Characteristics of TOM project

The problem choice or project design is considered to be a very important and challenging task in PBL model design. To start the development process of the project, I needed to find a way to design a project suitable for the course. Savin-Baden & Major (2004) defined different curriculum modes in problem-based learning. I found the first two modes they described to be relevant to my research. When the PBL is applied for a single course it is called as Mode 1. When PBL is implemented in a module run by teachers interested in implementing PBL and other teachers do not participate it is called as Mode-2. In my case, PBL is to be implemented in one course of the curriculum (Mode-1) and implemented by me (Mode-2). Hence, the model could be in line with Modes 1 and 2. The model could also be characterised by Models I and II as described by Savin-Baden (2000). Model –I is characterised in which students are expected to become competent at applying preceding knowledge to solve the given problem. In Model II, the emphasis is given on actions to enable the students to become competent in practice. In my model, students are getting both opportunities i.e. to apply knowledge and to practice.

4.4.1.3 Project

The project design process was guided by the case study conducted at Aalborg University (Shinde & Kolmos, 2011) and a review on PBL models (please refer to chapter 2) and the 3C3R model of problem design (Hung, 2009). This design was also directed by curriculum design principles such as Bigg‘s constructive alignment (1996), Bloom‘s Taxonomy (Krathwohl, 2002) and the ABET learning outcomes (see table 1.1, chapter 1). The project

73 activities were selected to suit the students‘ abilities, the course content and the institutes‘

existing academic culture and infrastructure. Ross (1991) elaborated different ways to present the problem to the students. The problem could be presented as an event, set of questions or a statement and desired set of activities (Ross, 1991). Accordingly, the problem was presented in the form of a statement (see below) and a set of activities, as shown in table 4.3.

Problem statement- Analyse any real life engineering mechanism to evaluate its Degree of Freedom (DOF).

Table 4.3 shows the coherence of project activities and intended ABET learning outcomes (refer to table 1.1, chapter 1). The project was designed to cover the defined course objectives and seven out of 11 graduate LOs as defined by ABET.

Table 4.3 Mapping of the project activities and intended learning outcomes Activity

No. Project activities

Intended ABET Learning Outcome (LO)

1. The team formation d

2. Problem solving and drawing sheets in a group. b,d, i

3. Laboratory work in a group d,e,a

4. Identify the mechanism, submit and justify it. a,i

5. Undertake the field work. a,k,i

6. Explain the working of the mechanism. a

7. Find types of links, pairs and joints used in the mechanism. a

8. Classify, specify and calculate them. a

9. Apply Grubler‘s criteria. a

10. Find the DOF and justify your answer. a

11. Prepare a project report. g,k

12. Present to an audience. g,k

13. Questions and answers g

74 Short description of the project

In this section, the project is explained to enable readers to understand it. In the PBL setting, students deal with the problem in a team. So, the team formation process acted as the first activity. By forming a team at the beginning of the semester, it was ensured that the participants would get at least three months to work together on the project. As discussed earlier, a whole class is divided in the four equal batches. Thus, each batch would visit TOM lab once in a week. Hence, to manage students group and to get enough time for guidance/

supervision, I asked students to form a team of five members from their batch only. The second activity had students work in a team and apply their knowledge to solve engineering problems from the textbook. Each group was assigned two different problems for drawing velocity and acceleration diagrams. This activity was intended to help students settle in and adjust to their groups. In addition, this activity was intended to improve students‘ content learning.

The third activity was laboratory work. In this activity, the group was asked to conduct the experiments in the TOM laboratory. This helped students to complete their assigned laboratory work and to work in a team to analyse and interpret data. By the time the fourth activity began, the students would likely have settled into their groups. At this point, students were asked to submit the name of the real life engineering mechanism that they were going to analyse. The intention was to make the students think and discuss the real life engineering mechanism and research it through various sources.

Activities 5 to 10 mainly comprised fieldwork activities. In fieldwork, students were expected to visit the place where the mechanism is used. They needed to understand how it works and identify important links, joints and pairs. It was hoped that these field visits would generate interest and curiosity to learn more about the machines. It was also anticipated that the students would try to find the relevance of the classroom instructions and actual engineering. It was hoped that their knowledge and understanding of the subject would be increased as a result of the fieldwork.

Only once the fieldwork was completed, students could apply the criteria to calculate the DOF. In the project, activities 4 to 10 required the students to search information from various sources, apply knowledge, discuss with their team, decide on a mechanism, find a real life application and place, visit that place, understand and collect the data and come back to calculate the DOF. These activities formed the core of the project and were intended to achieve higher order thinking skills such as analysis and evaluation. These activities were in line with the cognitive learning principle of PBL.

Once the students finished calculation of the DOF, they needed to prepare a project report and present their work in front of the class. After the presentation, the team had to answer questions asked by evaluators. This segment was intended to improve the students‘

communication skills (report writing, presentation and discussion). There was considerable autonomy given to the students to choose a mechanism according to their interest. This method could provide intrinsic motivation to the students. Students also selected their teammates and set up their project plan for the entire semester. Additionally, acquiring additional information to achieve the desired output was directed by the students. These activities would prepare them for the achievement of the lifelong learning skill.

In the designed project, the series of activities were designed to get disciplinary knowledge, making ita discipline project. It was hoped that the students would be able to learn and achieve learning outcomes what would otherwise not be obtained by traditional teaching and learning practices.

75 4.4.2 Teaching strategy

In the TOM course there are six units (refer to appendix A2) divided into two sections:

section-I and section-II. Dividing the syllabus into six units is a strategy of University of Pune. All courses in the curriculum have six units. The project activities were designed to address the content in the first section, which includes the first three units. These three units of section-I, were called ‗project units‘, as they were directly related to the project activities. I planned to prioritise the teaching of these project units in order to provide the basic propositional knowledge that students would require for starting the project. Students were also given a list of reference books and handwritten notes. It could take around 6 weeks‘ time to complete the project units in class. The other three units were covered using the traditional teaching-learning practice.