student broughtto the work? If there is a significant discrepancy betweenthe marks given by the supervisor and second marker, thetwo examiners should try to reach agreement on the marksin each section, and on the final average mark to beawarded. If they cannot do so it is necessary to involve atleast one other assessor. Some establishments alwaysemploy an additional independent reader to go throughthe project report. The amount of involvement of an exter-nal examiner varies a great deal, but he should at least seea range of project reports each session and be involved inborderline and difficult cases. He may also be invited tosee students whilst the studies are in progress or interviewcandidates prior to the meeting of the examiners.

7 Discussion and evaluation of project work andits assessment

Many departments are using project work in their under-graduate programmes, either as a component of the stu-dents' laboratory experience or as a total replacement ofconventional practical work at some stage. Of the sixty orso institutions included in our survey, the majority ofwhich were electronic and electrical engineering depart-ments, all had some sort of final-year project. The authorsare very much in favour of project work for final-year elec-tronic and electrical engineers. Projects arouse the interestand enthusiasm of students far more effectively than setexperiments. It is essential to make sure that the experi-ence gained by a student on a project is not narrow andspecialised compared with the broader experience of phe-nomena and of equipment he would acquire in set experi-ments. Few departments would consider adopting projectwork throughout the entire undergraduate course to thecomplete exclusion of standard experiments, as is some-times advocated. Some departments do have both projectsand experiments in the final year of the course, and it canbe argued that certain lectures on optional subjects in thefinal year require laboratory work to supplement them. Inthe authors' department some years ago laboratory experi-ments were performed on two afternoons in the first term.

On the other free afternoons students started their projectwork and then spent the whole of the second term com-pleting the project. On one occasion, when the standardexperiments could not be carried out because of sometimetabling problems for 'service'-course students, the pro-jects were run for the whole two terms. The project resultsand reports were so vastly improved that set experimentswere omitted from the final year and attempts were madeto fit them into earlier years of the course. The authorsrecommend therefore that the project should last for abouttwenty weeks.

Final-year students are sometimes introduced to theirproject supervisors after the examinations at the end of thesecond year. Students can then begin planning theirproject work during the remainder of the third term of thesecond year. They can also think about the project andread up relevant literature during the summer vacation sothey are able to start with practical work immediately theautumn term commences. It is also sometimes an advan-tage to be able to order components and equipment at theend of the summer term, to allow for delivery before thestudent starts the first term of his final year. The authorshave abandoned this idea, however, because, in theirdepartment, second-year students who fail examinations inJune can resit them in September. These 'weaker' studentsfeel it is unfair if they cannot work on the project duringthe summer because they have to concentrate on theirexaminations. Another disadvantage of choosing projectsearly is that supervisors frequently want to change theirminds, having thought of better projects during thesummer. Some students will always get off to a better startthan others because of the prior thought put in by super-visors, and one must try to take account of this in the finalassessment.

The authors have tried to encourage students to suggesttheir own projects and, indeed, some good proposals haveresulted, particularly in the medical-electronics field. It istheir experience, however, that the majority of students areunable to make suitable suggestions, and occasionally willsay they would like to work on a topic such as hydroelec-tric power!

It may happen that a project is arranged with the co-operation of an industrial firm or other outside organis-ation, for example, a company by whom the student issponsored or with whom he expects to do a vacation jobbetween his second and final years. Such co-operationshould be encouraged, but to be fair to the other students,it has to be made clear that it is only supervised work,completed during term-time at the university or poly-technic, that counts towards the final project mark. Theremay be special difficulty in 'assessing' work of sandwich-course students if assistance is provided by industry in sug-gesting circuits, in giving ideas, with preparation of thethesis, etc.

The authors' survey showed that the average weightingof the project in the final assessment is 20%, and theybelieve this is the sort of weighting which should beadopted. The weighting in electronic and electrical engi-neering departments varies from 9 to 45%; in fact it is stillpossible in a few universities to obtain a degree withoutdoing a project or without reaching a satisfactory standardin a project having started one. Most departments do seemto ask themselves frequently how the project result is to becombined with other examination marks or coursework.There is a great deal of variation in the whole exercise, andjust as project weightings vary a good deal so do weigh-tings in the final assessment of first- and second-yearresults. The authors firmly hold the view that a candidate

IEE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 130, Pt. A, No. 8, NOVEMBER 1983 413

should not graduate unless he has reached a suitable stan-dard in project work.

The contract scheme described earlier [75] avoids thetendency for the expectations of students and supervisorsto escalate. However, the authors and many other lecturerswould not wish to formalise the initial stages to this extent.Most departments do not have a stereotyped set of objec-tives for project work. It is frequently left to the individualsupervisor to deal with the project as he thinks fit, and thisseems to work out reasonably well. Students learn bybeing asked to plan their projects themselves, by being toldto scan the literature of the subject, by having a closeracquaintance with practical work than they get at anyother time during the course and by having to reconcilethis with their theoretical understanding of what they aredoing.

The more open-ended the project, the more difficult it isto forecast its stages, and hence, in such cases, assessmentis linked to a continuous process, involving discussion withthe student and the redefining of aims where necessary.

Practical work on the project should cease before theend of the second term where two terms are allocated forthe exercise. Some universities stop practical work halfwaythrough the second term in order to avoid projects inter-fering with the preparation for examinations. (Frequently,cases are met where a student has spent too much time onhis project and then performed badly in the examinations).At this stage at least one university electronic and electri-cal engineering department calls for the submission of adraft thesis in manuscript which is marked by the super-visor and returned to the student with comments and sug-gestions as to how it might be improved. The student thenhas the remainder of the second term and the Easter vaca-tion to redraft his- thesis and present it, typed, in final format the start of the third term. It is then seen for a secondtime by the supervisor who checks whether his advice hasbeen followed in assessing the project. This procedureleads to better reports being deposited in the departmentallibrary, but it takes up a good deal of additional staff time.In other establishments students frequently submit draftreports for criticism by their supervisors; in some cases,however, supervisors feel that the report should be astudent's own work and will not give assistance in its prep-aration. Whatever scheme is used it seems possible to takeaccount of help given, as indeed it is with the project workitself, in carrying out the assessment.

One or two interim reports may be called for during theprogress of the project. The first of these would be awritten report of around 2000 words which is intended tohelp a student clarify his ideas and sort out any seriousdifficulties. The report can clearly set out the aims of theproject, provide a summary of background material andoutline the proposed steps to be taken to complete thestudy, A second progress report can take the form of a talklasting about 15 minutes to be given at a meeting ofproject students and supervisors. The talk ought to coverboth the aims of the project and what has been achieved.Second-year students can also be invited to these talks tofind out the kind of thing that is expected of them in thefinal year.

Frequently, projects are distributed evenly between allmembers of staff, and fortunately the choices by studentsand distribution of staff expertise areas seem to coincidequite well. Normally staff supervise three or four studentsper session, but some supervisors take six or more stu-dents. The authors were surprised to find that in severaldepartments not all staff, particularly senior staff, take partin project supervision, at least not every year.

Projects are mostly of an experimental nature, althoughin nearly all departments some students are nowadays setwork that involves only computing. The aims of theproject are then rather different from an experimental one.A good software project is one which produces good soft-ware, so students should aim to show that their programsare based on well thought out designs and are properlytested. A survey carried out by the authors showed thattheoretical projects are also allowed in some circum-stances, but usually these are rare and not encouraged,

The majority of departments use some kind of assess-ment form, some very simple, others very detailed. Exam-iners will take into account the project work itself and thereport, bearing in mind the factors mentioned in Section 6.Most departments have changed the format of their assess-ment forms are usually found to be 'less than ideal', butvarious problems which have been encountered. Assess-ment forms are usually found to be 'less than ideal' butexaminers get used to them and more or less subcon-sciously overcome their shortcomings. It is doubtful if anyassessment form will give satisfactory results unless themembers of staff using it have developed some understand-ing for the conventions underlying its use. 43% of depart-ments surveyed do not use an assessment form, and somehaving employed forms have abandoned them and rely on'gut' feeling. Detailed assignment of marks using a formdoes, however, help to focus attention on salient merits ordemerits of the student's work and makes sure that everymember of staff in a large department is looking at thewhole range of factors to be assessed. There is merit inhaving the various examiners mark completely indepen-dently with the aid of a form and then compare results. Inthe authors' experience such comparisons nearly alwaysagree very closely, and it seems likely that 'gut' feeling hasalso been used in completing the assessment form, and ifan initial marking does not agree with 'gut' feeling themarks are altered.

To try to achieve uniformity of marking, 92% of thedepartments surveyed by the authors used at least twomembers of staff as examiners, one always being the super-visor. The authors believe the 'second marker' should beappointed at the start of the project so that he can observethe candidate's performance in the laboratory throughoutthe session and can then mark all the sections on thereport form and not just the ones dealing with report pres-entation. Second markers, or 'moderators', are used bydepartments in a wide variety of ways either for all or partof the session. They sometimes interview the student at theend of the period, take part in an oral examination or lookat the equipment he has constructed as well as reading thethesis.

The merits of inviting two senior members of staff tointerview each student, say, twice in the session have beenoutlined in Section 5. However, difficulties do arise withthe interviews; for example some students are confidentand outspoken even if they have not achieved much, whileothers, who are quiet steady workers, may have hiddenresources and talents which do not readily reveal them-selves. In some cases students may have been held up bybreakdown of equipment or delays in obtaining items froma workshop. Some students get off to a good start on theproject because their supervisors gave careful thought totheir needs beforehand while others did not anticipate pit-falls. For these reasons, in the authors' department, themarks given at the interviews are not used in the finalassessment, as they are in some establishments, but only asadditional evidence at the examiners' meeting. Benchassessments are used very successfully in some depart-

414 IEE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 130, Pt. A, No. 8, NOVEMBER 1983

ments, for example, in one polytechnic, where, following anapproximately half-hour session with two independentsenior members of staff, 30% of the total project marks areawarded under this heading.

In the authors' department a 'double hurdle' is used inthe final assessment. A total of 900 marks is allocated, 600from the final part II examinations, 100 from the final partI examinations and 200 for the final-year project. To beawarded a first-class honours degree, a candidate mustobtain a first-class average mark out of the 900 total, butmust also get a first-class mark for his project. Similar'double-hurdles' are applied at each classification bound-ary, and a student who does not reach a satisfactory stan-dard in project work fails to get even a pass degree. Thereason for retaining this unusual system is that in theauthors' experience some students can perform outstand-ingly well in examinations but much less so in the labor-atory, and it is believed an engineering graduate should bea good all-rounder. As an alternative to the 'doublehurdle', a common practice in the case of a poor project isto lower the class of degree by one from that, suggested bythe examination results alone.

The survey showed that 83% of departments use anoral examination or seminar as part of the project exercise,but only 58% employ marks obtained from this in the finalassessment. The weighting of the oral examination in theproject marking varies from 5 to 35% with an average of16%.

In the authors' opinion, if assessment is carried out pro-perly, there should be a wide range of mark distributionfor project work. Experience shows, however, that very lowproject marks are rare and in some departments there hasnever been a project failure. Perhaps it is to be expectedthat a student who has succeeded in previous years of thecourse will, with staff supervision of his project, be lesslikely to record a failure in this work than in any unseenexamination. Examiners are also reluctant to award veryhigh project marks, even though the candidate has clearlymet all the aims of the study. On one occasion in theauthors' department a mark of 100% was awarded forproject work to an outstandingly good student and wasallowed to stand after lengthy discussion at the examiners'meeting. Also in the authors' department there have beenseveral 'failed' projects over the years. Failure in projectwork can create a problem because a student is not nor-mally allowed to repeat the final-year course even if he canget a grant. The problem can only be solved for each indi-vidual case by making arrangements for the candidate tocomplete the project satisfactorily or by writing the follow-ing year a critical dissertation based on his earlier work.

One can argue a great deal about the relevant impor-tance of all the items listed in Table 5, but at least it forcesthe supervisor and second assessor to keep themselvesaware of all these aspects of the student's work, right fromthe inception of the project. This should also obviate thepotential difficulty of an assessor putting in a low markbased on judgments made towards the end of the projector based largely on the final report and forgetting perhapsthe student's performance in the early days. Experienceshows that frequently the expectations of a supervisorincrease with the progress of a project, particularly so if itis successful. Thus, the difficulty may present itself of thereluctance of a supervisor to award a high mark, eventhough the student has achieved results far beyond theoriginal expectation of the supervisor, The survey revealedthat on average departments award 33% of the projectmark to the report itself.

In one university, the points listed in Table 7 relating to

the department's assessment report form are issued to staffas they are thought to be of some help to supervisors andsecond markers when making their assessments. In thesame department examiners are asked to adopt the guide-lines shown in Table 8 in awarding marks which are moredetailed than those previously given in Table 6.

With regard to the reference to 'literature study' inTable 7, all departments seem to regard this as an impor-tant part of the project work. Some departments feel thattheir students can reach this stage without having beenencouraged earlier to use the library sufficiently to enablethem to carry out a thorough search. There is merit in theuniversity/polytechnic library staff putting on specialcourses for say second-year students on how to use thelibrary.

Great emphasis must be given to assessing the students'thoughts and actions as the projects develop. To do this,evidence is needed about the day-to-day activities of thestudents. Close supervision helps to build up a picture of astudent's work, and from this kind of observation judg-ments can be made about resourcefulness, initiative andcreative thinking. To obtain more information studentsmay be asked to keep diaries or logbooks which arelooked at alongside the final report. If this is done it isessential that the diary or logbook be written as eventsoccur and not when the reports on them have been modi-fied by hindsight at some later stage. Because they givedetailed evidence of the difficulties which students encoun-ter, diaries can be useful in helping to evaluate the effec-tiveness of project work as a learning experience.

Some lecturers, however, believe that diaries are lessimportant than the way in which the results are presentedand discussed. They hold the view that scientific workshould, essentially, be publishable, and they emphasisereports and viva-voce examinations on project work. Thecriteria used in judging project reports can be similar tothose used for scientific papers. To meet these criteria aproject need not be complete, in the sense that the projecthas been fully worked out, or that its initial aims havebeen achieved. The student's ability to handle data and toargue logically on the basis of them to explain his reasonsfor not reaching a target and to make sound suggestionsfor further work are the factors on which his report may bejudged and which could be further probed in an oralexamination.

Judgment is never made only on the report as a finishedpiece of work, but on what has been achieved in the timeavailable and, in particular, on the projection which thestudent makes of how he would continue with it. Experi-ments frequently fail; this is part of normal research expe-rience. A student with a failed experiment should not bepenalised if his report shows clearly what might be done toavoid failure in the next attempt.

Comparing the difficulty of one project with anotherraises problems for assessors. There is no simple solution;some subjects lend themselves to the production of beauti-fully illustrated reports; some techniques give elegantanswers to questions without demanding much intellectualeffort by the student. By contrast, extremely hard workmay lead to little that is tangible by way of a result. Exam-iners need to be conscious of this factor when they allotmarks in what is inevitably an exercise in comparisons.

The compilation of an effective report is, of course, anessential part of any project. It is possible to fail to achievethe project aims but to receive a high assessment bydealing accurately and objectively with the work in a wellpresented report. Conversely, a well performed projectdoes not automatically result in a well written report. As

IEE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 130, Pt. A, No. 8, NOVEMBER 1983 415

Table 7: List of points for assistance to examiners whenmaking assessments

Computing

Overall understanding

Literature study

Initiative

Originality

Planning ability

Ability to workindependently

Effort

Practical work

Analytical work

Did the student develop an overallgrasp of the subject?

Quickly? Slowly? Eventually?Not really? Not at all?

Did he study the literature to usefuleffect?

(i) to relate the investigation to abroader field?

(ii) to obtain material used directlyin the practical work?

(iii) to obtain material used directlyin the analysis?

(iv) ... whilst avoiding plagiarism?

Did he display initiative? How?

Did he display originality? How?

Did he work in a systematicmanner?

(i) in keeping a diary of progress?(ii) a regular log of results?(iii) an account of questions posed

and answered?

Was he able to work independently?Were discussions with the super-

visor relatively frequent?Was he keeping the supervisor

informed of progress, or was hedependent on the discussions formaking progress?

Did he receive assistance other thanfrom the supervisor?

(i) from a postgraduate?(ii) from some other source?

How did he work?(i) extremely hard?(ii)(iii)(iv)(v)(vi)(vii)

very hard?hard?not really hard?inadequately?continuously?irregularly?

(viii) mainly at thelost interest?

(ix) mainly at the

beginning but

end after hedeveloped interest?

Did the project involve any con-structional work?

(i) was it of more than routinenature?

(ii) did he have to learn skills newfor him?

Was it necessary to have significantassistance from a technician?

(i) were satisfactory instructions/drawings given?

Are the experimental results of theperformance characteristic type?

(i) were only normal measuringtechniques employed?

(ii) something more?

Is there substantial analyticalcontent?

Does the analysis involve materialnot given in the lecture courses?

Has he contributed directly?(i) apparently, because of lack of

access to material elsewhere?Is theory related to practice?(i) quantitively, related calculation

and measurement?(ii) in a qualitative manner only?

Is there a substantial computingcontent?

Did the computing involve(i) the learning of a new lan-

guage?(ii) major numerical analysis and

programming effort?(iii) significant new program devel-

opment?(iv) major redevelopment of existing

software?(v) minor redevelopment of exist-

ing software?vi) use of existing program pack-

ages?Is documentation satisfactory?Was help given other than by the

supervisor?

Thesis

Thesis

Presentation Is the overall form satisfactory?Is the material presented in a logical

manner?Are the general style and grammar

satisfactory: (i) concise? (ii)precise?

Are figures drawn satisfactorily?Are figures given proper reference in

text?

Conclusions Do the conclusions show a properappreciation of what has beenachieved, of the limitations and ofthe scope for further work?

General Did the project enable the student toconduct an investigation allowingfair assessment of his abilities tobe made?

Did the initial discussions provide agood foundation, establish goodorientation, for the project?

Were any blind alleys followed, con-suming considerable time, on thesupervisor's/students's initiative?

Was the student accorded anyspecial advantages?

Table 8: Guidelines for project assessors in awarding marks

Performance %Absolutely outstanding, appropriate to a contribution

of international importance 94-100Outstanding, one of the best ever students 86-93Excellent, verging on the previous category 78—85Very good, worthy of 1 st-class honours 70-77Good, just falling short of 1st class, but very good 11.1

category 66-69Good, but distinctly short of 1 st class 62-65Reasonably competent; some merit! 55-61Reasonably competent; no significant merit 50-55Rather poor but consistent with the award of a degree

better than ordinary 40-49Very poor, fail for honours < 40

Gordon [82] has pointed out, experimental prowess doesnot necessarily go along with the abilities required toproduce a tidy, readable account, adequately illustratedwith neat diagrams and graphs. Indeed it is not unknownfor a bright student to regard 'writing-up' as a waste of hisvaluable time!

Candidates must be encouraged to write concisereports, otherwise there is a danger they will get longereach year. One university, in fact, places a limit of 6000words on the length of a report. Students must also bereminded that the consequences of not submitting a report

416 IEE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 130, Pt. A, No. 8, NOVEMBER 1983

by the time stated will be serious, and in one university arecent student had his degree withheld for a year becausehe handed in his report five weeks late.

Some universities provide editorial requirements andrecommendations for students on project reports givingguidance on length, method of presentation, display ofresults, arrangement of material, title, summary, acknowl-edgements, symbols, references, numbering schemes, tablesand diagrams. It is often stipulated that the report shouldbe typed, if possible. The authors feel strongly that reportsshould be typed as this improves the presentation, and stu-dents are not then penalised by first impressions gainedfrom bad handwriting.

In some departments all project supervisors and secondmarkers meet together before the examiners' meeting toform an assessment panel under the chairmanship of theHead of Department or his nominee. The purpose of thismeeting is to obtain an agreed order of merit and to ensurean acceptable standard compared to previous years.

In a few departments all students work in pairs; inothers some work in twos, or occasionally threes, theothers individually. Having had small numbers of studentstackling projects in pairs, the authors definitely found theproblems of assessment more difficult, even though the stu-dents wrote separate reports. Working in pairs isoccasionally defended on the grounds that two studentsstudying separate parts of a large project achieve morethan two individuals in the set time and can deal withinterfacing problems. The projects can also be more ambi-tious. In other cases students work in pairs because of limi-tations of equipment or to relieve the staff of some burdenin a department with a large number of students. Theauthors admit that working in pairs can be successful, butonly by extraordinarily careful management and super-vision.

It is common for external examiners to inspect students'project work while it is in progress or to listen to projecttalks. This can be helpful when borderline cases are beingdiscussed at examiners' meetings but, perhaps more impor-tant, it makes it evident to the students that the project isregarded as a very important part of the course. An exter-nal examiner will also be able to offer guidance on compa-rability between projects, and should be concerned withquestions of fairness as between individual students.Because of the large student numbers nowadays externalexaminers cannot usually see every project student orevery project report.

Student motivation plays an important part in per-formance; not all students will be assigned or be able tochoose topics which are of personal interest. It is doubtfulif allowance for this can be built into assessment pro-cedures. A frequently used approach is to permit studentsto select several projects in order of performance from asubstantial list of summaries prepared by staff. Hopefully,the majority can then be allocated their first or secondchoice. Subsequent discussion between the student and thesupervisor who submitted the summary may lead to modi-fications that allow the student to follow a programmethat is more to his liking. However, it seems that few stu-dents have strong views about their programme and areonly too happy to be guided at least in the initial stages.The supervisor will, of course, have prepared his summaryknowing what facilities are available and how much maybe achieved in the available time. When a unique facility,such as an anechoic chamber, is required for two or moreprojects he must have a clear idea how time sharing can beaccomplished without endangering the progress of any oneof them.

8 Conclusions

There is little doubt that projects have increased in generalpopularity in recent years and are regarded as forming anessential part of degree education for electronic and electri-cal engineers. The claim that they make studentsresponsible for the tempo, direction and activity of theirown learning is hard to deny. They also encourage thedevelopment of a wide range of skills and attitudes in tack-ling real-life problems, and, perhaps for this reason, pro-spective employers seem interested in project work andoften ask questions about it at interviews. There are, ofcourse, counter claims that projects make reliable assess-ment difficult, are inefficient and expensive, or that thefreedom they offer can be too daunting for many students.

Variations between projects are substantial, and projectassessment is more vulnerable to subjectivity among exam-iners than are most other forms of assessment. Althoughassessment can take up a lot of staff time this can easily bejustified if the project occupies a large part of the studytime and is given a large weighting in the overall assess-ment for the degree.

There is still considerable variation between institutionsin the approach to assessment of projects, but departmentsare continuously trying to reform. Few departments seemto have drawn up a set of objectives for project work, andit is likely to be difficult to assess without definite laid-down aims.

Like Cornwall [15-18] the authors believe a thoroughappraisal is needed of the intellectual and professionalskills in which we are trying to train students with specificprogramme of skill-training activities and a 'sharpeningup' of the means by which the attainment of those skills isassessed; projects and project-based studies have a majorpart to play in this. This IEE review has attempted tocharacterise the typical approaches to projects in elec-tronic and electrical engineering and some ways have beensuggested for improving on the present models. It has alsoindicated how greater use might be made of the projectapproach to achieve some of the broader aims that areclaimed for courses in higher education.

This paper will no doubt have raised other questions inreaders' minds such as

(a) would a student have received the same degree clas-sification had he been given a different project withanother supervisor?

(b) how are project topics best chosen?(c) what learning activities might be organised within a

project?

9 Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the many heads of departmentand their colleagues in universities and polytechnics whoprovided detailed information about their project schemesand methods of assessment. They also acknowledge theassistance given through interesting discussions with Pro-fessor J.T. Allanson, Dr. J.A. Anderson, Dr. R.J. Bradbury,Dr. W.F. Charmichael, Professor G. Carter, Dr. J. Cowan,Mrs. Rita Daggett, Dr. C.W. Davidson, Professor J. Lamb,Mr. B. Plum, Dr. B. Rigg and Dr. P.H.K. Smith. Valuablehelp in supplying reports and reprints was provided byMr. K.G. Armstrong, Dr. J.E. Brown, Dr. M.G. Cornwalland Dr. D.E. Hoare.

The authors are indebted to the Society for Researchinto Higher Education Ltd., for granting permission to usesome material on the use of project methods in higher edu-

1EE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 130, Pt. A, No. 8, NOVEMBER 1983 417

cation, the aims of project work and the assessment of pro-jects from Reference 7.

Finally, one of the authors is grateful to the NuffieldFoundation for a grant which enabled the survey on pro-jects to be carried out.

10 References

1 SAUPE, J.: in DRESSEL, P. (Ed.): 'Evaluation in higher education'(Houghton Mifflin 1961)

2 HEYWOOD, J.: 'Assessment in higher education' (Wiley, 1977)3 SHULMAN, L.S.: 'Psychology and mathematics' in BEGLE, E.G.

(Ed.): 'Mathematics and education', 69th year book of the NationalSociety for the study of education, Chicago (University Press, 1970)

4 AUSUBEL, D.P.: 'Educational psychology: A cognitive view' (Holt,Rinehart and Winston, 1968)

5 BRUNER, J.: 'Toward a theory of instruction' (Norton, 1966)6 GAGNE, E.T.: 'Selected personality variables and the learning

process', Psychological Monogr., 1952, (17)7 ADDERLEY, K., ASHWIN, C, BRADBURY, P., FREEMAN, J.,

GOODLAD, S., GREENE, J., JENKINS, D., RAE, J., and UREN,O.: 'Project methods in higher education'. Society for Research intoHigher Education Working Party on Teaching Methods: TechniquesGroup, December 1975 (reprinted 1979)

8 BELBIN, R.M.: 'How do they learn?', in ROGERS, J. (Ed.): 'Teach-ing on equal terms' (BBC, 1969), pp. 22-31

9 GOOD, C.V.: 'Dictionary of education'(McGraw-Hill, 1973)10 DEWEY, J.: 'Democracy and education' (MacMillan, 1916)11 KILPATRICK, W.H.: 'The project method'. Teachers College Bulle-

tin, September 3-18, 1918 (reprinted from Teachers College RecordXIX, 4 September 1918)

12 GULL, H.: 'Projects in the education of young children' (McDougall,1933)

13 CORNWALL, M.G. (Ed.): Report on Conference 'The Role ofProject Work in the Physics Curriculum'. Hindasgarden, Sweden,28-29 May, 1979

14 CORNWALL, M.G., SCHMITHALS, F., and JACQUES, D. (Eds.):'Project orientation in higher education'. Brighton Polytechnic andthe University of London Teaching Methods Unit, 1977, pp. 207

15 CORNWALL, M.G.: 'Sandwich course training and project work.Do they have the same aims?', Eur. J. Eng. Educ, 1975, 1, (1)

16 CORNWALL, M.G.: 'Authority versus experience in higher educa-tion; project-orientation in some continental universities', Univ. Quar-terly, 1975, 29, (3)

17 CORNWALL, M.G.: 'A new approach to higher education: projectorientation', J. Further & Higher Educ, 1978, 2, (3)

18 CORNWALL, M.G.: 'Project work in the sciences'. Private commu-nication

19 HENRY, J.: 'The project report volume 1—Findings and recommen-dations'. Project Study Group, Institute of Educational Technology,Open University, May 1978

20 HENRY, J., and MORGAN, A.: 'Guidelines for designing projectwork'. Project Memo 11, Project Study Group, Institute of Educa-tional Technology, Open University, July 1978.

21 Council for National Academic Awards (CNAA): Private communi-cation

22 SIMS, G.D.: 'Electrical engineers—education and the future', J. RoyalSignals Inst., 1976, 12, pp. 149-172

23 RILEY, M.W.: 'Phases encountered by a project team', IEEE Trans.1980, E-23, pp. 212-213

24 RIGGS, J.L., and INOUE, M.S.: 'Introduction to operations researchand management science'(McGraw-Hill, 1975)

25 COSTLEY, D.L., and TODD, R.: 'Human Relations in organiz-ations' (West, New York, 1978)

26 BROWN, D., and GOODLAD, S. (Eds.): 'Community-related projectwork in engineering in education and social action' (Allen and Unwin,1974)

27 GOODLAD, S.: 'Socio-technical projects in engineering education'.Published by the General Education in Engineering (GEE) project,Socio-Technical Projects Programme, University of Stirling, 1977

28 SIMS, G.D.: 'The design of courses in electronics and electrical engi-neering'. Proceedings of Conference on 'The teaching of electronicengineering in degree courses', University of Hull, 11-13 April 1973,pp. 2/1-2/38

29 ALOS, A.J., KASIM, T.A., and SALAWU, R.I.: 'A project-orientedlaboratory course in electronics', IEEE Trans. 1978, E-21, pp.243-245

30 BAILEY, A.G., BEYNON, J.D.E., and SIMS, G.D.: 'Examinationsand continuous assessment', Int. J. Elect. Eng. Educ, 1975, 12, pp.13-24

31 BAILEY, A.G., BEYNON, J.D.E., and SIMS, G.D.: 'Examinations

and continuous assessment'. Proceedings of Conference on 'Theteaching of electronic engineering in degree courses', University ofHull, 11-13 April, 1973, pp. 4/1 to 4/13

32 BENSON, F.A.: 'Assessment of student projects'. Proceedings ofConference on 'The teaching of electronic engineering in degreecourses', University of Hull, 7-9 April, 1976, pp. 10/1 to 10/7

33 HARDING, A.G.: 'The objectives and structure of undergraduateprojects', Br. J. Educ Tech., 1973, 4, pp. 94-105

34 HARDING, A.G.: 'The project, its place as a learning situation', ibid.,1973,4, pp. 216-229

35 BOWRON, P.: 'Final-year projects: towards more objective assess-ment'. Proceedings of Conference on 'The teaching of electronic engi-neering in degree courses', University of Hull, 7-9 April, 1976, pp.11/1 to 11/9

36 BLESSER, B.A.: 'From the abstract to the practical: teaching aproject laboratory', IEEE Trans., 1971, E-14, pp. 101-108

37 CARTER, G., ARMOUR, D.G., LEE, L.S., and SHARPLES, R.:'Assessment of undergraduate electrical engineering laboratorystudies'. IEE Proc. A, 1980, 127, pp. 460-474

38 HAMMOND, P.: 'The case for the teaching laboratory', Electron. &Power, 1971, 17, pp. 77-79

39 STURLEY, K.S.: 'Is laboratory work really necessary?', Int. J. Electr.Eng. Educ, 1967, 5, pp. 63-66

40 FINNISTON, SIR M.: 'Engineering our future'. Report of the Com-mittee of inquiry into the engineering profession, Cmnd. 7794(HMSO, London, 1980)

41 ADDERLEY, K.J.: 'The aims, objectives and criteria of under-graduate project work incorporating CAT, Int. J. Electr. Eng. Educ,1975,12, pp. 165-176

42 Northern Universities Joint Matriculation Board: 'Engineeringscience (advanced) syllabus and notes for the guidance of schools'.ES/N2 1972, and coursework assessment ES/CWA/1 1975, andES/CWA2 1977

43 BEYNON, J.D.E., and BAILEY, A.G.: 'An appraisal of under-graduate practical work with particular reference to the first year ofan electronics course', Int. J. Electr. Eng. Educ, 1971,9, pp. 49-53

44 PRAMANIK, A, and DRING, D.: 'An evolving teaching laboratoryfor first year students of electrical and electronic engineering', ibid.,1977, 14, pp. 17-25

45 ERNST, E.W., and KOPPLIN, J.O.: 'Modern methods and objec-tives of laboratory instruction', IRE Trans., 1962, E5, (3), pp. 168-172

46 BEAKLEY, G.S., and PRICE, T.W.: 'Introduction to engineering',IEEE Trans., 1966, E9, (4), pp. 187-192

47 AHARONI, H., and COHEN, A.: 'Manpower for engineering labor-atory courses', Int. J. Electr. Eng. Educ, 1977, 14, pp. 293-300

48 KENT, G, and CARD, W.H.: 'An experiment in laboratory educa-tion', IRE. Trans., 1961, E4, pp. 62-66

49 BRADSHAW, E.: 'Laboratory work in electrical engineering courses',Proc. IEE, 1955, 102, pp. 23-24

50 BALDWIN, C.T.: 'Industry, universities and engineers', ibid., 1970,117,(3), pp. 661-663

51 PALMER, C.J., and HADEN, C.R.: 'The changing role of the labor-atory in the electrical engineering curriculum', IEEE Trans., 1961, E9,(21), pp. 187-192

52 SMART, G.C.: 'A students view of project based higher education'.Proceedings of the international seminar 'Project-orientation inhigher education in science', University of Bremen, 1976 (Universityteaching methods unit, University of London, 1977) pp. 61-63

53 LEE, L.S.: 'Research report—Projects or controlled assignments inthe laboratory?', Further Educ, 1970, 1, (3), pp. 117-118

54 MARSHALL, . (Ed.): 'School technology in action', (English Uni-versities Press, London, 1974) pp. 180-186

55 SIMS, G.D.: 'Electronics and education—here and elsewhere', Proc.IEE, 1967, 114, (2), pp. 205-206

56 FRANKSEN, O.I.: 'Closed and open-ended design projects in theeducation of engineers', IEEE Trans., 1965, PAS-3, pp. 228-231

57 PRINGLE, E.J.: 'The art of inventing', Trans. Am. Inst. Elect. Engrs.,1906, 25, pp. 519-547

58 HAMILTON, F.L.: 'Technical writing and the engineers', Proc. IEE,1965, 112,(2), p. 310

59 HEYWOOD, J., and KELLY, D.T.: 'A study of engineering scienceamong schools in England and Wales'. Proceedings of the IEEE/ASEE Conference, 'The frontiers of education', Purdue University,1973

60.CARTER, G., and LEE, L.S.: 'A sample survey of departments ofelectrical engineering to ascertain the aims, objectives and methods ofassessing first-year undergraduate laboratory work in electronic andelectrical engineering', Int. J. Electr. Eng. Educ, 1981, 18, pp. 113-119

61 ANDERSON, J.A.: Private communication.62 HOARE, D.E.: 'A report on project work in chemistry degree

courses'. Report of meeting of study groups under the auspices of theAssessment Group of the Royal Society of Chemistry, University ofAston, 22 October, 1980

418 IEE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 130, Pt. A, No. 8, NOVEMBER 1983

63 HOARE, D.E.: 'Survey of project work in chemistry degree courses',Appendix to Reference 62

64 ORR, J.A., and STANNARD, G.E.: The role of project work in theEE curriculum: experience at Worcester Polytechnic Institute', IEEETrans., 1979, E-22, pp. 99-104

65 GAULT, J.W., and SNYDER, W.E.: 'An undergraduate design/project course utilising a microcomputer', ibid., 1978, E-21, pp.240-243

66 LAW, J.: 'An electrical engineering undergraduate design course',ibid., 1979, E-22, pp. 138-142

67 GIORDANO, A.B.: 'A critical update on graduate engineering educa-tion', ibid., 1980, E-23, pp. 184-187

68 NIEDERJOHN, R.J., and SCHMITZ, R.J.: 'The case for project-oriented courses with "educational-useful" student design projects',ibid., 1982, E-25, pp. 65-70

69 KROWNE, C M , and COVINGTON, D.H.: 'Integrating engineeringand technical communications in sophomore electrical engineeringprojects', ibid., 1980, E-23, pp. 210-212

70 GOROZYCA, F.E.: 'A description of an engineering technologydesign projects course'. Proc. ASEE Frontiers in Educ. Conf, 1979,pp. 390-395

71 HOYER, E.A., JONG, M.T., and STORK, R.F.: 'An integratedapproach to minicomputers and microcomputers in electrical engi-neering laboratories', IEEE Trans., 1979, E-22, pp. 123-127

72 BRANCHER, D.M.: 'Projects and the development of general educa-tion', Eur. J. Eng. Educ, 1975, 1, (1), pp. 35-40

73 HOWARD, K, and SHARP, J.A.: 'The management of a studentresearch project' (Gower, 1983)

74 'The assessment of project work'. Papers for one-day workshoparranged by the Steering Committee for Staff Development in Scot-tish Universities at the University of Dundee, 1980*

75 BLACK, J.: 'Allocation and assessment of project work in the finalyear of the engineering degree course in the University of Bath',Assessment in Higher Educ, 1975, 1, pp. 35-53

76 KING, B. (Ed.): 'A question of degree—assorted papers on assess-ment'. Report by the Group for Research and Innovation in HigherEducation, Nuffield Foundation

77 CROOKS, B., HENRY, J., and MORGAN, A.: 'Assessment pro-cedures in project courses'. Project Memo 7, Project Study Group,Institute of Educational Technology, Open University, December1976

78 EDWARDS, D.: 'Project marking'. Report SARG 10 Student Assess-ment Research Group, Institute of Educational Technology, OpenUniversity, 1978

79 T401 tutor guidelines 1981, Faculty of Technology, Open University80 HARRIS, N.D.C, and DOWDESWELL, W.H.: 'Assessment of pro-

jects in university science', Assessment in Higher Educ, 1979, 14, (2),pp. 94-118

81 HUDSON, B. (Contributing Edr.): 'Assessment techniques—an intro-duction' (Methuen Educational Ltd, 1973)

82 GORDON, D.S.: 'Final year projects in acoustics'. Paper given to the3rd British Conference on 'The teaching of vibration and noise', Shef-field, July 1979

* A similar workshop was held at the University of Strathclyde, 3rd June 1981

IEE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 130, Pt. A, No. 8, NOVEMBER 1983 419