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

The Final Year Project (FYP) is a crucial element of undergraduate programs, serving as a bridge between undergraduate and postgraduate studies or employment. Successful FYP operations benefit both students (developing professional skills and research experience) and universities (enhancing educational quality). However, FYPs face challenges such as limited independent research experience, lack of student interest in assigned projects, resource constraints, and unexpected contextual factors (like the COVID-19 pandemic). The FYP allocation mechanism is critical in influencing student motivation, research interest, and engagement. Existing mechanisms often neglect student interests and fairness, potentially limiting motivation and adaptability. This study proposes a student-centered FYP allocation mechanism prioritizing student interests and fairness. Using a mixed-methods case study at an international university over three academic years, FYP data from the School of Advanced Technology (SAT) was collected and analyzed from an online education platform. The study aimed to explore this mechanism's impact on student academic performance and resilience. The study also aims to extend this mechanism's applicability to other project-based learning contexts to enhance students' academic resilience in the post-pandemic era.

The COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted higher education, accelerating the shift towards remote learning and online education, and altering traditional teaching models. Universities are transitioning to more interest-oriented and student-centered approaches to address these challenges and improve online teaching efficiency and student resilience. Improving the FYP allocation mechanism is seen as a step towards transitioning from knowledge dissemination to research-led instruction. Traditional supervisor-centered FYP allocation methods, often based on supervisor preference, raise concerns about fairness and efficiency. Student-centered mechanisms aim to improve fairness and student engagement but may face challenges related to project feasibility and the potential for bias. This study proposes a new student-centered automated FYP allocation mechanism to address these limitations.

This study employed a three-year mixed-methods case study at a Sino-British university in China. The first year (AY2020-2021) used a traditional supervisor-centered allocation mechanism, while the subsequent two years (AY2021-2022 and AY2022-2023) used the newly developed student-centered automated mechanism. The study focused on engineering students from the SAT. The student-centered mechanism involved a four-step process: 1) pre-allocation of specific projects to eligible students; 2) opening most projects (including popular ones) to the remaining students; 3) students ranking up to ten FYP choices; and 4) an algorithm randomly allocating projects based on student rankings. Data was collected from the university's online platform, including FYP scores (from interim assessments, project demonstrations, and the final dissertation), failure rates, and non-submission rates. An online questionnaire with open-ended questions was used to gather student feedback on the student-centered mechanism after its first year of implementation. Data analysis used MATLAB, with non-parametric tests (Mann-Whitney U-test) employed due to non-normal data distribution. The study compared student performance under both allocation mechanisms, considering various quantitative metrics and student feedback.

The student-centered FYP allocation mechanism demonstrated high student satisfaction. After the first allocation round, over 90% of students received their preferred projects in both AY2021-2022 and AY2022-2023. Student feedback (95.3% response rate) showed that 85.3% were satisfied with the mechanism. Hypothesis 1 (H1), which posited a positive relationship between interest and academic performance, was largely supported. Students in the 'pre-allocated' group (meeting specific criteria) consistently outperformed other groups, followed by those who received their first choice of projects. Hypothesis 2 (H2), suggesting a positive relationship between the student-centered allocation mechanism and academic performance, showed mixed results. While the Mann-Whitney U-test did not show statistically significant differences between the average final FYP scores under the two mechanisms (p-values > 0.05), the student-centered mechanism demonstrated improvements in average final FYP scores (4.2% and 3.9%), 25th percentile scores, failure rates (reduction of 5.1% and 3.3%), and non-submission rates (reduction of 3.9% and 2.4%) compared to the supervisor-centered mechanism. Similar trends were observed when analyzing dissertation scores specifically. Notably, these improvements occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent post-pandemic period.

The findings suggest that the student-centered FYP allocation mechanism positively impacts student performance and academic resilience. Aligning student interests with FYP choices enhances intrinsic motivation (supported by cognitive evaluation theory) and autonomy, promoting better engagement and achievement. The improved performance and resilience observed, even during the challenging pandemic period, highlight the mechanism's effectiveness in helping students adapt to contextual changes. This supports an extension of resilience theory to the design of project-based resource allocation mechanisms.

This study demonstrates the positive impact of a student-centered FYP allocation mechanism on student performance and resilience. Key findings show improvements in academic performance, pass rates, and completion rates, supporting the hypotheses and contributing to resilience theory. However, limitations exist regarding supervisor workload assessment, study generalizability, and long-term impact on employment. Future research should address these limitations, explore additional factors influencing FYP allocation, and investigate the long-term impact on graduate outcomes. Recommendations include fostering student-centered environments, balancing strictness and flexibility in project allocation, and continuously improving the mechanism through evaluation and feedback.

The study has several limitations. Firstly, it may not fully capture the workload and attitudinal shifts experienced by supervisors. Secondly, the study's scope was limited to undergraduate engineering students in a specific school, potentially affecting generalizability. Thirdly, the long-term impact on graduate employment prospects was not assessed. Future research should address these limitations by incorporating supervisor perspectives, expanding the study population, and tracking graduate outcomes.