Navigating the uncertainty: the impact of a student-centered final year project allocation mechanism on student performance

The study addresses how final year project (FYP) allocation mechanisms affect undergraduate students’ motivation, engagement, and performance. Traditional FYP operations face issues such as limited research experience, lack of interest in assigned projects, resource constraints, and unexpected contextual changes (e.g., COVID-19). The authors propose a student-centered, automated allocation mechanism designed to prioritize students’ interests and fairness, hypothesizing that better alignment with interest will enhance performance and academic resilience. The research questions focus on student satisfaction with the mechanism (RQ1), potential improvements (RQ2), and how interest and context influence FYP performance (RQ3), with hypotheses that interest (H1) and specific contextual factors, including the student-centered mechanism (H2), positively relate to academic performance.

The literature highlights the pandemic-driven shift to online and blended learning, accelerating moves from teacher-centered to student-centered approaches and increasing the need for resilience in higher education. Traditional supervisor-centered FYP allocation raises fairness and efficiency concerns. Prior student-centered and automated mechanisms improve transparency and engagement but may face feasibility and fairness challenges. The authors review interest theory, emphasizing that alignment with personal interests can increase motivation, resilience, and performance, and they consider contextual factors (academic systems and broader social background) that shape learning experiences, especially in the post-pandemic UACC era. Academic resilience theory frames how students adapt to challenges, with recent work suggesting resilience supports engagement in blended environments. The study formulates RQ1–RQ3 and hypotheses H1 (interest positively relates to performance) and H2 (contextual factors, including the student-centered mechanism, positively relate to performance).

A three-year mixed-methods case study was conducted at a Sino-British, English-medium instruction university in China. Allocation mechanisms: AY2020–2021 used a traditional supervisor-centered manual allocation; AY2021–2022 and AY2022–2023 used the proposed student-centered automated mechanism across the School of Advanced Technology (SAT). Mechanism design: 1) Pre-allocation of specific projects to eligible students (e.g., prior research assistants) meeting school criteria; 2) Opening most projects on an online platform with comprehensive information; 3) Students rank up to 10 preferred projects; 4) An algorithm allocates projects, randomizing among students with identical choice rankings, iterating through ranked choices until all students are assigned. Sample and data: Three cohorts comprised fourth-year engineering undergraduates. Supply of projects met or exceeded student numbers; minimum project quotas per supervisor ensured choice breadth. Sample sizes and allocation rounds (examples): AY2021–2022: 84 supervisors, 636 FYPs, 558 students (pre-allocated 89; Round 1: 425; Round 2: 35; non-selected 9). AY2022–2023: 80 supervisors, 692 FYPs, 474 students (pre-allocated 146; Round 1: 289; Round 2: 20; Round 3: 9; non-selected 10). Outcomes: FYP scores were compiled from interim progress (25%), demonstration (15%), and final dissertation (60%). Failure was defined as final FYP score <40; non-submission captured incomplete FYPs. A post-implementation online questionnaire (Sample 2) collected open-ended feedback on suitability and satisfaction; response rate 95.3% (532/558). Data processing: Data were cleaned and cross-checked; normality was rejected; non-parametric tests applied. Mann-Whitney U-tests compared FYP and dissertation scores across mechanisms at α=0.05. Failure and non-submission rates were computed for comparative analysis. Context across years: AY2020–2021 supervisor-centered during pandemic; AY2021–2022 student-centered during pandemic; AY2022–2023 student-centered post-pandemic.

• Allocation satisfaction and uptake: After Round 1, 92.1% (AY2021–2022) and 91.8% (AY2022–2023) of students obtained preferred projects. After subsequent rounds, only 1.6% (AY2021–2022) and 2.1% (AY2022–2023) failed to obtain preferred projects. Non-selected students were manually allocated to prevent delays. Survey (AY2021–2022): response rate 95.3% (532/558); 85.3% (454/532) satisfied and supported continuity; 6.2% (33/532) raised concerns about option diversity; 8.5% (45/532) suggested improvements.
• Interest-performance relationship (H1): Grouping by obtained choice showed generally higher performance with stronger interest. The pre-allocated group outperformed others: AY2021–2022 vs 1st choice: +10.3% median, +11.3% 25th percentile, +6.8% 75th percentile. AY2022–2023 vs 1st choice: +17.3% average, +11.9% median, +12.9% 25th percentile, +11.3% 75th percentile.
• Mechanism effect on overall FYP scores (H2 - academic system context): Student-centered mechanism improved average final FYP scores by 4.2% (AY2021–2022) and 3.9% (AY2022–2023) vs supervisor-centered (AY2020–2021); 25th percentiles increased by 6.9% and 5.6%. Mann-Whitney U p-values for average score comparisons: 0.4121 and 0.1111 (not statistically significant at 0.05). Failure rates reduced by 5.1% and 3.3%; non-submission rates reduced by 3.9% and 2.4%.
• Mechanism effect on dissertation component: Average dissertation scores improved by 4.9% (AY2021–2022) and 5.3% (AY2022–2023); 25th percentiles +3.4% and +5.1%; p-values 0.3746 and 0.1067. Dissertation failure rates reduced by 3.8% and 3.7%; non-submission reduced by 3.9% and 3.1%.
• Contextual influence (H2 - social background): Despite pandemic-related disruptions in AY2020–2022 and post-pandemic UACC in AY2022–2023, the student-centered mechanism was associated with improved scores and reduced failure and non-submission, suggesting enhanced academic resilience.

The findings support that aligning projects with student interests and providing autonomy through a transparent, student-centered allocation boosts motivation and engagement, consistent with cognitive evaluation theory and autonomy-support literature. Students allocated to preferred projects performed better and showed greater resilience amid pandemic and post-pandemic challenges, extending resilience theory to resource allocation design in project-based learning. Practically, empowering students to select projects fosters goal-setting, confidence, and reflective practice, and may help students recover from setbacks during staged FYP assessments. The mechanism addressed RQ1 by achieving high satisfaction and preference matching, RQ2 by eliciting actionable improvement suggestions, and RQ3 by demonstrating positive relations between interest/context and performance (with effect sizes evident despite non-significant p-values for average score comparisons).

The study demonstrates that a student-centered, automated FYP allocation mechanism that prioritizes student interest and fairness can improve academic outcomes (overall and dissertation scores), lower failure and non-submission rates, and enhance academic resilience under varying contextual conditions. It contributes to resilience theory by highlighting adaptability gains from student-centered resource allocation in project-based learning. Future work should broaden generalizability across programs and institutions, integrate more quantitative and longitudinal measures, and examine personalized factors (e.g., major, gender, personality) and supervisor-related dynamics. Recommendations include fostering a student-centered environment, balancing strictness with flexibility in allocations and adjustments, and instituting continuous evaluation and feedback loops.

• Supervisor perspective and grading effects: The study did not fully capture supervisor workload, attitudes, or potential grading influences that may have contributed to observed score improvements. Future work should assess supervisor workload distribution, expectations, and attitudes (e.g., via Likert scales or focus groups) and the supervisor–student relationship.
• Scope and transferability: Conducted within one school (SAT) and discipline context, limiting generalizability. Future studies should include diverse degrees, universities, and countries.
• Individual/group factors: Potential influences of major, gender, and personality on project selection and outcomes were not analyzed and warrant investigation.
• Longitudinal outcomes: The analysis is confined to the FYP period; impacts on employability and graduate destinations were not assessed and should be explored longitudinally.