Phase 3 Individual notes,
3. Discussion and conclusions
3.1. Discussion
The expected outcome of the study is to develop a general guideline for educators in Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) institutions in implementing Problem-Based Learning (PBL) specifically on programming course using a CNC simulator. In order to achieve the desired outcome, this study needs to do research on a variety of PBL approaches such as Product, Project, or Production Based Learning. Eventually, this will allow us to come to a conclusion which PBL approach is most appropriate to be used in TVET. The main concern in TVET is to develop hands-on skills and the main concern in PBL is the development of skills such as critical thinking, problem solving, learning and etc. This study is aiming to find a compromise between both the traditional and the PBL approach in developing hands-on skills in TVET. In other words, it is a combination of both.
The primary data collection will be done in the German-Malaysian Institute in Malaysia. Still, the possibility to compare some aspects of the PBL implementation in Aalborg University in Denmark with GMI in Malaysia is under consideration.
Presently nine research questions are formulated as focus of this study. However these research questions will have to be narrowed down as the research progresses. Hence, there will be a process of reformulation on the research questions and elaboration of the research design. The data collection of this study will emphasize the PBL approach rather than the traditional approach, because GMI already has the statistic of students’ results trained in traditional approach. This study (research question 6) also concerned with the low achievers (GMI’s students) in academic background as this will indirectly influence the effectiveness of PBL in TVET.
With respect to this study some limitations have been identified that are supposed to affect the findings of this study. These limitations are the followings:
1. The sample of this study will be teaching staffs and students from GMI comprising 6 groups of 4 per group as the grouping of students per class is 24 students.
2. Restricted to the technical and vocational education training which emphasize hands-on skills for students at Diploma level specifically on programming course using CNC simulator.
3. Difference in the level of prior knowledge of each student.
4. The level of education background of each student may be different because they come from various schools, technical schools, technical institution and technical college.
3.2. Conclusion
The potential benefit of this study is the answer to research questions how effective the PBL approach to TVET. Even if this study perhaps might not answer all research questions, it will trigger more studies on the PBL effectiveness in TVET in the future. TVET education is highly essential especially in the Malaysian context as Malaysia is moving towards an industrialized country and the responsible of the TVET institutions to produce highly skilled and competent technicians/technologist to support Malaysian industries. Presently, the development of human capital with multiple competencies is in great demand and personnel
with only one technical competency is no longer competitive and will not survive in the globalization era (Ngan C. H., 2010).
GMI had taken an important step forward to change the TVET training approach from traditional to PBL approach. This study will hopefully benefit not only to GMI but also to all TVET institutions in Malaysia. The significance of this study is to provide tool to the technical and vocational training providers particularly in Malaysia or countries with similar conditions, as the general guideline that will be produced will help them to develop and implement PBL at their training institution. Hopefully, this study could contribute to better and effective of PBL implementation in TVET and increase the learning skills of students as well as their hands-on skills to prepare them for a challenging working environment.
Acknowledgements
I am much indebted and wish to express my sincere gratitude to GMI’s management team for giving me the opportunity and support to conduct a study on PBL at PhD level here in Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.
References
Albanese, M.A. (1993). Problem-based learning: A review of literature on its outcomes and implementation issues. Academic medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 68 (1), 52-81.
Boekaerts, M. (1999). Self-regulated learning: where we are today. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 445–457.
Boud D. (1985), Problem based Learning in perspective in education for the professionals, Sydney, Higher education research and development of Australia.
Bransford, J. D., Franks, J. J., Vye, N. J., & Sherwood, R. D. (1989). New Approaches to Instruction: Because Wisdom Can't Be Told. In S. Vosiadou & A.
Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and Analogical Reasoning (pp. 470-297). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bridges, E. M., & Hallinger, P. (1992). Problem-Based Learning For Administrators. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, University of Oregon.
Creswell, J., Clark, V. (2007), Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, Sage Publication Inc., Thousand Oak, pp. 31-35.
Davis, M. H. & Harden, R., (2005). Problem Based Learning: A practical guide, AMEE Medical Education guides no 15, University of Dundee, Scotland, U.K.
deVries, M., Schmidt H. & deGraaf E (1989), Dutch Comparisons: Cognitive and Motivational Effect of Problem-Based Learning on Medical Students, New directions for Medical Education, pp. 231-38.
Graaff, E. d. & Kolmos, A. (Eds.) (2007). Management of change: Implementation of Problem-Based and Project-Based Learning in Engineering. Rotterdam:
Sense Publishers.
Hmelo-Silver (2009), What do We Know about Problem Based learning? Current Status and Future Prospects, 2nd International Problem based Learning Symposium, pp. 2-19.
Jones, E. A. (1997). Identifying college graduates' essential skills in reading and problem solving: Perspectives of faculty, employers, and policy makers. University Park, PA: National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment.
Keefe, J. W. (1979). Learning style: An overview. Student learning styles. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.
McKeachie, W. J. (1988). The need for study strategy training. In C. E. Weinstein, E. T. Goetz, & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Learning and study strategies:Issues in assessment, instruction, and evaluation (pp. 3-9). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Neo T. K. & Neo M. (2005), Engaging Students in Problem Based Learning (PBL) in a Malaysian Classroom - A Constructivist Approach, PBL Conference.
Ngan C. H. (2010), GMI Problem, Project and Production Based Learning (Pro3BL). GMI (Kajang): Brochure.
Ong Tan Hoon, J. (2006), Getting Started in Problem-Based Learning, Excellence in Education and Training Convention.
Paris, S. G., & Paris, A. H. (2001). Classroom applications of research on self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 36, 89–101.
Roland Yeo, (2005) "Problem-based learning: lessons for administrators, educators and learners", International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 19 Iss:
7, pp.541 - 551
Savin-Baden, M. (2000). Problem-based Learning in Higher Education: Untold Stories. The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press, Buckingham.
Schmidt, H. G. (1983). Problem-based learning: Rationale and description. Medical Education, 17, 11–16.
Walton H., (1999). Small group methods in Medical teaching. Medical Education booklet -1, Reproduced with the permission of ASME,12 Queen St, Edinburgh, EH2 1JE.
Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd Ed., pp. 315-327).
New York: Macmillan.
Weizman, A., Covitt, B., Koehler, M. Lundeberg, M., Oslund, J., Low, M., Eberhardt, J. & Urban-Lurain, M. (Fall 2008). Measuring Teachers’ Learning from a Problem-Based Learning Approach to Professional Development in Science Education. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, Vol. 2(2), pp. 30 – 60
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 329–339.
The 4
thInternational Research Symposium on Problem-Based Learning (IRSPBL) 2013
Using architecture pedagogy to enhance engineering education
Shannon M. Chance
a*, Mike Murphy
b, Gavin Duffy
b, Brian Bowe
baHampton University, Department of Architecture, Hampton, Virginia 23668, USA
bDublin Institute of Technology, Bolton Street, Dublin 1, Ireland
Abstract
Based on evidence, numerous advisory boards and scholars insist engineering education must change (NSB, 2007; McKenna, Froyd, King, Litzinger, & Seymour, 2011) and that hands-on, inquiry-driven, project-based learning pedagogies can enhance STEM education (Boyer &
Mitgang, 1996). These pedagogies have formed the core of architectural education since the Renaissance and have been in continuous use since that time. As such, engineering educators can benefit from observing how architecture students learn and understanding how they are taught.
Likewise, architecture can benefit from applying the group-based learning strategies employed by engineering teachers who use student-centered, project-based pedagogies. Trans-disciplinary approaches hold particular merit.
Keywords: Project-based learning, experiential learning, studio, cognitive development, intellectual development, architecture
1. Introduction
In its mandate to enhance science and engineering education, the National Science Board (henceforth NSB, 2007) asserted,
“Engineering education must change in light of changing workforce and demographic needs” (p. 1). The NSB has been quite specific in how it expects these changes to occur. To improve engineering education, the NSB advocates hands-on activities, collaborative work, and real-life applications that have social relevance. Additionally, the NSB recommends that educators integrate systems content as well as “component-level content” (p. 4) in the courses they teach. These are essential aspects of problem-based learning and of its more extensive cousin, project-based learning. Both of these are referred to as PBL, but the later better reflects the type of experiential learning defined by Kolb (1984). They have been used to teach architecture for centuries (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. At Hampton University, students in the second year architecture studio work in groups to create designs that reflect site, program, and construction consideration and synthesize them into the design of complex objects.
Figure 2. Engineering labs at the Escola Superior de Tecnologia e Gestão de Águeda (Universidade de Aveiro) are set up for group learning. Past projects, created by teams of students, line the walls of many labs.
Engineers “need to be adaptive leaders, grounded in a broad understanding of the practice and concepts of engineering”
(NSB, 2007, p. 2). The NSB identified this as a current deficit in engineering. The NSB described shortfalls in engineering graduates’ ability to navigate “complex interrelationships [that] encompass human and environmental factors.” These attributes are also required of architects and there is ample evidence of how they are developed within architectural students. Because the pedagogy employed in architectural education has been successful in instilling these abilities in students, the approach holds considerable significance for educators in engineering (Arens, Hanus, & Saliklis, 2009; Boyer & Mitgang, 1996; Boyer Commission, 1998; Eastman, McCracken, & Newstetter, 2001).
Universities across the United States, and indeed across the world, are attempting to achieve the NSB’s goals. In fact, an increasing number of institutions are now using studio-based courses to teach STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). In similar fashion, others now assign design projects to engineering, biomedical, and interdisciplinary groups
* Corresponding Author Shannon Chance. Tel.: +353-85-788-4677 E-mail address: shannonchance@wm.edu
of students (Boyer Commission, 1998; Eastman, McCracken, & Newstetter, 2001). Some engineering programs are beginning to structure their curricula around projects. Engineering programs at the Escola Superior de Tecnologia e Gestão de Águeda (Universidade de Aveiro) are much like architecture in the US, with content-based course supporting high-credit design-based activities (see Figure 2).
Such programs put student assignments in context so that they are less abstract. This helps students become more flexible engineers who are able to see relationships in the broader context, think iteratively, direct their own learning, adapt to the changing context and requirements of professional practice (Arens, Hanus, & Saliklis, 2002; Boyer & Mitgang, 1996). The NSB noted that such pedagogical techniques also help (1) make engineering more relevant to a broader group of students and (2) attract and retain a more diverse group of students—two critical outcomes the NSB seeks to achieve. In response to such needs, PBL formats are being implemented in more and more engineering classrooms. However, there is much room for research, improvement, and expansion in the use of PBL (McKenna, Froyd, King, Litzinger, & Seymour, 2011).
Figure 3. Engineering and architecture students work side by side to generate new designs, apply emerging technologies, build houses, educate the public about them, and compete in the US Solar Decathlon, held every second year (US Department of Energy, 2009).
Figure 4. At the University of Michigan, students enrolled in the SmartSurfaces (an elective design studio) work on trans-disciplinary group-based design problems. Here, students are presenting designs for “biomenetic” SmartSurfaces (SmartSurfaces, 2010).
For instance, this type of cross- or trans-disciplinary learning is evident in the project-based design studios conducted at the University of Michigan under the title SmartSurfaces (Marshall, Shtein, & Daubmann, 2011) and in Solar Decathlon studios conducted around the country and around the world (see Figure 3). In SmartSurfaces, trans-disciplinary teams (of students majoring in architecture, art and design, and materials engineering) work together to design “smart” surfaces that have specific, yet ill-defined, properties. In past years, students have designed biomimetic surfaces (see Figure 4), heliotropic surfaces, and solar-powered surfaces for a “Power House” located in Detroit. The blogs written by students in these courses document and illustrate learning that occurs due to cross-pollination of disciplinary knowledge and skills. Students in all these disciplines need to learn creative, contextual, and critical thinking. Their blogs indicate that are better prepared to work with people from other professions after completing this course.
Despite inspiring examples like these, the use of projects in engineering education is typically much more reserved than it is in architecture. This paper argues for more extensive use of context-dependent, ill-structured, project-based pedagogies in engineering. It explains how this is accomplished in architecture and explains potential benefits related to cognitive and intellectual development.