Chapter 4. Findings
4.9. Main Research Question
4.9.1. The Ways PBL Affects the Students’ Social Competency
Figure 4-10: Relationship between the main and sub-categories of ways PBL affects the students’ social competency.
Students Interactions
The observation data showed that, in every PBL session, the students seemed to develop an informal grouping and exhibited friendly and supportive behaviour among them. Figure 4-10 shows the relationship between the main and sub-categories of the ways PBL affects the students’ social competency.Every group of students appeared to be focused in their discussion on their learning issues and tried to grasp each other’s opinion by ignoring distractions of noise and physical activities by others. The students continued to give views to and questioned each other, and they gave feedback and explanations to each other. Various sorts of questions were posed by the students in a group; some were raising new and catchy questions such as:
“What is the difference between cutting speed and the circumferential speed?”
“How cutting speed affects the cutting tool during machining?” and
“What can we do to reduce the vibration of tool?”
Some questions were probing and asking for explanations such as:
“Why we have low cutting speed at the small tool or work-piece diameter?” and
“How can the earth surface speed be related to the cutting technology?”
Some questions asked about the CNC programming concepts between Milling and Lathe:
“Why we need to programme the feed in millimetre per minute in CNC Milling programming and not in millimetre per revolution as in CNC Lathe programming?”
“Why we do not need to programme the constant cutting speed as in the CNC Lathe programme?” and
“In what ways contour programming technique of CNC Milling has in common with contour programming technique of CNC Lathe?”
The feedback from the students were also a variety with some of them showed the application of their prior knowledge:
“Actually, the cutting speed and the circumferential speed is the same thing where the cutting always occurs at the circumference of the tool or, at the circumference of a work-piece.”
“Using wrong cutting speed will damage the tool earlier than it supposed to be because every tool material performs at different cutting speed.”
“Cutting speed is the ability of a certain tool to machine a work-piece.”
“The vibration of the tool can be reduced by decreasing the overhang length of the tool or lessen the depth of cut or reducing the number of tool rotation.”
“We have low cutting speed at the small tool or work piece diameter is because it relates with the circumference of the tool or work piece where smaller diameter with lower circumference and bigger diameter with a larger circumference.”
“The earth surface speed is the work piece or tool cutting speed and the location of the countries’ represents the various work piece or tool diameters.”
“We programme the feed in millimetre per minute when the tool is rotating and millimetre per revolution when the work piece is rotating.”
“In Milling, the cutting speed is always constant because the tool is rotating with a diameter while in Lathe, the work-piece is rotating and machine with a range of diameters.”
“Generally, if the controller is the same for both CNC Milling and Lathe, the contour programming technique is very much the same.”
Generally, the variation of questions and answers that resulted from students’ group discussions seemed to provide to the fruitfulness of the answers and solutions to the learning issues. The students used their prior knowledge of machining to relate with a new problem. For example, students identified other factors that were causing the vibration during machining were the rigidity of machine itself, the tool used, the shape of the work-piece and material of the work-piece. Furthermore, the students showed to be giving compliment and support to each other’s opinions and efforts in solving the problems. Comments for instance, “Point taken” “Good idea”, “Yes, you are right”, “I have the same opinion”, “good search”, “I agreed”, “Good job” and
“Right, right, right.” Some of the students exhibited a positive body language or nonverbal expressions such as smiles, handshakes, thumbs-up sign, and attentive listening to each other’s opinions were examples of positive manners that existed among the students within the groups during the discussion of learning issues. They seemed to enjoy and have fun with their learning activities and showed humour and deep interest as they worked to solve the problem. This observation by the researcher was further backed by the students’ remarks in Table 4-5; Appendix K-1.
It was interesting to observe that some students in the groups were rather passive and not very much verbally interactive. This situation was expected mainly in the first PBL session. Some of the possible reasons for this probably was due to the new approach of learning in which the students still needed some time to adapt, their anxiety, shyness and uncomfortable in speaking, presenting or in expressing themselves in English. For most of the students, English was the second language for them. The observation made by the researcher was further supported by the data of participants’ observations which shows mean score of 2.61 (Figure 4-11) on
Demonstrating the ability to explain and present confidently in the group meeting and oral presentation.
Demonstrating the ability to deliver the content very well and understood by the audience.
Demonstrating the ability to place the appropriate words to the thoughts that want to explain.
Demonstrating the ability to listen and answer the questions very well.
Figure 4-11: The results of the participants’ observers on PBL sessions one, two, three and four of students semester three and four.
It is also possible that at the beginning these students were not used to or not comfortable when participating in the “heavy” group discussion. However, after the first PBL session, the interaction among passive students increased, and they seemed to be more relaxed and got used to the PBL learning approach. The reflection by the students and comments by the facilitator at the end of the PBL sessions might contribute to this positive change. Some of the questions posed by the facilitator to the students during the reflection in order for them to be aware and improve in the next PBL sessions included the following:
“What you have experienced during the discussion of the learning objective, know, don’t know, what need to find out?”
“What you have experienced during the self-study and seeking for information?”
“What you have experienced during the group discussion and presentation?”
“What you have experienced during the group presentation?”
“What about the group members?” “Teamwork?” “Cooperation?” and
“Individuals’ contribution?”
The verbal interaction among students in the groups during the first PBL session seemed to be increased and improved in the following sessions two, three and four.
This can be observed through the result of “Communication skills” in Figure 4-11.
The “Communication skills” of students scored M = 2.61 for PBL-1, M = 2.87 for PBL-2, M = 2.94 for PBL-3 and M = 3.12 for PBL-4., and confirms that there was an increase of “Communication skills” by students in PBL sessions one to four and it is reflected by an increase of about 0.51 from PBL-1 to PBL-4. It was interesting to observe that at the beginning of PBL session the students with good English proficiency dominated the group discussions, however, in the third and fourth PBL sessions the students who were at the beginning passive and less English proficiency started to take active participation in the group discussions and some of them even lead the discussion.
Teamwork
The observation data also showed that students were very much involved in team working, and they seemed to have an active discussion, good interaction, and good argument. This observation was also affirmed by some of the students’ comments in the group interviews as presented below;
“Yes, Problem-based learning gives us room to get to know our friends, practice to communicate better, speak out, share and debate the opinion”;
“PBL makes us an active learner”; and “Fun, we like to work with teams that make us active in learning not passive.”
During the group discussions, the students exhibited good participation developed good relationships and teamwork among them. They seemed to contribute and exchange ideas in the group discussions. This observation was supported by some of the statements:
“Yes, because PBL encourages teamwork with distributing work, share ideas and enduring relationships” and
“Yes, PBL approach stimulated teamwork, every member of the group was given a task and needed to present in the group meeting. It was discussed in the group, thus, enhance the team spirit of the group.”
The students seemed to show interest in learning and enjoy with their learning activities. This observation was backed by some of the students’ feedback:
“Yes, Problem-based learning’s activities generate our interest toward learning especially during the discussion in a group” and
“We have fun in learning with Problem-based learning.”
The group interviews also revealed some of the students’ negative comments on teamwork regarding the question “What you feel the challenges/obstacles for you as a student to adapt PBL approach in your learning?”
Some of the negative comments are given below:
“Team members that did not participate and cooperate in the discussion.”
“Lack of teamwork.”
“The challenge when group members did not cooperate.”
“Teammate busy with other PBL assignment.”
“Some of the group members did not cooperate, no contribution and materials found by some members were not appropriate and difficult to understand.”
“Can’t find the information.”
“Some members of the group were not doing their job.”
(See Table 4-5; Appendix K-1 for more comments).
The data from the participants’ observers (see Section 3.6.2.1 of Chapter Three) in Figure 4-11 indicated that the “Teamwork” of students scored M = 2.98 for PBL-1, M = 3.07 for PBL-2, M = 3.18 for PBL-3 and M = 3.33 for PBL-4. The results showed that there was an increase of “Teamwork” by students in PBL sessions one to four. The increase was about 0.35 from PBL-1 to PBL-4.
The criteria observed by the participants’ observers on “Teamwork” were as the following:
Demonstrating the ability to conduct an effective group meeting/discussion.
Demonstrating a good and active interaction among the group members.
Demonstrating the ability to contribute and exchange of ideas in the group discussion.
Demonstrating the ability to work towards the attainment of the team’s learning objectives.
The quantitative data of students’ self-assessment (Figure 4-12) of both semester three and four students scored the overall mean of M = 4.15 and M = 4.24 for
“Teamwork”. This result seems to support the qualitative data and the participants’
observers on “Teamwork.” See Appendices N-1 and N-2 for the detail results of the students’ self-assessment.
Figure 4-12: The overall results of students’ self-assessment of students’ semester three and four.
Table 4-28, Table 4-29, Table 4-30, Table 4-31, Table 4-32 and Table 4-33: Percentages and Frequencies of self-assessment by semester three students.
See Appendix N-1. Percentages and Frequencies of Students Semester Three’s Responses of Likert-Scale Self-Assessment.
3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4 4.2 4.4
Communication Skills Teamwork Problem Solving & Critical Thinking…
Technical reasoning & Decision…
Self-Directed Learning Application of knowledge
Overall Results of Students' Self-Assessment
Semester 4 Semester 3
The self-assessment on “Teamwork” (Tables 4-32 in Appendix N-1) from the students of semester three (N = 47) overall showed ‘agree’ with 53.6% to ‘strongly agree’ with 33.2% of items listed (22 to 31). This result indicates the students’
insight on “Teamwork” during the PBL sessions in CNC programming courses.
However, 1.9% to 1.5% of students were ‘disagree’ and ‘strongly disagree’ with 9.8% of students were ‘undecided’. Nine items scored mean (M) above 4.00, except for item number 31 “I supported group decisions although I was not totally in agreement” scored M = 3.51.
Table 4-34, Table 4-35, Table 4-36, Table 4-37, Table 4-38 and Table 4-39: Percentages and Frequencies of self-assessment by semester four students.
See Appendix N-2. Percentages and Frequencies of Students Semester Four’s Responses of Likert-Scale Self-Assessment.
The self-assessment on “Teamwork” (Table 4-38 in Appendix N-2) from the students of semester four (N = 85) overall showed ‘agree’ with 47.5% to ‘strongly agree’ with 39.3% of items listed (22 to 31). Nevertheless, 1.2% of students were
‘disagree’ and 0.7% ‘strongly disagree’ with 11.3% of students were ‘undecided’.
Seven of ten items scored mean (M) above 4.00, except for items number 22, 29, and 31 scored slightly M lower 4.00 and overall M = 4.24. The data above overall reveal that majority of students (86.8% from semester three and also 86.8% from semester four) have a good “Teamwork” on PBL approach and only less than 3.4%
of students have negative “Teamwork” feedback on PBL that has been implemented in two CNC programming courses (lathe and milling).
Figure 4-13: The results of students’ peer-assessment of students’ semester three and four on teamwork.
The quantitative data of students’ peer-assessment (Figure 4-13) of both semester three and four students scored the overall mean of M = 4.43 and M = 4.38 for the
“Teamwork”. This result is consistent with the qualitative data of group interviews and the participants’ observers on the “Teamwork” as well as the self-assessment.
See Appendices O-1 and O-2 for the detail results of the students’ Peer-assessment.
The results of peer-assessment on “Teamwork” in Figure 4-13 by the students of semester three (N = 47) and four (N=85) overall indicated that students were satisfied with their teammates during the PBL sessions in CNC programming courses. All items from number 11 to 20 scored mean (M) above 4.00. The results in Figure 4-13 suggest that students of semester four seem to be more positive than students of semester three in “Teamwork” especially for items 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19.
The observation that in the self-assessment the Semester 4 students rated themselves better than their peers (peer-assessment) on teamwork and the Semester 3 students rated their peers higher, this situation might be explained by several factors such as;
1- The students of semester 4 were basically more matured than students of semester 3, especially with respect to learning, experience and knowledge as well as learning to work with the PBL approach. 2- As their own knowledge increases (students of semester 4) the appreciation of what others know to becomes more critical. 3- The Semester 4 students understand better than the Semester 3 students and semester 3
4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6
20- He/she supported group decisions although he/she was…
19- He/she offered feedback to his/her team mates in…
18- He/she shared information and bibliographic sources with…
17- He/she helped group members who lagged behind in the…
16- He/she acknowledged others’ opinions, ideas and … 15- He/she respected group member’s opinions, ideas and … 14- He/she keened to be actively involved in a group…
13- He/she worked hard towards the attainment of the … 12- He/she attended every group meeting and arrived on time.
11- He/she handed work/assignment in on time.
Students' Teamwork of Peer-Assessment
Semester Four Semester Three
students have less understanding and consequently they may have overestimated the performance of their peers.
The quantitative data of students’ peer-assessment (Figure 4-14) of both semester three and four students scored the overall mean of M = 4.23 and M = 4.31 for
“Attitude”. This result appears to support and complement the qualitative data of group interviews and the participants’ observers on the “Teamwork” as well as the self-assessment.
Figure 4-14: The results of students’ peer-assessment of students’ semester three and four attitudes.
See Appendices O-1 and O-2 for the detail results of the students’ Peer-assessment.
The results of peer-assessment on “Attitude” in Figure 4-14 by the students of semester three (N = 47) and four (N=85) overall revealed that students were happy with the “Attitude” of their teammates during the PBL sessions in CNC programming courses. All items from number 1 to 10 scored mean (M) above 4.00 except for item 3 of semester three. The results in Figure 4-14 indicate that students of semester three and four were equally positive on their teammates “Attitude”
during the PBL sessions in CNC programming courses.
0 1 2 3 4 5
10- He/she showed responsibility and commitment in all the…
9- He/she shared important and valuable information with the…
8- He/she participated actively in the group discussion.
7- He/she used feedback to improve his/her attitudes.
6- He/she was open to criticism and accepted feedback openly.
5- He/she was always eager to participate in discussion.
4- He/she did his/her best effort in each class and assignment.
3- He/she studied and prepared for every class.
2- He/she was able to discuss on a topic and stand up for…
1- He/she attended every class and arrived on time.
Students' Attitude of Peer-Assessment
Semester Four Semester Three
4.9.2. THE WAYS PBL AFFECTS THE STUDENTS’ LEARNING AND