Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education

• Al Said, R. S., Du, X., ALKhatib, H. A. H., Romanowski, M. H., & Barham, A. I. I. (2019). Math Teachers’ Beliefs, Practices, and Belief Change in Implementing Problem Based Learning in Qatari Primary Governmental School. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15, 5. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/105849.
• Asikainen, H., & Gijbels, D. (2017). Do students develop towards more deep approaches to learning during studies? A systematic review on the development of students’ deep and surface approaches to learning in higher education. Educational Psychology Review, 29(2), 205-234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9406-6.
• Baeten, M., Kyndt, E., Struyven, K., & Dochy, F. (2010). Using student-centred learning environments to stimulate deep approaches to learning: Factors encouraging or discouraging their effectiveness. Educational Research Review, 5(3), 243-260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2010.06.001.
• Beddoes, K. D., Jesiek, B. K., & Borrego, M. (2010). Identifying opportunities for collaborations in international engineering education research on problem-and project-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 4(2), 3. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1142.
• Biggs, J. B. & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
• Borrego, M., Karlin, J., McNair, L. D., & Beddoes, K. (2013). Team effectiveness theory from industrial and organizational psychology applied to engineering student project teams: A research review. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(4), 472-512. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20023.
• Case, J., & Marshall, D. (2004). Between deep and surface: procedural approaches to learning in engineering education contexts. Studies in Higher Education, 29(5), 605-615. https://doi.org/10.1080/0307507042000261571.
• Chan, C. K., & Chan, Y. Y. (2011). Students’ views of collaboration and online participation in Knowledge Forum. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1445-1457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.003.
• Chiocchio, F., & Essiembre, H. (2009). Cohesion and performance: A meta-analytic review of disparities between project teams, production teams, and service teams. Small Group Research, 40(4), 382-420. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496409335103.
• Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2013). Research methods in education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203720967.
• Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage Publications.
• De Clercq, M., Galand, B., & Frenay, M. (2013). Chicken or the egg: longitudinal analysis of the causal dilemma between goal orientation, self-regulation and cognitive processing strategies in higher education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39(1), 4-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2012.10.003.
• Dinsmore, D., & Alexander, P. A. (2012). A critical discussion of deep and surface processing: what it means, how it is measured, the role of context, and model specification. Educational Psychology Review, 24(4), 499-567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-012-9198-7.
• Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P., & Gijbels, D. (2003). Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 13(5), 533-568. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00025-7.
• Dolmans, D., Loyens, S., Marcq, H., & Gijbels, D. (2016). Deep and surface learning in problem-based learning: a review of the literature. Advances in Health Science Education, 21(5), 1087-1112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-015-9645-6.
• Du, X., Cyprian, F. S., Kassab, S. E., Al-Moslih, A. M., Abu-Hijleh, M. F., & Hamdy, H. (2019). Identifying essential competencies for medical schools. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-07-2018-0114.
• Du, X., Emmersen, J., Toft, E., & Sun, B. (2013). PBL and Critical Thinking Disposition in Chinese Medical Students--A Randomized Cross-Sectional Study. Journal of problem based Learning in Higher Education, 1(1), 72-83.
• Du, X., Massoud, W., Al-Banna, N. A., Al-Moslih, A. M., Abu-Hijleh, M. F., Hamdy, H., & Cyprian, F. S. (2016). Preparing foundation-year students for medical studies in a problem-based learning environment: Students׳ perceptions. Health Professions Education, 2(2), 130-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpe.2016.06.001.
• Du, X., Su, L., & Liu, J. (2013). Developing sustainability curricula using the PBL method in a Chinese context. Journal of Cleaner Production, 61, 80-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.01.012.
• Entwistle, N. (2009). Teaching for understanding at university. Deep approaches and distinctive ways of thinking. England: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-09106-2.
• Entwistle, N. J. (1991). Approaches to learning and perceptions of the learning environment. Higher Education, 22(3), 201-204. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00132287.
• Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2003). Designing and teaching courses to satisfy the ABET engineering criteria. Journal of Engineering Education, 92(1), 7-25. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2003.tb00734.x.
• He, Y., Du, X., Toft, E., Zhang, X., Qu, B., Shi, J., ... & Zhang, H. (2018). A comparison between the effectiveness of PBL and LBL on improving problem-solving abilities of medical students using questioning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 55(1), 44-54. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2017.1290539.
• Heikkilä, A., & Lonka, K. (2006). Studying in higher education: students’ approaches to learning, self‐regulation, and cognitive strategies. Studies in Higher Education, 31(1), 99-117. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070500392433.
• Helle, L., Tynjälä, P., & Olkinuora, E. (2006). Project-based learning in post-secondary education–theory, practice and rubber sling shots. Higher Education, 51(2), 287-314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-6386-5.
• Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2012). International perspectives on problem-based learning: Contexts, cultures, challenges, and adaptations. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 6(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1310.
• Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Barrows, H. S. (2006). Goals and Strategies of a Problem-based Learning Facilitator. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1004.
• Kember, D., Biggs, J., & Leung, D. Y. (2004). Examining the multidimensionality of approaches to learning through the development of a revised version of the Learning Process Questionnaire. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(2), 261-279. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709904773839879.
• Kolmos, A., & de Graaff, E. (2014). Problem-based and project-based learning in engineering education: merging models. In A. Johri, & B. M. Olds (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research (pp. 141-161). Cambridge University Press.
• Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interview. Hans Reitzel.
• Lehmann, M., Christensen, P., Du, X., & Thrane, M. (2008). Problem-oriented and project-based learning (POPBL) as an innovative learning strategy for sustainable development in engineering education. European journal of engineering education, 33(3), 283-295. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043790802088566.
• Loyens, S. M. M., Gijbels, D., Coertjens, L., & Cote ́, D. (2013). Students’ approaches to learning in problem-based learning: Taking into account students’ behavior in the tutorial groups, self-study time, and different assessment aspects. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39(1), 23-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2012.10.004.
• Magnell, M., Geschwind, L., & Kolmos, A. (2017). Faculty perspectives on the inclusion of work-related learning in engineering curricula. European Journal of Engineering Education, 42(6), 1038-1047. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2016.1250067.
• Marton, F. & Saljo, R. (1976a). On qualitative differences in learning: I—outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4-11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02980.x.
• Marton, F. & Saljo, R. (1976b). On qualitative differences in learning: II. Outcome as a function of the learner’s conception of the task, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 115-127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02304.x.
• Newble, D. I., & Clarke, R. M. (1986). The approaches to learning of students in a traditional and in an innovative problem‐based medical school. Medical Education, 20(4), 267-273. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.1986.tb01365.x.
• Phan, H. P. (2011). Interrelations between self-efficacy and learning approaches: a developmental approach. Educational Psychology, 31(2), 225-246. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2010.545050.
• Postareff, L., Parpala, A., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2015). Factors contributing to changes in a deep approach to learning in different learning environments. Learning Environments Research, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-015-9186-1.
• Prince, M. J., & Felder, R. M. (2006). Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 123-138. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00884.x.
• Prosser, M., & Sze, D. (2014). Problem-based learning: student learning experiences and outcomes. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 28(1-2), 131-142. https://doi.org/10.3109/02699206.2013.820351.
• Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching: the experience in higher education. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education.
• Qatar University (QU). (2018). Qatar University Strategic Plan 2018–2022. Retrieved on March 12th, 2018 from http://www.qu.edu.qa/static_file/qu/about/documents/Qatar%20University%20Strategy%202018-2022%20Booklet%20-%20EN.pdf.
• Sabah, S., & Du, X. (2018). University faculty’s perceptions and practices of student centered learning in Qatar: Alignment or gap? Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 10(4), 514-533. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-11-2017-0144.
• Saravanamuthu, K., & Yap, C. (2014). Pedagogy to empower Chinese learners to adapt to western learning circumstances: a longitudinal case-study. Cambridge Journal of Education, 44(3), 361-384. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2014.914154.
• Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67-98). Chicago, IL: Open Court.
• Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: theory, pedagogy, and technology. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97-119). New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Schmidt, H. G., Van der Molen, H. T., Te Winkel, W. W., & Wijnen, W. H. (2009). Constructivist, problem-based learning does work: A meta-analysis of curricular comparisons involving a single medical school. Educational Psychologist, 44(4), 227-249. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520903213592.
• Schultz, N., & Christensen, H. P. (2004). Seven-step problem-based learning in an interaction design course. European Journal of Engineering Education, 29(4), 533-541. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043790410001716248.
• Scouller, K. (1998). The influence of assessment method on students’ learning approaches: Multiple choice question examination versus assignment essay. Higher Education, 35(4), 453-472. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003196224280.
• Stahl, G. (2000). A model of collaborative knowledge-building. In B. Fishman & S. O’Connor-Divelbiss (Eds.), Fourth international conference of the learning sciences (pp. 70-77). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Strobel, J., & Van Barneveld, A. (2009). When is PBL more effective? A meta-synthesis of meta-analyses comparing PBL to conventional classrooms. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 3(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1046.
• Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1991). Relating approaches to study and quality of learning outcomes at the course level. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 61(3), 265-275. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1991.tb00984.x.
• Zhao, K., & Zheng, Y. (2014). Chinese Business English students’ epistemological beliefs, self-regulated strategies, and collaboration in project-based learning. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 23(2), 273-286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-013-0103-z.
• Zhao, K., Zhang, J., & Du, X. (2017). Chinese business students’ changes in beliefs and strategy use in a constructively aligned PBL course. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(7), 785-804. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2017.1301908.

APA

Du, X., Ebead, U., Sabah, S., Ma, J., & Naji, K. K. (2019). Engineering Students’ Approaches to Learning and Views on Collaboration: How do both Evolve in a PBL Environment and What are their Contributing and Constraining Factors?. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(11), em1774. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/106197

Vancouver

Du X, Ebead U, Sabah S, Ma J, Naji KK. Engineering Students’ Approaches to Learning and Views on Collaboration: How do both Evolve in a PBL Environment and What are their Contributing and Constraining Factors?. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2019;15(11):em1774. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/106197

AMA

Du X, Ebead U, Sabah S, Ma J, Naji KK. Engineering Students’ Approaches to Learning and Views on Collaboration: How do both Evolve in a PBL Environment and What are their Contributing and Constraining Factors?. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2019;15(11), em1774. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/106197

Chicago

Du, Xiangyun, Usama Ebead, Saed Sabah, Jianping Ma, and Khalid Kamal Naji. "Engineering Students’ Approaches to Learning and Views on Collaboration: How do both Evolve in a PBL Environment and What are their Contributing and Constraining Factors?". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2019 15 no. 11 (2019): em1774. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/106197

Harvard

Du, X., Ebead, U., Sabah, S., Ma, J., and Naji, K. K. (2019). Engineering Students’ Approaches to Learning and Views on Collaboration: How do both Evolve in a PBL Environment and What are their Contributing and Constraining Factors?. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(11), em1774. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/106197

MLA

Du, Xiangyun et al. "Engineering Students’ Approaches to Learning and Views on Collaboration: How do both Evolve in a PBL Environment and What are their Contributing and Constraining Factors?". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 15, no. 11, 2019, em1774. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/106197