Discussion of the Results

In this section the results of applying the SAM model to the case study: The first semester of the Electronics and IT engineering programme at AAU, will be discussed. Firstly, results of the quantification of study activities in the five modules as well as in the full semester will be discussed and reflected upon. Following this the suitability of the SAM model will be discussed, with regard to the two key concepts and to the categorization process. The third and last subsection deals with the relationship between the SAM model and learning how to learn.

4.1 Quantification of EIT modules

The quantification of the study activities in the five modules has been carried out by counting duration of all activities in categories C1, C2 and C4 and then subtracting the sum of these activities from the total study time for the module, based on the ECTS credit, to get a number of hours for category C3. The results in percentages thus obtained are shown in figure 2 for each of the five modules.

Figure 2: Percentage wise categorization of study activities in the five modules of the case study.

57 As can be seen from the figure, in both of the two projects categories C1 and C4 activities are minimal. In P0 the C2 activities dominate because of the teacher designed project work, while in P1 the proportion of C3 activities is more than ¾ of the credited study time for the project (10 ECTS = 280 hours).

The PS course is relatively low in C3 activities compared with the other 4 modules which may be explained by the nature of this course. The PS course is a study introductory course which is conducted for almost all first year students at FoES, with course contents being customized to the specific engineering programme.

The course is essential for the success of the Aalborg PBL model within engineering programs because it supports the students in their project work, providing essential tools for project management, group collaboration, problem orientation, report writing etc. The course is closely aligned with the P1 project and students are expected to apply concepts and tools from the PS course in their P1 project work and reflect upon this application in a written process analysis that is part of the PS course. Ongoing formative assessment and feedback to students on the application of tools from the course is the responsibility of the supervisor, while the PS course teacher provides oral or written feedback on course activities and deliverables (e.g. the project group’s project design, time schedule, process analysis etc.). Thus, the course aims to establish (self)-confidence and safety for students in the PBL environment, specifically the ability to handle category C3 activities.

In the IMPR course the two categories C2 and C3 take up approximately ¾ of the credited study time, a result that has not changed drastically with the course redesign. Nonetheless, the redesign has had a very positive impact on students’ learning: They are more actively engaged and benefit from learning by training on relevant problems and exercises, they take initiatives, individually as well as in the group and they get immediate feedback when interfacing to simple sensors and actuators which helps them see the idea in programming. The course and the project work are more aligned and also the students with no programming as part of their first semester project are more engaged in the course. Weaker students benefit from peer teaching and –learning in the groups and the individual exam puts enough pressure on students to ensure deep learning which is necessary for the programming components of the semester project to become a success. In this sense, category C3 activities in the course are a must and are regarded as very important.

Of the three courses the LIAL course has the highest proportion of C1 activities which is hardly surprising because this course is a rather traditional, i.e. lecture based course. Even so, the proportion of C3 activities is approximately a third of the total study time, demonstrating that even in teacher-controlled teaching students have to study on their own to comprehend the material.

The combined semester result is shown in figure 3.

Figure 3. Accumulated quantitative categorization of study activities in the first semester EIT.

58

From this figure is becomes clear that almost half of students’ study time (47 %) during their first semester falls within category C3, i.e. initiated by students and with only students as participants. Another 34 % is in category C2, i.e. teacher initiated but with only students as participants. Activities where the teacher participates (C1 and C4) amounts to only 19 %.

To the authors, even if very familiar with the AAU study program, it was an eye-opener to realize how much time students are investing (or at least expected to invest) in independent studies, i.e. C3 activities, without any teacher assistance, whether in courses or in projects. As mentioned in section 1: Introduction, the first semester case study was chosen because this semester plays a crucial role in students’ transition from high school to university and it is in this semester that good study habits need to be established. In later semesters at FoES, AAU, this distribution of study activities may be expected to have even more emphasis on C2-C3 activities.

4.2 Suitability of SAM

In connection with the attempt to use the SAM model on the AAU case study two important discussions have appeared. One is about the concepts used in the model and the other about the categorization process.

These two discussions form the core of this subsection.

The two key concepts in the SAM model are ‘participation’ and ‘initiation’, both of which may be broadly defined. ‘Participation’ might specify any position along a continuum from simply being present (physically or virtually) to being actively engaged. In our use of the SAM model we have interpreted ‘participation’ to lie at different positions of this continuum depending upon the category in question. Thus, in C1, students’

participation has been interpreted as ‘being present’ while teacher’s participation is ‘being active’, while in C4, students are active participants and the teacher is ‘the guide at the side’.

‘Initiation’ implies responsibility for structuring and organizing study activities but again a continuum is possible, from merely initiating an activity to planning, organizing and structuring activities. Finding the balance along this continuum is one of the challenges for the teacher in an active learning environment: Too much teacher-controlled planning may render the students inactive and unwilling/unable to organize and structure their activities, too little planning may leave them confused and wasting time.

At AAU, the teacher is responsible for initiating, i.e. structuring and organizing, activities in C1 and C2 as well as for providing feedback and formative assessment to results of students’ activities in C2 and C3.

Students are responsible for initiating, i.e. structuring and organizing, the C3 activities. Furthermore, part of the teacher’s role is to be a ‘backstop’ in cases of insecure, lazy or non-capable students’ groups. In C4 the students have responsibility for initiating, i.e. structuring and organizing, the activities, while the teacher’s main responsibility is to be available as consultant.

Concerning the categorization process, SAM, as any other simplifying model, has natural limitations when being applied on the real world. One inherent problem is the difficulty of distinguishing between the different categories of the model – where exactly to draw the line between, say, C3 and C4 activities? This problem which is emphasized by the broad definitions of the two key concepts, as mentioned above, cannot be completely solved but the more precise the descriptions of study activities, the more precise the categorization. While the model is well suited for analyzing how study activities are initiated and carried out, it says little about whether learning is achieved and to which level the students achieve knowledge, skills and competences. Two very different modules may score the same SAM distribution but the outcomes of teaching and studying may be widely different.

Another problem related to the categorization is that different project groups work differently, some groups seeking more consultancy from the supervisor than others. Yet another problem related to category C3 activities is that, even if the teacher may provide tools, frames etc. to assist students with C3 activities, (s)he

59 can never know precisely what students are doing in this category. This is reflected in the way the calculation was carried out in the case study – C3 is simply calculated as the study time that is NOT time tabled for C1, C2 or C4 activities. Therefore, quantification of C3 activities is uncertain, which may leave teachers wondering whether students are studying as much as they are supposed to according to the credit points. This can only be assessed by analyzing the results of students’ C3 activities and by giving feedback in the form of formative and summative assessment to these results.

4.3 SAM and learning to learn

In AAU, as in many universities around the world today, an overarching objective is to foster autonomous learners with a high academic standing who are capable of taking responsibility for their own learning. In this subsection the discussion focuses on the concepts of ‘responsibility for own learning’, ‘learning to learn’

and the SAM model.

In the discussion on ‘initiation’ it was mentioned that students are responsible for structuring and organizing C3 activities, whether in courses or in the project work. Before first semester students can do that efficiently they need to be guided by the course teacher or the project supervisor. Course teachers have to enter into dialogue with students about the traditions, modes of thinking and requirements for the specific course.

Similarly, supervisors need to negotiate project requirements and learning outcomes of the project with students. Thus supported, students may be able to constructively engage in effective approaches to learning, including self-management beyond trial-and-error.

Responsibility for structuring and organizing the activities is closely linked to ‘responsibility for own learning’, that leads on to ‘learning to learn. The PS course described above includes a session on individual and collective learning that aims to provide students the terminology for talking about their own learning processes, whether individually or collectively in the group. This C1- C2 activity is supplemented with C3 activities, such as students reflecting on and becoming aware of learning processes, including peer teaching and -learning. This approach has a much greater and lasting impact on student achievements than only C1-C2 activities, especially when supported by feedback from the course teacher and the project supervisor. The foundation provided through the alignment between the PS course and the P1 project is viewed as vital for the success of the Aalborg PBL model.

This section has discussed some of the important findings from using the SAM model on the case study. In the last section the research questions will be answered and perspectives for further use of the SAM model will be discussed.