Stundent’s experiences in CLPBL - 2
CLPBL-2 Frequency
CLPBL-2 Frequency
Teamwork 10
Managing team members (17) + Girl in a group (04) + lack
of coordination (04) = 25
Data handling Information management (19) and reports (5) = 24
Internet access (04), Information collection (03)
and reports (05) = 12
Field work 22
place of fieldwork (27)+
unable to see from inside (04)
= 31 Conceptual
difficulty 5 04
Time Time management (4), Time limitation (7) = 11
Time management (07), Time limitation (08)=15
Total 72 87
Table 6.11 summarises and compares the difficulties experienced by the students in both models. It can be seen that mentioned similar set of difficulties in both models students; these mainly included fieldwork, teamwork, time management, information management and conceptual difficulties. In general, the students in the second model faced more difficulties than those in the first model, except in difficulties relating to the data handling. The difficulties in teamwork included managing teammates (17), working with the other gender (4) and lack of coordination (4). In the first model, students had experienced a similar set of difficulties but with less frequency (10). This may be because of individual preferences and attitudes toward teammates. In mixed gender groups, working with the opposite gender (04) was difficult for some members and a few (4) participants felt that they did not get much cooperation from their team members.
The difficulties in data handling included Internet access (4), getting the right information (3), and compiling the information into reports (5). The first cohort had more difficulty in data handling category, possibly because there is more information available about the mechanisms compared to thermodynamic products. Difficulties in the fieldwork category (31) included getting to the fieldwork site and getting permission to conduct fieldwork (27).
A few of the groups that got the permission could not see the product from inside (4). In the
145 first model, students experienced fewer difficulties in this category,possibly because the machines were available in close vicinity.
The conceptual difficulties (4) were the difficulties in which students struggled to understand the information and apply known information to the actual product. Most of the difficulties experienced by team members were due to the nature of the product (principle of electrical heating). Although project activities were started at the start of the semester for the second model, some students still had difficulty managing their time (7) or felt that there was a shortage of time (8). The participants faced a similar set of difficulties during the project in both models. In spite of these difficulties, 32 groups in the second model completed the project work in time. The student got the experience of overcoming difficulties to achieve the final desired outcomes. This set of skills is part of the project management, which is related to ABET learning outcome (k).
6.6.4.4 Suggestions for improvement
The students were also asked to suggest possible improvements to the existing model. The students provided many areas where improvement could be done to CLPBL-2. Table 6.12 shows a summary and comparison of the suggestions given by the participants for the two models. From the table 6.12, it can be seen that, in both models, students offered similar suggestions. The total number of suggestions for the first model was greater (82) than the second model (69). This difference was mainly because the students in the first model had more suggestions relating to time (46) than the students in the second model (26). This was understandable because the project in the first model the project was started in the middle of the semester, whereas the project in the second model was given at the beginning of the semester. In other categories, the difference between models was marginal.
Regarding teammates, the students offered suggestions on team composition (11) and the number of members per team (6). The students suggested that the teams should have fewer students (less than four) (06) and must include at least one intelligent student (5). The students felt that doing so would allow each member to contribute to teamwork and, due to the presence of intelligent person on the team, would improve their learning. Regarding time, the students in the second model suggested initiating the process of project work early in the semester (19). They suggested finishing the project evaluation before the semester end so that the timing of each activity could be improved (1). One acceptable suggestion was that a detailed timetablebe displayed outlining a week-by-week plan for the project activities.
Regarding project work, the students suggested giving more challenging, practical projects (6) and raised issue of assessment (2). They also suggested that the Internet lab be made available even after college hours (6). As has already been discussed, the Internet lab could not be kept open for security reasons. All other suggestions were already considered in this design. A few students raised important points about the supervisor and guidance provided by him. They suggested providing or deputing one supervisor per group. This would surely help students to get out of difficulties that arise throughout the project. This suggestion could be taken up by incorporating more teachers into the project work. From the above discussion, it can be said that CLPBL-2 could be improved further in the areas of time management and providing guides to each group. There is also scope for improvement in the areas relating to team composition.
146 Table 6.12 Summary of suggestions for future models
Code Suggestions CLPBL-1
Frequency CLPBL-2 Frequency
Teammates Teammates 17
Group of less members (6) +Meeting of group
(3) + one groups containing one good
member(5) + group should be with new members(6) + early group formation(2) = 22
Time
More time 14
display timetable (2) and proper time management
(04) = 6
Timing 10 Finish before exam (01)
Project at
start 22 19
Projects
Practical / challenging
projects
11 06
Proper / project assessment
4 02
Availability
of Net lab 02 6
Proper Guide 02 7
Total 82 69
Summing up
In this section, qualitative data collection and analysis methodology are discussed. The essays, project presentations, short interviews, project reports and responses to the open ended questions provided the qualitative data, which was analysed by using content analysis technique. From the data analysis, it is understood that the CLPBL-2 model proved to be effective for improving students‘ motivation, engagement towards learning and application of knowledge on real life engineering products. This resulted in improved understanding, and content learning. Moreover, students claimed that their practical knowledge was improved. In terms of skills, students‘ responses showed that CLPBL-2 was effective in improving teamwork, time and project management abilities. The project reports and project presentations provided an opportunity to improve written and verbal communication. There is a scope to improve this model in the areas of project assessment, time management and
147 providing guides to each group. In the coming sections, the survey, project grades and grades in the final examination will be used to reinforce this data.
6.7 Results from quantitative data analysis
6.7.1 Survey
The survey was conducted at the end of the semester. In this survey, 106 out of 126 students recorded their responses and returned the questionnaire in time. Twenty students did not respond. Table 6.13 below shows a summary of respondents and non-respondents. The response rate of the second cohort (84%) was close to the response rate of the first cohort (88%).
Table 6.13 Summary of respondents and non-respondents in CLPBL-2 Total students Number of students %
Respondents 106 84.13
Non-respondents 20 15.87
Total no. of participants 126 100
In the following section, the results from the survey are discussed. It can be noted that the project for the second cohort was of a similar nature to that of the first cohort; only the course has been changed.
6.7.1.1 Socio-demographic analysis or participating students’ profiles
There were 126 (n = 126) participants, of which only eight were (n = 8) female (refer to table 6.8). In terms of age, all participants were between 19 and 21 years old. In terms of language, all spoke three languages. Out of the 126 students, a total of 33 groups were formed. In terms of gender, the group compositions were as follows: 27 groups had all male members, 6 groups had mixed gender (that is, having at least one female member in their group). Out of 33 groups, 27 had 4 members per team and 6 groups had 3 members per team.
6.7.1.2 Students’ experiences in PBL and related aspects
Table 6.14 provides a summary of the student‘s overall experience relating to various aspects of CLPBL-2. In response to AQ1, (see figure 6.3), 93% of students claimed that the project was challenging. Compared to the first cohort‘s response, this value is increased by 9%. From the table, the mean value of responses here was 4.10, as compared to 3.74 from the first cohort. This means that the students in the second cohort felt that the project was more challenging than those in the first cohort. I then asked whether the given project was relevant to their profession (AQ3) and had any significance to the course (AQ2). I found that 95% of students believed that the project was relevant to their engineering profession and 87% felt that it was well integrated into the curriculum. This is unlike the results from the first cohort, in which 90 % and only 77%, respectively, gave favourable responses to these questions.
This means that more, or most of the students from the second cohort agreed that the project was relevant and in line with the course.
148 Table 6.14 Students’ responses on various elements of CLPBL-2
Question
AQ1 Assigned project work was challenging 4.10 0.62
AQ2 The project was well integrated into the curriculum 4.08 0.58 AQ3 The project was relevant to my profession 4.36 0.64
AQ4 I found classroom instructions helpful 4.17 0.70
AQ5 I feel the time provided for the project was sufficient 4.07 0.78
AQ6 Assigned project was enjoyable 4.19 0.82
AQ7 I recommend to apply PBL to other courses 4.44 0.66
Figure 6.3 Students’ responses on various elements of CLPBL-2 in percentages.
1
The project was well integrated into the curriculum
The project was relevent to my profession
I found classroom instrutions useful I feel the time provided for the project was
sufficient
Assigned project was enjoyable I recommend to apply PBL to other
courses
AQ1AQ2AQ3AQ4AQ5AQ6AQ7