Research Questions and Methodology
Chapter 4 Pre-design phase
4.2 Contextual understanding
4.2.3 Analysis of local level requirements
In the previous sections, it is shown that there is a need to design a PBL model for Indian institutes. However, I was uncertain whether to use an institute-level model or small-scale experiment at the course level. To make this decision, I critically analysed SITL culture and constraints. The existing curriculum was analysed to determine possible methods of PBL implementation. These aspects are discussed in the next section.
4.2.3.1 Existing administrative and institutional setting
The Indian educational system uses hierarchical approach in which ownership of decision-making lies with top management. SITL is no exception to this. SITL is governed by the rules and regulations set out by UoP. The principal heads the SITL. Each department has a department head. Each department also has a sufficient number of teaching and non-teaching staff to support the curriculum structure (I am a teaching staff). The last human element of the system is the student. The SITL has classrooms, a laboratory, a computer centre and central library to support the existing curriculum. Apart from this, the institute has sports,
63 recreational, mess and canteen facilities. The finances for running the institute are managed out of students‘ tuition fees.
Perspectives for PBL implementation
In the literature review chapter of this thesis, I argued that all of the elements of the curriculum (curriculum structure, evaluation and teaching learning strategy) and SITL (physical and human resource) must be aligned in order to achieve institution level change (from traditional to PBL). An institutional level change appeared to be impossible for SITL at this stage. The staff at the institute were not trained, the students were not aware of PBL and the curriculum would require significant reorientation to be suited for PBL practice.
Considering the time frame of the research, this option appeared unmanageable. Also, as discussed, there were many institutional constraints. It was apparent that the PBL model needed to be designed by tackling these constraints. Some of them were beyond my control, for example, curriculum design or staff recruitment. As a result, I started to look for alternative options that would be within my reach.
I began to look for an approach that would enable me to initiate changes at the programme or course level. I researched top down and bottom up strategies for change in the literature (Kolmos, Gynnild, & Roxa, 2004). In the top down approach, top management makes a decision to implement PBL and initiates the change process. This was not possible in my case as the top management was not directly involved in my research. My position as a teacher at the institute held the lowest authority in terms of governing the institute. To implement PBL in the SITL in a top down approach, consent from top management is very much essential.
Top management advised that I experiment on a single course without disturbing other courses. I found this bottom up approach to be more suitable and manageable for my research as it allowed the possibility of initiating the change process myself while conducting my research. The relevant literature also recommended experimenting first at the course level and then applying the methods to the institution (Cawley, 1991). I found that the course-level approach was typically used in the traditional system where there are other parallel courses taking place at the same time (Woods, 1991, Mantry et al., 2008). In the course level PBL implementation, the lecturer would generally decide nature of PBL activities and the learning objectives. Since, PBL is implementation in a single course in the traditional system where there are other parallel courses taking place at the same time, students would participate in a mix of traditional and PBL course (Kolmos, Graaff, & Du, 2009).
The advice from top management and my own self-reflection helped me in the decision-making process. I chose to focus on course level PBL implementation and decided to implement PBL into my course. As a teacher at SITL, I usually oversaw the subject ‗Theory of Machines-I‘ (TOM-I). This course is for second year mechanical engineering students in their second semester. In the next section, the curriculum structure of the second semester is discussed. Including the whole semester curriculum here will also illustrate curriculum practices followed at SITL.
4.2.3.2 Existing curriculum structure
The table 4.1 shows the complete curriculum structure of the second year, second semester mechanical engineering undergraduate course. The structure and syllabus is provided by UoP and can be found on the UoP website at www.unipune.edu.in (UoP, 2012).
64 Table 4.1 Existing teaching and examination scheme (UoP, 2012)
Course
code Course
Teaching scheme Examination scheme
Total marks Lect. Pract/Dwg Paper Term
work Oral Practical 202047 Theory of
Machines-I 4 2 100 50 - - 150
202048 IC Engines 4 2 100 25 - 50 175
202049 Geometric
Modelling - 4 - 25 - 50 75
203050 Electrical
Technology 4 2 100 25 - - 125
202051
Strength of M/c.
Element
4 - 100 - - - 100
202052 Production
Technology 3 - 100 - - - 100
215053 Workshop
Practice - 2 25 25
Total Of Second
Term
19 12 500 150 - 100 750
From table 4.1, it can be seen that there are seven courses in the curriculum, five of which are theory courses. I decided to implement PBL in one of the courses (see highlighted course) because I was given the responsibility of teaching this course. Other courses were allotted to other teachers. Table 4.1 also provides a summary of the teaching and evaluation schemes for the chosen course. Four hours per week were provided for lectures and two hours per week for laboratory work. At the end of the semester, there was a written examination for 100 marks. This examination was based on the content outlined in the syllabus. A sample copy of the syllabus for the highlighted course is attached in appendix A2. This syllabus was divided into six units and the topics to be covered were listed under each unit. In the final examination, each unit carries equal marks.
The highlighted course also included 50 marks for term work. Term work refers to work that needed to be carried out by individual students in the given term. This work essentially included conducting laboratory experiments (lab work), drawing and writing an assignment.
The items under the heading of term work were also listed in the university syllabus. Term work marks were allotted to individual students based on performance in the listed work. For the laboratory work, the whole class was divided into four batches. Each batch had to visit the TOM laboratory for two hours every week to conduct the listed experiments. UoP conducts
65 practical and oral examinations for the courses listed in the curriculum structure. The university appoints external examiners for these examinations.
It should be noted that there was no project head in this semester of the curriculum. UoP plays a pivotal role in designing courses, detailing the syllabus and conducting various examinations for the overall evaluation of individual students in the institute. I had no flexibility to change the course content, experiments and examination scheme. All of these elements put constraints on the project design; the challenge was to see what could be done within these constraints.
Teaching and assessment Strategy
As the teacher, it was my responsibility to prepare students for the final examination for the ‗Theory of Machines- I‘ course. The institute‘s role was to provide the infrastructure and facilities to support this preparation process. The course result (passing percentage) was one of the important parameters for evaluating students‘ performance. The course results depended on many factors, one of which was the effectiveness of the instructions for dealing with the course content. Accordingly, each course was assigned to an expert teacher. Once the teacher had been assigned to a particular subject, his timetable was prepared. My timetable has been reproduced here for reference (figure 4.1). The timetable includes the schedule of lectures and laboratory hours. Generally, for the lab practice whole class is divided in four equal batches. Accordingly, in the timetable, S1, S2, S3 and S4 show the four batches of the second year class that would visit the Theory of Machines (TOM) laboratory.
Class Room (D-106) Time Table : SE Mechanical Engineering
Prof. V.V.Shinde Sem - II A.Y. 2011-12
w.e.f. 02/01/2012 Time/day Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
08.05 - 09.00 am
09.00 - 09.55 am
09.55 -10.50 am TOM- I TOM-I
10.50 - 11.50 am LUNCH BREAK
11.50 am-12.45
pm S-1 TOM
(VVS)
TOM- I
S-4 TOM (VVS)
TOM-I
(VVS) S-3 TOM (VVS)
12.45 - 1.40 pm
01.40 - 01.50 pm Short Break
01.50 - 02.45 pm S-2
TOM (VVS)
02.45 - 03.40 pm
Figure 4.1 Sample timetable for the course
66 As can be seen, my timetable included 4 hours of lecturing time and 8 hours (2 hours X four batches = 8 hours) of lab work per week. In total, I had 12 contact hours per week with the students. From the timetable above, it can also be seen that the students are in the institute from morning until afternoon, up to 4 pm. In this time, students must attend a number of other courses (as listed in table 4.1) in addition to my course. The blank spaces in the timetable were allotted to other courses in which other teachers instructed the students. Apart from teaching my course, my role was also to design and conduct various written tests, to assess the students‘ knowledge and understanding gained from classroom instructions and to provide timely feedback on their performance. The sole objective of these written tests was to prepare students for the final written examination. Accordingly, the questions in the tests were designed to align with the final university examination.
Students’ activities in the traditional setting
The students‘ main activity was to attend the lectures and laboratory hours as outlined in the timetable. Classroom activities mainly included listening and participating in the discussion, if there were any. For the laboratory work, each batch (refer timetable S1, S2, S3, and S4) was required to visit the laboratory for two hours in accordance with the timetable given to them. In the lab, students were required to perform an experiment as per a list that was given to them. They recorded their observations and wrote the experiments in a journal.
This journal had to be certified by the teacher and was very important for the oral or practical tests. This was how the two hours of lab work were utilised by the students.
Examination
Students‘ evaluation was based on:
1. Performance on the written test 2. Performance on the oral/practical test.
Both written and oral examinations evaluate individual students and were conducted at the end of the semester; by the university. The focus of the written test was to assess the candidates‘ ability to remember and reproduce knowledge derived from lectures and from self-directed study. The written examination was solely based on the syllabus/content provided by the university. As a result, most of the students were aware of which content could appear in questions asked in this examination. Writing the test merely required the students to prepare the content and reproduce it in the test. The role of UoP was to design a question paper for this examination. UoP also provided a marking scheme and model answers to the teachers for evaluation purposes. The course teacher evaluated students‘ answer sheets and course grades were prepared. For each course in the curriculum, this procedure was followed. Please note that, as per the UoP rules, I was not allowed to evaluate the final examination answer sheets for my students. This was done instead by teachers from other institutes affiliated with UoP who taught the same course in the semester. As a result, I was not in a position to judge what students had written in the main examinations. The only indicator by which I could judge the students was the marks they achieved in this examination. I used these marks for the analysis of my research.
The oral examination was based on content from the journal. The journal was brought with at the time of the oral examination. Students were evaluated by an external evaluator appointed by the university. Most examinations were in the form of viva-voce. An external examiner allotted marks based on the students‘ performance in the oral examinations.
67