Content learning in the project

As discussed in the previous section, the project played an important part in this PBL model in motivating and stimulating students to learn. It is also important to know what students learned and how they learned from the project. Firstly, I will consider what they learned and then I will reflect on which mode of learning (individual or team based) was accountable for their learning. In the survey, 97% of students said that the project helped them to understand the subject matter and 84% stated that the project a laid strong foundation for the subject (see figure 6.4, BQ7 and BQ8). In addition, during the interviews and essays students mentioned that their understanding of the subject was enhanced. In the project presentations, it was seen that students carried out thermodynamic analysis of the engineering product. Such analysis would be possible only when the relevant content was understood and that knowledge was applied for analysis purpose. In the project reports, the content learning was evident. This result could be attributed to the effectiveness of the project design and related activities.

These results showed that the PBL approach was conducive to learning. For the students‘

learning point of view, there could be three modes of learning: classroom instructions, individual study and collaborative approach. Each mode played an important role in this CLPBL environment. The instructions provided the pre-requisite knowledge required to start the project. To complete the project, the students needed to apply this knowledge. In doing so, they needed to collect relevant information from different sources. In the essays, students

158 mentioned the collection of information from theInternet and from books. In the essays and interviews, student mentioned distributing work between them, collecting information from various sources and trying to understand that information. Through this method, individual learning could also come into the picture. Later, the collected information and knowledge was shared with team members to carry out the analysis of a problem and to find a final desired outcome. This way the project provided space for individual and team-based learning.

This was confirmed by the survey responses, in which 83% of students said that they learned independently and 88% said that they learned through the collaborative approach (see figure 6.4, BQ4 and BQ6). Observing these two responses, there is a fair chance that same students might have (83% and 88%) indicated both approaches was important. From the essays I found that the collaborative learning (team-based approach) was dominant. Students claimed that the role of teammates was critical for sharing knowledge, solving problems and resolving doubts during the learning process. However, in the presentations I observed the strong influence of individual learning, as only 2 out of 4 students could answer the questions asked during project evaluation. In the project presentations, group leaders generally dominated the question-answer sessions, which showed glimpses of individual learning. This would lead to the conclusion that the CLPBL-2 model provided the multiple occasions (classroom, team or individual) for everyone to learn.

Irrespective of individual preferences, it was good to see that the students themselves completed the entire project without taking much help from a teacher; this showed their ability to learn and apply the concepts independently. As this was their first experience working in a PBL environment, the students enjoyed the group work and learned from each other by exchanging ideas and knowledge. Thus, the PBL model created a very good environment for collaborative and cooperative learning. Still, in the team-based approach the students faced many difficulties and had to manage their teammates by considering their time, behaviour and attitude.

Owing to their understanding of the subject content developed from their individual and team-based learning, the students felt confident about the course. In the survey, 85% of the students described feeling confident to appear in the examination and 89% said they expected an improvement in their grades. However, only 65.5% of students ultimately passed the course. There is a difference of 20% between the survey response and the percentage of students who passed the course. This could be explained further. In the survey, only 106 out of 126 students responded. For calculation of the end of semester result, 119 students were considered. This may lead to further investigations to find which students passed the course whoalso said in the survey that he or she was confident to appear in the examination.

6.8.4 Teamwork

In the traditional set-up for this course, students were not expected to work in a team. In the CLPBL model, the 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. The team composition consisted of members per team and gender distribution of the team. In this model (CLPBL-2), groups had 3-4 members. There were 33 teams. Out of 33 groups, 27 groups had 4 members and 6 groups had 3 members. Gender- wise, the group compositions were as follows; 27 groups had all male members, 6 groups had mixed gender (that is, having at least a female member in their group).

In the survey, respondents stated that they found the group work to be a challenging task that produced various difficulties (see figure 6.6 DQ1). These difficulties mainly comprised managing teammates and working with the opposite gender. Although they faced difficulties,

159 most of the students understood the importance of teamwork. They found their teammates‘

cooperation to be important for the completion of the project and for the learning process.

Students mentioned that they were learning to work in a team by taking different perspectives and opinions. Students stated in the essays and interviews that they valued teamwork and understood its importance for accomplishing the given task in the due time with comparatively less effort than working individually. Students appreciated the efforts put forth by individuals in the project. Responses in the survey indicated that the students were satisfied with their team‘s performance in this semester (DQ7). It seems that 3-4 students per team were the optimal number for the course level project. Students experienced teamwork in this semester. They gained confidence and understood the pros and cons of teamwork. As a result, 95% of students felt that they wereready to face more challenging and complex projects.

In the survey, 89% of respondents felt that they could have done better with the teamwork and strongly felt that there was scope for improvement in the teamwork (Q6). I observed that the team composition played a very important role in the outcome of the project. In both experiments, I observed two trends. The intelligent, talkative and active students were leading the groups and the weaker, less active, more introvert students were either in supporting roles or sidelined. In my opinion, it is not a good situation for the PBL approach to be effective only in activating the already active students and excluding the already passive students.

Some practical arrangements must be done to change this situation. The girl member in a team was given a soft role or faced a problem while working with boys. The boys in the mixed gender groups reported that the girls in their group did not respond quickly enough and that they took their time, delaying the project work. The female students found it difficult to adjust to the group. It would take some time to change this situation, as this was their first experience of working with males.

6.8.5 Time management

The first cohort students were largely unsatisfied with the time and timing of the project activities (31% felt the time given was not sufficient). Based onthis feedback, I started the second cohort‘s project activity at the beginning of the semester and completed it before the end of the semester. As a result, I found that 83% of students in the second cohort agreed that the time was sufficient for the project work. This was a rise of 14 % of students who found that time was sufficient for the project work in the CLPBL-2. Hence, it is very important to announce the project at the beginning of the semester.

Still, 17% of students had some issue related to time. This may be because the students left the project work towards the end of the semester or they might have faced difficulties in the project work. Otherwise, it can be concluded from the students‘ responses that the time provided for the project was sufficient. In this model, 32 student groups completed their work in the given time, which showed their ability to respect the deadlines and complete the task in the given time. In relation to time, students suggested that a detailed timetable of the activities could be prepared and displayed on the notice board. This would help the students in their time management.

As far as my time management was concerned, at the beginning I was comfortable and carried out regular academic activity at a normal pace. In this model, most of the critical project activities, such as project evaluation and grade preparation, occurred at the end of the semester. As a result, I was stressed towards the end of the semester. The survey and short interviews were also conducted in this period. The project reports and data analysis, were at

160 the end of the academic and project activities. I managed the data analysis activities during the vacation period.

6.8.6 Project management

In the survey, 79% of students said that they applied project management principles in their project work (see figure 6.5, CQ7). This was an acceptable response because students were not instructed about the project management techniques, nor had they learned them in any of the courses prior. Still, students did manage to complete the projects in time; therefore there must have been a method by which the student managed their projects. In the feedback sessions, students discussed the application of simple project management techniques. These included dividing the work equally among members, managing periodic meetings for reporting the progress or individual allotments of work and sharing that work later. These were a few of the examples of project management techniques adopted by the groups. It has been observed that each team developed their own strategy of doing the things or managing the project activities. The teams completed the desired set of activities in time, which showed their time management and project management skills. In my opinion, 79% was a good response. I have already discussed the project management techniques adopted by students during my essay analysis.

6.8.7 Project reports

From the project report analysis (see tables 6.7 and 6.8), it has been found that only 70%

of the groups included all the major activities of the project in their report. This was a modest sign of learning to write the project report. However, it was observed that the quality of the reports was not up to expectations. Most of the students copied and pasted material from the Internet into their reports. They also failed to write proper references. In general, the students paid little attention to the report preparation. This was their first instance of writing a report, so it is possible that the report quality will improve in the next project.