Methodology 1. Participants

Seven final year undergraduate students from the Faculty of Electrical Engineering, UTM have been selected to participate in this study. All of them are students of the Bachelor of Engineering (Electrical) program which includes four males and three females. In this research, the perception and opinion on the PBLab given by each of these students will be analyzed and presented as its outcomes. Besides, it is important to highlight that the students involved in this research are those who have gone through the PBLab process.

4.2. Procedure

This study is specifically qualitative that uses semi-structured interviews as an approach to collect data among seven selected students. The semi-structured interview process involves a series of open-ended questions based on the research focus area. According to Beverly Hancock (1998), open-ended questions provide opportunities for both interviewer and participants to discuss a topic in detail and give rich data collection. Besides, by using the interview approach, the detail explanation and perception of the students towards the effect of the PBLab on them can successfully be determined.

5. Results and Discussion

To determine the students’ experiences and perception regarding the effect of the PBLab on them, semi-structured face-to-face interview sessions have been conducted. The open-ended interview sessions have allowed the students to give more in-depth response regarding the effect of the PBLab which implements problem/project-based as its T & L approach on them. The students have been asked to answer several open-ended questions, but only three questions will be discussed in this paper. The first question that has been highlighted in the interview sessions is the perception of the students regarding the differences between conventional and non-conventional (PBLab) laboratory course that they have gone through. Table 3 gives the examples of some of the responses as expressed by the respondents. Based on the responses obtained, most of the respondents do know the differences between the conventional laboratory and the PBLab. However, there is one key point that has been stressed out many times by the respondents which is

The conventional laboratory has provided them with step-by-step procedures in conducting an experiment compared to the non-conventional PBLab that allows the students to think and solve the given problem or project based on their knowledge and then proceed to designing their own experimental procedure. In addition, based on Table 3, it can be summarized that the students are more comfortable and learn more when they are being pushed to solve real-world problems or projects in the PBLab. On the other hand, Respondent E clearly pointed out that the conventional laboratory also has its advantages. Although the previous conventional laboratory did not provide the opportunity for the students to come out with their own experimental procedure or the experience to solve a given problem in a team, it is still valid in providing the students with the experience to handle electrical engineering equipment based on a given procedure. As reported by Kelly, O.C. and Finlayson, O.E. (2007), in conventional laboratories, students get direct opportunities to

develop manipulative and technical skills. However, due to the T & L approach of the PBLab, it offers the advantage of allowing the students to express and think about their own thinking in the spirit of team working.

Table 3: Students’ perception towards the differences between conventional laboratory and PBLab

Respondent A:

“PBLab is like..we have to find the information by our self and we have to apply what we have learned before…compared to the previous traditional lab, they give us the procedure and we just followed it, try to get the output from it and don’t know what we are doing actually. But in PBLab course, we understand better because we started from the beginning of the problem..From week 1 until week 4, we analyze the result, write the report and finally, we understand what we are doing.”

Respondent C:

“Conventional lab are more on…All the procedures has been provided and we just have to follow it. But for PBLab, we have to solve the given problem by our self from A until Z.”

Respondent E:

“Ermm...for conventional lab, it’s more on to teach us how to use the devices. For example, in the class, we just learned the theoretical facts about the devices but when we are in the lab, we learned and know how to use it manually and not only based on theory…But, in PBLab, it’s focusing more on how to solve the problem. It teaches us how to start to solve the real-world problem and how to strategize and solve it in a time frame. Besides, in PBLab, we can understand what we are doing better.”

In order to focus more on the impact of the PBLab on the students, Table 4 shows the feedback received from the respondents regarding their own perception towards the effect of the PBLab on them after having gone through it.

Referring to the table, all respondents answered that the PBLab has given them positive impact. This is mainly due to its T & L approach that gives the students the chance to use their own creativity in devising the strategies to solve a given problem or project while enhancing their problem-solving skills. The comments given have also indicated that the students like to explore and yearns to be given the space to develop and use their own thinking to solve a problem or project without directly following procedures. Besides, PBLab also has given them the experience of working with other students and learn to tolerate with each other despite having any differences in order to complete a given problem or project which would be assessed on group basis. Furthermore, according to Harlen (2006), this active learning approach also can enhance learning when students interact with each other, which recognises the impact of other students’ ideas in solving a given problem or project.

Table 4. Students’ perception towards the effect of PBLab on them Respondent A:

“It gives us positive effect because what we have learned from first year until fourth year class can be applied in the PBLab.”

Respondent E:

“It’s really good because we have to know how to manage. Previously, we are been given the procedure and we just follow and setup the experiments based on the given steps. But for PBLab, we try to setup and solve the given project or problem ourselves. Besides, the problems/projects are real ones”

Respondent F:

“It gives effects...For example, PBLab teaches us how to work with people who have different attitudes and way of thinking.”

Besides enhancing the students’ learning and their thinking process, the PBLab has also been designed to develop other important generic skills which are equally important for graduating engineers. Table 5 describes the students’

feedback regarding the effect of the PBLab on them in developing their generic skills.A few respondents said that the PBLab somewhat has forced them to use the English language as the form of communication because a few of their group members are non-native Malay speakers. Besides that, other skills that have been emphasised by the respondents are report writing and presentation. Respondent C clearly stated that the PBLab has taught him to prepare the project presentation slides within a time constraint. Although there have been other courses which require the students to present their work, with the PBLab all members of a group must be aware of the process involved in solving a problem or completing a project right from the very beginning. If this awareness effort is not embraced by any of the group members, it can easily be detected during the presentation session itself since each of them has to present their part of the presentation material. In addition proper planning and coordination is required as in a very limited time, the students have to present their data in a systematic way so that the audience can clearly understand the presentation. Another skill that has been developed by the students in the PBLab is report writing based on the fact that they are required to complete three reports throughout the semester. This is verified by Respondent E and most importantly the respondent has acknowledged the importance of report writing skill for graduating engineers.

Table 5. Students’ feedback on the effect of the PBLab in developing their generic skills

Respondent B:

“Yeah..it forces us to speak in English because there are some foreign students in our groups”

Respondent D:

“It has improved my English..”

Respondent C:

“Basically we know how to prepare slides, but during PBLab, it teaches us how to prepare and manage it in a short time..Usually, we will take some time to prepare and design the slides, but in PBLab, it’s vice versa.”

Respondent E:

“Yes...There is..in PBLab, we have to write a report. Most people said that engineers don’t need to be a good report writer, which is wrong. The truth is in order to become a good engineer, you have to be good in writing reports too.”

6. Conclusion

This paper has highlighted the responds given by the students regarding the effect of the PBLab on them based on the three forwarded questions. The comments and responds given clearly indicate that the PBLab although rather challenging is well accepted and has brought positive effects not only on the students’ learning but also on developing various skills that are important for graduating engineers. There are several other factors that may contribute to the effect of the PBLab on the students particularly on their learning which include the facilitators’ attitudes, types of assessments and types of problem or project given. Further investigation and analysis need to be done in future to identify how far these factors effects the students.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Centre for Teaching and Learning of Universiti Teknologi Malaysia for the funding of this project through Vote Number Q.J 130000 under the Instructional Development Grant (IDG).

References

ABET. (2012). Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs, Accreditation Commission, Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology.

Retrieved from: http://www.abet.org/criteria.html

N. A. Azli , C. W. Tan and N. Ramli.(2010). Implementation Model of a Problem-BasedLaboratory (PBlab) Established for a Bachelor Of Engineering (Electrical) Program atUniversiti Teknologi Malaysia, Regional Conferences Engineering Engineering, Sarawak.

N. A. Azli. (2005). Proposed Implementation of a Problem Based 4th Year Electrical Engineering Undergraduate Laboratory, RegionalConference on Engineering Education (RCEE 2005)

Salim, K.R. (2012). A Model for Assessing Student’s Achievement in Basic Electronic Laboratory. Doctoral thesis.

Johnstone A.H., Watt A. and ZamanT.U., (1998), The students’ attitude and cognition change to a physics laboratory, Physics Education, 33, 22-29.

Huba,M., and Freed, J. (2000). Learner-cantered assessment on college campuses. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Kelly, O.C. and Finlayson, O.E. (2007),Providing Solution through Problem-based Learning For The Undergraduate 1^stYear Chemistry Laboratory, Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 2007, 8 (3), 347-361.

Domin D.S., (1999), A review of laboratory instruction styles, Journal of Chemical Education, 76, 543-547.

Garratt J., (1997), Virtual investigations: ways to accelerate experience, University Chemistry Education, 1, 19-27.

Prince, M.(2004). Does Active Learning Work?A Review of the Research. Journal of Engineering Education. 93(3),223-231.

Woods,D. R. (1996).Problem-based learning for large classes in chemical engineering. In L. Wilkerson & H. Gijselaers (Eds.), Bringing problem-based learning to higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.91–99.

Caravan, B. (2008). A summary of the findings from an evaluation of problem-based learning carried out at three UK universities. International Journal of Electrical Engineering Education,45(2):175–180.

Beverley Hancock.(1998). An Introduction to Qualitative Research, Trent Focus for Research and Development in Primary Health Care.1-26.

R. Paton. (2010). Making problem-solving in engineering-mechanics visible to first-year engineering students, Institution of Engineers Australia,, Australasian Journal of Engineering Education.16 (2).

Harlen W., (2006), Teaching, learning and assessing science 5-12, SAGE Publications, London

The Effectiveness of Problem-based Learning Approach on Students’ Skills