Achievement of learning outcomes

Overall, 93% of the students felt satisfied with their learning during the semester and recommended the PBL approach for the next semester. The project helped students to learn and apply knowledge to real life engineering products (LO-‗a‘). This was especially evident from students‘ essays and presentations, in which they talked about their cases. Heated debates and arguments during the question-answer sessions of the presentations signalled the depth of knowledge gained by students about the topics under study. For the achievement of learning outcome ‗b‘ (conducting experiment and data analysis), in my opinion, both traditional and PBL approaches were useful. The traditional approach helped students to conduct experiments in the laboratory and the PBL approach helped students to gather data from field experiments. In both cases, students used data for calculation purposes.

LO- e relates to the solution of real-life engineering problem. In this project, students were not actually asked to solve a real-life engineering problem, but they were asked to analyse a real-life product in the content learning perspective. In the project work, students analysed the real-life product for its various thermodynamic parameters and application of the laws. To conduct this analysis, students needed to exercise their application as well as reflective skills.

They needed to establish relationships between classroom learning and real-life context. To do this, they needed to compare, evaluate and critically examine their choices. Hence, there ought to have been improvement in the thinking and problem solving abilities of the

161 students.In the survey, students stated that their thinking and problem solving abilities were enhanced.

In the traditional set-up for this course, students were not expected to work in a team. In this model, students were provided an opportunity to work in a group with the opposite gender. These groups worked for almost three months and completed the project work satisfactorily. This provided them with useful experiences of learning from each other and getting used to working in a team, advancing them towards the achievement of LO-‗d‘.

Because of the group work, the students‘ understanding levels and confidence in problem solving improved. In the survey, 94% of students felt that their ability to work in a team was improved (see figure 6.5, CQ2).

In this PBL model, students got opportunities to communicate with their group mates in various modes such as discussion, explaining to each other and sharing ideas and perspectives. In the presentations, the students had the opportunity to communicate in front of their peers. In the project report, they had the opportunity to write and manage technical information. All of these activities would help them to improve their written and verbal communication skills. In the survey, 97% of students claimed that their ability to write reportswas improved. In the process of working on the project, students needed to find relevant information from various sources, and to understand and apply that information to a posed problem. The students managed their work independently, showing their ability to engage in lifelong learning (LO- ‗i‘).

The students used Microsoft Office, Excel and Power Point programmes to manage the data and prepare their presentations. Some groups demonstrated the ability to integrate video clips and audio data into their presentations. Overall, this activity helped them to analyse, interpret and manage the data (LOs ‗b‘ and ‗i‘) by using modern tools and techniques (LO

‗k‘). This was evidenced by their responses to CQ4 (98%), CQ5 (91%), and CQ6 (96%) about writing, presentation and information management skills respectively. In general, this PBL model offered a favourable environment for improving students‘ communication (‗g‘) and information management skills (‗i‘). Since the project in this model was similar to in the first model, the LOs ‗c‘, ‗f‘, ‗h‘ and ‗j‘ remain untouched.

6.8.9 Role of supervisor

In this model, there were 33 groups and I was the only supervisor for all groups. Not only did this create a huge workload for me, but the students faced problems related to guidance.

During the essay analysis, I found that students complained about the lack of guidance. I agree with the students‘ point of view on this. There is a need to include a few more staff members and to allocate each of them only a few groups. This is not impossible but seems to be difficult, as we have limited staff to support the courses and university curriculum. In addition, other staff members have their own priorities for their courses. I need to think further on this aspect, as both cohorts mentioned the need for a guide for every group.

6.9 Conclusions

In the first PBL model, a framework for CLPBL for the SITL was developed. This created the possibility of PBL implementation in other courses. The same framework was implemented to develop CLPBL-2. The framework was equally effective for the purposes of my research. So far, I have designed two models for two different courses. In both models, I designed and implemented a course level project of virtually the same level of difficulty. In

162 the implementation process for the second model, a class of 126 students was divided into 33 groups having 3-4 students per group. I found that, for the course level projects, 3-4 members worked better than 5-6 members (as were included in the first model). This could be investigated further.

During essay analysis the students wrote that the PBL model helped them to learn independently and from their peers. During this process, students faced many difficulties, mainly related to fieldwork and teamwork. In the end, 32 out of 33 groups were able to complete the project in time and submit the report. During project presentations, most of the groups exhibited their knowledge about the topic under investigation. In this project, students showed the ability to apply the knowledge leading to content learning and demonstrated a deeper understanding and enhanced practical knowledge. Though they were satisfied with their learning experience, the role of weaker and female students in the PBL environment could be further investigated. Students perceived that the PBL environment provided them the opportunity to learn and improve their skills, which will be useful for professional practice. In the end of semester survey, 93% of students recommended PBL for the next semester and suggested that they would like to work on more complex projects.

After reflecting on the responses from this model, I concluded that the course level project design could be used as a starting point for implementing PBL in an institute that uses the traditional academic set-up. The experiments and trials like the models in this research would help to develop experience in designing a PBL course and in refining the design. These designs could then be replicated for other courses in the programme. Overall, PBL has been found to be a useful way to engage students in learning and to achieve LOs. Furthermore, for the second time in this research, the data collection instruments demonstrated their consistency for the purpose. The data analysis in this experiment was also much quicker because the framework for data analysis had already been created in the first model.

Encouraged by students‘ responses in two consecutivelysuccessful PBL implementations, I designed a third CLPBL model. This model provided me with an opportunity to investigate the students‘ experiences in two consecutive PBL models working with a complex project.

The next chapter is dedicated to CLPBL-3.

163

Chapter 7