Learning in vivo

Five PBL criteria: centrality, driving question, constructive investigations, autonomy, and realism

“Project-based learning (PBL) is a model that organizes learning around projects”, state Abhonakar, Harode and Sawant (2011, 32). They add that a project must satisfy five criteria to qualify as an instance of PBL, namely “centrality, driving question, constructive investigations, autonomy, and realism”.

Abhonakar, Harode and Sawant (2011, 33) report on PBL launched through industrial projects in co-operation of a number of large industrial entities. The core aim “to provide students with projects which conformed to industrial standards, and methods of developing projects”. Furthermore, students benefit from guidance by industry professionals who also bring students abreast “at the forefront with the technology and tools used”. Therefore integration of academic knowledge with cutting-edge tools is achieved. Support by faculty members and their intermittent guidance further aid students. Project quality and “timely conformance with the deadlines” are accentuated.

Abhonakar, P., Harode, A. and Sawant, N. 2011. Effect of projects on learning: an Indian case study, 31-38. In J. Davies, E. de Graaff, and A. Kolmos, (Eds.). 2011. PBL across the disciplines: research into best practice. Proceedings from the 3rd International Research Symposium on PBL 28-29 November 2011, Coventry University, UK. Denmark: Aalborg University Press.

Problem-based and project work model

The Aalborg University was founded in 1974 on a new educational model, the problem-based and project organized model (also known as problem-based project work model) reports Coffin (2011, 19). PBL—note that the acronym PBL is often used to indicate both problem-based and project-based learning—has been practised with variations the past four decades in the Danish educational system by Roskilde University and Aalborg University. The “Aalborg model varies in terms of [programme] themes and choices of project work, definition of a problem, relationship between courses and the project, methods of supervision, resources, and group size” state Coffin (2011, 19). Herewith an illustration of my interpretation:

Coffin (2011, 19) gives an “overview of the idea of how this AAU-PBL model works is that students work together in groups on their project, one project per semester, to analyse and define problems within the interdisciplinary or subject/ theme frame. Students furthermore are expected to submit a group project report and then participate in a joint examination, but obtaining individual marks. As for the core of learning principles for the Aalborg PBL model, the focus is upon the problem, the content, and the team (Graaff & Kolmos, 2003). In terms of time frame and learning management, in each semester students are expected to spend 50% of their time on the project (team dynamic) and spend another 50% on the traditional lectures. Each group has a group room as space for their study and has a supervisor to guide them through their project. In each semester, each program formulates a theme which covers a variation of problems and learning objectives; therefore, students’ projects and courses (lecture based) must comply with or relate to the theme of that particular semester. Students are expected to apply knowledge from course lectures in working on their project work.”

Coffin (2011, 17) remarks that PBL “has gained a reputation of producing students with comprehensive abilities” that are ready to face “the changing world in the globalization era”. PBL is generally regarded as a pedagogical strategy that integrates theoretical subject knowledge with practical skills. Coffin (2011, 18) remarks that PBL represents student-centred pedagogy that “promotes active learning and lifelong learning” based on constructivism learning theory. PBL is further “characterized by flexibility and diversity”. Coffin (2011, 18) cautions that when implementing PBL, there should be awareness “of the differences between PBL used at course level and at system level … what is called PBL curriculum” and emphasise that “four components of PBL must be aligned: PBL curriculum design, PBL tutorials, PBL compatible assessments, and philosophical principles underpining PBL”.

Coffin, P. 2011. Reflections on problem-based learning practice at Aalborg University, 17-30. In J. Davies, E. de Graaff, and A. Kolmos, (Eds.). 2011. PBL across the disciplines: research into best practice. Proceedings from the 3rd International Research Symposium on PBL 28-29 November 2011, Coventry University, UK. Denmark: Aalborg University Press.

Case-oriented versus problem-based and project-organised learning models

The acronym PBL is generally used to indicate both problem-based and project-based learning. Guerra and Kolmos (2011, 3) point out that two very different PBL models, within the PBL philosophy, are in use at the Aalborg University, namely:

• case oriented PBL model in medical education
• problem based and project organised learning in engineering education

Guerra and Kolmos (2011, 4) state that an enquiry process characterises PBL. Formulated problems, based on real and complex situations, drive learning. The process enhances the interest of students and “promotes critical thinking, self-learning skills, lifelong learning, self-achievement, self-regulation, selfefficacy, communication skills and interpersonal skills for students”.

Guerra and Kolmos (2011, 7-9) developed an observation framework based on PBL theory, the spectra of seven PBL curriculum elements also defined as domains, categories of observation for each, and some examples of observation evidences. The table below portrays the framework and the findings (√= presence & √D= present but differences) with regard to commonalities and differences concerning the two models, namely CO = case orientated and PB = problem based and project organised:

With the figure below, Guerra and Kolmos (2011, 13) indicate the “progression from a traditional teaching environment to a pure problem-based learning environment”.

Guerra, A. and Kolmos, A. 2011. Comparing problem based learning models: suggestions for their implementation, 3-16. In J. Davies, E. de Graaff, and A. Kolmos, (Eds.). 2011. PBL across the disciplines: research into best practice. Proceedings from the 3rd International Research Symposium on PBL 28-29 November 2011, Coventry University, UK. Denmark: Aalborg University Press.

Holistic view of essential elements of project-based learning

Gavin (2011, 550) cites Kolmos, de Graaf and Du (2009) and summarises their model which “provides a holistic view of the elements that must be considered” for developing project-based learning (PjBL). The seven elements that ought to be considered are “(i) the objectives and knowledge; (ii) types of problems; (iii) progression, size and duration; (iv) student learning; (v) academic staff facilitation; (vi) space and organisation; (vii) assessment and evaluation”.

Kolmos (2012, 50) remarks that various versions and models of problem based and project based learning are being implemented globally; and as result conceptual understandings are diverse and sometimes confusing. She summarises the conceptual work done by United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) Chair in PBL in Engineering Education towards defining problem and project based learning.

Kolmos (2012, 51) remarks that there “will always be variations in the models” and that “concrete models will and must be different” because of the “wide range of subjects, cultures and systems” involved. She points out that “there are common learning principles across the original problem-based and problem-oriented and project-organised practices such as problems as the vehicle for learning, interdisciplinary learning and teamwork” (emphasis added and note that Kolmos uses the acronym PBL “for problem based and project based learning and is intended to be synonymous with problem oriented and project”). Learning theories, such as Dewey (1938), Illeris (1976), Kolb (1984) and Schon (1987), inform practices, but “there is no direct link from the learning theories to the educational model level”. Kolmos (2012, 52) indicate that PBL learning principles comprise three approaches (imagine the Mercedes-Benz logo depicting a simple three-pointed star).

• The cognitive learning approach entails learning organised around problems that are resolved through projects—a central principle with regard to motivation (however, it is important to keep in mind that PBL could increase the stress-levels of students, which may diminish motivation). The problem serves as starting-point for the learning processes, often complex problem analysis and problem-solving strategies.
• The contents approach concerns interdisciplinary learning and supports the relationship between theory and practice. The project usually spans traditional subject-related boundaries and methods.
• The social approach is team-based, collaborative learning and collective ownership. The learning process is a social act wherein learning takes place through dialogue, communication and working together on a common project.

Kolmos (2012, 53-54) presents a PBL curriculum model that has been developed based on the PBL learning principles. The PBL curriculum model contains seven “elements were identified on the basis of a theory on relationship models and principles of alignment”. All seven components/elements “must be aligned to a certain degree”. Kolmos (2012, 54) indicates that “each of the elements can be interpreted in a different way”, however, “if there is a change in one element it will effect change in all the other elements as well”.

Gavin, K. 2011. Case study of a project-based learning course in civil engineering design. European Journal of Engineering Education, 36, 6, 547–558.

Kolmos, A, de Graff, E. and Du, X., 2009. Diversity of PBL – PBL learning principles and models. In: D. Xu, ed. Research on PBL practice in engineering education, chapter 2. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers, 9–21

Kolmos, A. 2012. Changing the Curriculum to Problem-Based and Project-Based Learning, 50-61. In K.M. Yusof, K. Mohd, N.A. Azli, A.M. Kosnin, S.K.S. Yusof, and Y.M. Yusof. 2012. Outcome-Based Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education: Innovative Practices, chapter 3. Hershey PA: IGI Global.

The ‘ARC’ of project-based Learning (PjBL)

Sustaining the curiosity of students “across the arc of a project” is feasible, assert Krauss and Boss (2013, ix), if “how inquiry works” is understood. The noun ‘arc’ originates from Latin arcus, meaning a bow or an arch. The noun is used with regard to a bow-shaped curve; an unbroken section or part of curved line, graph, geometric figure or circumference of a circle; part of a circular section of the apparent path or course of a celestial body; also used with regard to the luminous bridge or discharge that occurs when an electric current flows between two electrodes. In addition to the use of ‘arc’ in geometry, maths, astronomy and electricity; it is used for story-arcs and project-based learning (PjBL).

Veronica Sicoe, a science-fiction writer, differentiates three character ‘arc’ types and a variant of one, namely:

1. The Change Arc, the hero’s journey or evolution of the protagonist “from an unlikely fellow into a savior and hero”. The transformation is often radical.
2. The Growth Arc, involves the protagonist overcoming one or more flaws, past wounds, fears or weaknesses as result of outer conflict or motivation (Ackerman & Puglisi 2013a, 10-12; 2013b, 17-19). The end result is an improved version, an upgraded protagonist 2.0, a fuller, better person. Related, but often overlooked variant, is the Shift Arc, where the protagonist forms new perspectives, acquire new or additional skills, or assume a different role. The end result is not more or better, only different.
3. The Fall Arc, or tragedy, where a fatal flaw hinders the character’s growth or change resulting in decline of the protagonist into doom, insanity, immorality or even death.

Krauss and Boss (2013) urge that projects should be rigorous, demanding efforts that mirror accomplished adults from students. Based on Krauss and Boss (2013, 53-56) the following steps towards the design of the project-arc are recommended:

• Identify important and enduring concepts fundamental to field of practice
• Explore the significance and relevance of identified concepts/topics—why do they matter? What should students derive from them with regard to their employment readiness and careers?
• Find the real-life contexts to which the concepts and/or topics apply. Determine which theory and subject knowledge are necessary.
• In which ways would students engage critical thinking pertaining to the topics and contexts?
• Consider how the topics should be framed and draft the project sketch/es, including an overview, the scenario/s, required actions and outcomes.
• Formulate the project assignment. Ensure a clear title to anchor the project; an inspiring driving question and challenging outcomes to accomplish.
• Workshop the formulated project assignment with colleagues, practitioners and/or students to resolve misconceptions and finalise.

Ackerman, A. and Puglisi, B. 2013a. The negative trait thesaurus: a writer’s guide to character attributes. Jupiter, FL: JADD Publishing.

Ackerman, A. and Puglisi, B. 2013b. The positive trait thesaurus: a writer’s guide to character attributes. Jupiter, FL: JADD Publishing.

Krauss, J. and Boss, S.  2013. Thinking through project-based learning, guiding deeper inquiry. Thausand Oaks, Ca: Corwin (Sage).

Sicoe, V. 2013. The 3 Types of Character Arc – Change, Growth and Fall. A blog post created 29 April 2013, accessed 15 April 2014 at: http://www.veronicasicoe.com/blog/2013/04/the-3-types-of-character-arc-change-growth-and-fall/

Mind, Brain and Education Science applied to Project-based Learning (PjBL)

Krauss and Boss (2013, 14) consider project-based learning (PjBL) from the perspective of the inquiring human-mind and state that in PjBL “curiosity is the engine for learning” and add that “students who are accustomed to project-based learning aren’t afraid to ask questions—and keep asking until they arrive at answers that make sense to them”.

Krauss and Boss (2013, 15) cite Tokuhama-Espinosa (2010), who published a ground-breaking work on the new trans-disciplinary academic field ‘Mind, Brain, and Education Science’ that has grown out of the intersection of neuroscience, education, and psychology. Krauss and Boss (2013, 15) report that “Tracey Tokuhama-Espinosa synthesises more than 4,500 studies from this emerging field to offer five key concepts shown in the left column of Table 2.1” below. Krauss and Boss (2013) state that these five concepts are relevant to PjBL.

Krauss, J. and Boss, S.  2013. Thinking through project-based learning, guiding deeper inquiry. Thausand Oaks, Ca: Corwin (Sage).

Tokuhama-Espinosa, T. 2010. Mind, brain, and education science: a comprehensive guide to the new brain-based teaching. New York, NY: W.W. Norton

Project-based learning as instructional approach

“Project-based learning is a teaching and learning model (curriculum development and instructional approach) that emphasises student-centred instruction by assigning projects” posit Abdulaala et al (2011, 392). They continue to state that project-based learning (PjBL) allow for “students to work more autonomously to construct their own learning and culminates in realistic, student-generated products”. As instructional approach, PjBL entail organising learning around projects, which are “complex tasks, based on challenging questions or problems, that involve students in design, problem solving, decision making or investigative activities; give students the opportunity to work relatively autonomously over extended periods of time; and culminate in realistic products or presentations”.

PjBL is recognised “as an innovative approach that teaches a multitude of strategies critical for success in the twenty-first century” observe Abdulaala et al (2011, 392). PjBL furthermore “permits the integration of non-technical issues necessary for sustainable development in engineering education” they state.

Assessment triangulation is achieved through the use of multiple tools and methods, indicate Abdulaala et al (2011, 398). Direct measures include individual student or team “assignments, a course design notebook, oral presentations, artefact evaluation and a defect removal assignment. Indirect measures include class feedback forms, process checks, entry and exit surveys, outcome survey and a course evaluation questionnaire”. Abdulaala et al (2011, 398) define quality work “as essentially complete and correct work that is documented neatly in a well-organised fashion and submitted on time” and to help students submit quality work, they are “referred to a set of checklists that define what is expected from their assignments”. The assessment range includes “exceeds expectations (E), meets expectations (M), acceptable (AC), needs improvement (NI) or represents no credible effort (NCE)”.

Abdulaala, R.M., Al-Bahib, A.M., Solimanc, A.Y. and Iskanderanid , F.I. (2011). Design and implementation of a project-based active/cooperative engineering design course for freshmen. European Journal of Engineering Education, 36 (4), 391–402.

Workplace learning advocates

The notion ‘workplace advocate’ is often used with regard to employee rights; safety and health; bullying, harassment, intimidation and violence; workplace equality; and workplace-based learning.

Mardini (2013, 42) state with regard to practical experiential learning of online workbase instruction that “each learner had a workplace advocate (or a more experienced colleague) to help” and that positive feedback has often been received from workplace advocates about learning being “very relevant to their workplace”. The commercial website Workplace Learning Advocates (WLAs) define WLAs as “people who inspire people to learn at work … by informing, encouraging and supporting others to participate in learning at work”. It is further stated that “WLAs is an approach that works most effectively when embedded within the business with support from the leadership”. This echoes Revill et al (2005, 238) who state that a “workplace advocate is ideally someone within the workplace who is both able to support study and to ensure that the place of work will benefit from the participant’s involvement in the programme”.

An Inter-Disciplinary, Inquiry-Based Learning (IDIBL) webpage emphasises the essential role of the workplace advocate to enable the student to be successful. It further echoes Revill et al (2005, 238) in stating that “you [the advocate] will not be involved with the academic side of work and its assessment but is involved in providing an environment which will maximise learning in the interests of your workplace”. The IDIBL webpage further echoes Revill et al (2005) by summarising the expectations about the role of the workplace advocate, namely:

• To discuss student’s degree and her/his expectations
• To negotiate assignments/projects appropriate to his or her role in the organisation
• To support the dissemination and spread of effective practice
• To support the action research and reflective practice encouraged by the degree
• To advise the student
• To ensure that the student’s experience on the programme can be used to promote change and improvement

Aldred and Jungnickel (2014) indicate that workplace advocates play an important role in culture change. In this regard the ‘Advocate’ webpage of Movement 121 implies that a workplace advocate is someone that is an “outspoken go-getter who isn’t afraid of being up front and telling others” and employed “at a company that is interested in being more involved with social cause and making a positive difference in the world”. This echoes the importance Revill et al (2005, 237) voice about “a conducive learning environment for work-related learning”.

Aldred. R. and Jungnickel, K. (2014). Why culture matters for transport policy: the case of cycling in the UK. Journal of Transport Geography, 34, 78–87.

Inter-Disciplinary, Inquiry-Based Learning (IDIBL). Role of the workplace advocate. Webpage accessed 14 April 2014: http://idibl.bolton.ac.uk/idibl/resources/workshop/role-of-the-workplace-advocate.

Mardini, J. 2013. Creating and evaluating an online and work-based instructional model. Higher Education, Skills and Work-based Learning, 3 (1), 30-50.

Movement 121. Advocate. Webpage accessed 14 April 2014: http://movement121.com/engage/advocate/

Revill, G.; Terrell, I.; Powell, S. and Tindal, I. 2005. Learning in the workplace: a new degree online. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 42, 3, 231–245.

Workplace Learning Advocates (WLAs). Case study - Lead Workplace Learning Advocates. Webpage accessed 14 April 2014: http://www.workplacelearningadvocates.org.uk/case-study-lead-workplace-learning-advocates.

Learning climate model: variables impacting Assignment Freedom and Problem Drive

This post follows on two previous posts about the learning climate model comprising two axes, namely ‘Assignment Freedom’ (AF) versus ‘Active Problem Drive’ (PD) and four quadrants. Federau (2006, 43) emphasises that “THERE IS NO ‘BEST PLACE’ IN THE GRID” and cautions that “many variables will [or may] influence the learning climate”.

Federau (2006, 44) presents “Educational Grid Variables” in a table. The working group (WG) identified operational variables/parameters controllable by either the academia or ‘workplace advocates’ (individuals providing an environment that will maximise PJB/PjBL) or “that can be documented, making assessment of the learning climate possible”. The WG admit that “there are other important [variables or] parameters involved”, which are of “an intrinsic nature” and may “therefore have a great impact on the motivational drive in an educational situation”. The table below—based on Federau’s Table 1 (2006, 44)—lists the WG’s identified operational variables/ parameters. The indicated effects on the AF- and PD-values reflect the WG’s initial assumptions. Federau, however, points out that the strength of the effects of the variable/parameter should be graduated as indicated (or even more precisely using values on a scale from 1 to 10), not just ‘yes’ or ‘no’ as the WG did.

Operational variables/parameters	Effect on ‘Assignment Freedom’   (AF)				Effect on ‘Active Problem Drive’   (PD)
	Not at all	Possibly not	In some degree	Defini-tely	Not at all	Possibly not	In some degree	Defini-tely
Student influence on content			Yes		No
Degree of prior knowledge			Yes				Yes
Introduction to group work			Yes				Yes
Guidance policy	No						Yes
Assignment structure			Yes		No
Student delivery	No						Yes
Examination (summative)			Yes		No

Federau (2006, 44-47) provides “short descriptions of the WG’s perception of the effect of the variables”:

• Student influence on content is of great importance in describing the degree of project organisation.
• The degree of prior knowledge of students has a heavy [reducing if present] influence on the degree of how problem-based a piece of education is.
• Introduction to group work will influence the values measured by both axes— Federau (2006, 45) suggests to plan a ‘pathfinder’ portion to match the learning situation and the ability of the students.
• The students’ guidance policy must first and foremost guide the students by explaining only principles and by indicating where ‘missing’ knowledge can be found—never answer a question that has not been asked.
• Assignment structure: the more detailed the written assignment is and the more demands there are on form, the less project-organised it will be—project-organised group work is not problem-based by definition.
• If student delivery quality has an impact on the final mark of the student or the group it can have a negative effect on the problem drive value. If the group knows that the final marking will more or less depend on the character of their delivery, the students will concentrate on ‘getting the right answer(s)’ and their use of presentation tools rather than on understanding the scientific principles behind the solution(s) presented in their delivery.
• Using individual examination and marking will underline the perception of group dynamics being regarded as tools for education.

Federau, M., 2006. Problem-oriented, project-based education in civil engineering, Part 1. In: I. Manilou, ed., Report in inquiries into European higher education in civil engineering, 6th Euceet volume. Bucahrest, Romania: CONSPRESS, 30–47. Available from: http://www.euceet.eu/publications/index.php?id=7 [Accessed 10 April 2014].

What the learning climate grid can be used for?

This post follows on ‘using the learning climate model to prepare good problems’ which presents a summary of Federau’s (2006) ‘prologue’ and the learning climate model comprising two axes: The ordinate/vertical the concept ‘Assignment Freedom’, and the abscissa/horizontal ‘Active Problem Drive’. “The score, i.e. the (x,y) or (PD,AF) value, will then give an indication of how ‘project-oriented’ and how ‘problem-based’ the learning situation and learning climate are” (Federau 2006, 41).

Federau (2006, 42-43) next explains “what can the model be used for?” The working group (WG) hopes “that the Learning Climate Grid can serve as a ‘common language’ when referring to” to problem- and project-based learning (PBL and PjBL respectively).

The learning climate grid (model) may be used to depict the transition from lecturer-driven teaching to “project organised, problem-driven” learning by students (line 1 in the figure 3 from Federau 2006, 42). The ‘grid’ may also be used to indicate the development “towards using PBL in non-project organised course units (line 2, figure 3)” or modules. By using the ‘grid’ it is possible “to place certain ways of organising PBL in an operational context”, however not precisely.

 

Because it would not be possible to ‘place’ specified learning situation and/or materials “precisely in the grid, a subdivision as shown in figure 4 [from Federau (2006, 43)] could be useful”. The placing of a learning situation and/or materials “in one of the quadrants could help the development of a common PBL language”. “The (PD,AF) value (0,0)”, depicts lecturer-driven teaching with the lecturer as ‘purveyor of knowledge’ or ‘provider of facts’. However, the “first quadrant as a whole equals a situation where some attempts have been made to make learning more problem-driven”. Federau (2006, 43) emphasises that “THERE IS NO ‘BEST PLACE’ IN THE GRID” and explains the remaining quadrants as follow:

• The learning climate of the third quadrant is what is usually understood by PBL: A high degree of focus on the development of learning competence (problem drive) and at the same time also of personal competence by implementing project parameters.
• The fourth quadrant describes a situation probably not so well known: Highly problem-driven education with little or no use of project parameters. The education is group-organised with little or no lecturing. Very often discipline oriented education is found here.
• The second quadrant describes a situation where high emphasis is placed on using project parameters, but also where the full advantage of problem drive not is taken.

 

Federau (2006, 43) cautions that operational “variables changes from situation to situation” such as “the lecturers’ ability and approach, from subject to subject, with students’ ‘seniority’ in the system, as a function of the ‘subject’ (f. ex. mathematics versus design)”. More about this in a subsequent post.

Federau, M., 2006. Problem-oriented, project-based education in civil engineering, Part 1. In: I. Manilou, ed., Report in inquiries into European higher education in civil engineering, 6th Euceet volume. Bucahrest, Romania: CONSPRESS, 30–47. Available from: http://www.euceet.eu/publications/index.php?id=7 [Accessed 10 April 2014].

Using the learning climate model to prepare good problems

Gavin (2011, 548) cites Federau (2006) who report to the European Civil Engineering Education and Training (EUCEET) association under EUCEET II, Theme B: ‘Development of the teaching environment in civil engineering education’. Federau (2006, 34-52) report on the working group for the specific project 5: ‘Problem-oriented, project-based education in civil engineering’. The terms of reference include, among others, “a good teaching environment … to improve student learning … with integrated efforts from teachers, students and preferably also the industry”.

Federau (2006, 35 emphasis added) states with the view of putting things in the right perspective that education can be organised in a way that turns the learning environment into being problem-based, i.e. one must distinguish between problem-organised education (education by means of presenting a series of problems) – lecturer’s viewpoint and problem-based learning (learning by finding answers – student’s viewpoint)”.

Federau (2006, 36) informs that the working group (WG) found it necessary to study in detail the elements that characterise the method. The WG argue that for “many reasons it will prove useful to realize that education and not the graduate is the product”; that education “attract customers, i.e. students”—who are “placed in the centre of the process”; and quality assurance focuses on the impact education makes. Federau (2006, 37) proceeds to what the WG regard an important element or ingredient, namely the assignment material, which is considered the “written ‘contract’ between the institution … and the student”.

In all variations of PBL the student is “faced with” a problem, a series of problems or a series of questions. Assignments can have a great variety of forms, reaching from a mere heading to very detailed lists of problems or questions that the student must solve/answer. In extreme cases, students are even asked to formulate the assignment(s) themselves, sometimes even to decide the theme of the assignment.

Federau (2006, 40) point out that many meanings may relate to the concept ‘project’, from just any assignment to a “group organised student activity and can stretch from very small, clearly defined problems to large, theme-based assignments lasting for months or a semester”. The ‘purists’ among educators use the label ‘project’ only on ‘open-ended’ problems, those problems that potentially have a plurality of solutions—sometimes given to students merely as specific heading or theme. Some educators believe that the notion ‘project’ only apply to problems of a ‘real-life’ nature. However, it is important to keep in mind that “the purpose of ‘doing’ a project is its learning value”. The main purpose of final (degree or diploma) projects “is to give the student an opportunity to demonstrate his or her professional competence and, from the institutions point of view, an important evaluation tool” state Federau (2006, 40).

After this somewhat drawn-out ‘prologue’ Federau (2006, 40) introduces the learning climate model developed by the WG. It is “not possible to describe a learning climate as a function of just one ‘predominating’ variable” he states. The WG decided on two axes with “the concepts ‘Assignment Freedom’ - the ordinate [vertical] - and ‘Active Problem Drive’ - the abscissa” horizontal (emphasis added) presented as a grid below. The model ‘measures’ two aspects only, namely ‘how project-organised’ and ‘how problem-driven’ are the teaching tools? “The score, i.e. the (x,y) or (PD,AF) value, will then give an indication of how ‘project-oriented’ and how ‘problem-based’ the learning situation and learning climate are” Federau (2006, 41). He explain that the ordinate “is about how much the lecturer (supervisor, management) allows the student(s) to choose methods and sometimes areas of work”, if mere exercise problems the AF value would be low, while open-ended projects would score higher depending the ‘openness’. However, “the term ‘Active Problem Drive’ could lead to many different interpretations, [therefore] defining the abscissa [horizontal] values needs more attention” state Federau (2006, 42). The primary purpose of PBL is to urge/ force students to develop their “ability to ‘tackle’ difficult concepts, to combine previously obtained knowledge and to take more responsibility for own learning”. The abscissa values therefore indicate the degree of learning competence students developed.

Gavin (2011, 549) summarises that “the learning climate model that can be used to ensure the preparation of good problems”. The vertical axis “considers the assignment freedom, which is a measure of how open the question is”. The horizontal axis “is a measure of how motivated a student will be to acquire the knowledge required to solve the problem”.

Gavin, K. 2011. Case study of a project-based learning course in civil engineering design. European Journal of Engineering Education, 36, 6, 547–558.

Federau, M., 2006. Problem-oriented, project-based education in civil engineering, Part 1. In: I. Manilou, ed., Report in inquiries into European higher education in civil engineering, 6th Euceet volume. Bucahrest, Romania: CONSPRESS, 30–47. Available from: http://www.euceet.eu/publications/index.php?id=7 [Accessed 10 April 2014].

 

Project-based learning is a hybrid of problem-based learning

Gavin (2011, 548-9) highlights a critical shortcoming about the use of problem-based learning (PBL) in engineering education, based on Perrennet, Bouhutjs and Smits (2000), namely the “risk of missing vital concepts and theories”. Gavin argues that using the traditional self-directed PBL model “in domains such as medical education (where learning is somewhat encyclopaedic), missing concepts may not preclude the construction of valid theories”. However, “missing essential concepts may result in a failure to learn”, in engineering and mathematics argues Gavin. He states that the forms of PBL that are used in engineering schools are called project based or hybrid PBL. He cites Mills and Treagust (2003, 8-9) who differentiate project-based learning (PjBL) or hybrid PBL as follow:

1. Project tasks are closer to professional reality and therefore take a longer period of time than problem-based learning problems (which may extend over only a single session, a week or a few weeks).
2. Project work is more directed to the application of knowledge, whereas problem-based learning is more directed to the acquisition of knowledge.
3. Project-based learning is usually accompanied by subject courses (eg maths, physics etc. in engineering), whereas problem-based learning is not.
4. Management of time and resources by the students as well as task and role differentiation is very important in project-based learning.
5. Self-direction is stronger in project work, compared with problem-based learning, since the learning process is less directed by the problem.

Perrennet, Bouhutjs and Smits (2000, 346) describe PBL in its purest form as a cyclic process consisting of three phases, illustrated as follow:

They (349-351) mention three main educational objectives that are simultaneously addressed, namely acquisition of:

1. knowledge that can be retrieved and used in a professional setting;
2. skills to extend and improve one’ s own knowledge;
3. professional problem-solving skills.

Perrennet, Bouhutjs and Smits (2000, 351) draw attention to the cultural differences of work and study domains compared to affinities. They conclude that in technical fields the technical-organisational aspects enjoy emphasis. As result there is more affinity for project work. PjBL is more perceived as more appropriate because “faculty in scientific and professional fields are more likely to use formal, didactic teaching methods”.

 

Gavin, K. 2011. Case study of a project-based learning course in civil engineering design. European Journal of Engineering Education, 36, 6, 547–558.

Mills, J.E, and Treagust, D.F., 2003. Engineering education – is problem based or project based learning the answer? [online]. Australian Journal of Engineering Education. Available from: http://www.aaee.com.au/journal/2003/mills_treagust03.pdf [Accessed 10 April 2014].

Perrennet, J.C., Bouhutjs, P.A.J. and Smits, J., 2000. The suitability of problem-based learning for engineering education: theory and practices. Teaching in Higher Education, 5 (3), 2–16. Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/713699144 [Accessed 10 April 2014].

Key features of project-based learning

“The key principal of PBL is that the problem … is the starting point of the process” posits Gavin (2011, 248) and presents the following “key features of the PBL method:

1.  Ill-structured and complex questions based on real-world scenarios.
2.  Student-centred active learning occurs.
3.  Learning occurs in small groups, considering and reviewing solutions to open-ended problems.
4.  The teacher becomes a facilitator.
5.  Self-assessment increases the efficacy.”

In reality “engineers reflect in action” states Gavin (2011, 248), and point out that the skills required cannot be taught through academic modules or laboratory experiments, but “in a real-life (experiential) setting”. During the past 40 years, “the use of PBL has spread rapidly, predominantly in medical education, and also in the spheres of law and engineering” Gavin (2011, 248) states. PBL facilitates deep learning and instil life-long learning skills. PBL further provides opportunities for to “develop teamwork, problem-solving and leadership skills”. PBL entail student acceptance of control with regard to the what and how of their learning. Gavin (2011, 248) point out that well-designed PBL courses/modules do “satisfy many of the objectives or learning outcomes specified by accreditation bodies”.

 

Gavin, K. 2011. Case study of a project-based learning course in civil engineering design. European Journal of Engineering Education, 36, 6, 547–558.

PjBL prime students for inquiry to engage academically meaningful

 

 

The preface (p. vii) taken from Krauss, J. and Boss, S.  2013. Thinking through project-based learning, guiding deeper inquiry. Thausand Oaks, Ca: Corwin (Sage).

Drivers for implementation of problem/project-based learning

External drivers, such as listed below, prompted several professional engineering and accreditation bodies internationally to enhance the curriculum of engineering qualifications to produce more innovative engineers, indicate Gavin (2011, 547):

• a consequence of increased globalisation is that basic engineering skills can be readily sourced in low-cost economies
• information much more readily available which prompt changes to the way students learn
• continued increase in global competition
• creativity been identified as the key to competitiveness, in that companies are obliged to generate added value from their existing resources and assets
• employers needing transformative employees with the skills to analyse, critique and communicate innovative solutions within a team-based work environment
• industry requiring from higher education to produce graduates with a wider skills base

The recommendations of the United States Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) about instructional design has been to include aspects such as open-ended questions, formulation of design problems, and consideration of alternatives. In this regard, Gavin (2011, 548) remark that “literature contains many valuable epistemological studies to support the application of PBL in civil engineering, few illustrate how the process can be implemented by academics in the field”. The objectives of an article published by Gavin (2011, 548) were:

• identification of the most appropriate form of PBL
• to demonstrate the design and implementation of a PBL course/module
• illustrate how evaluation can be used to determine the effectiveness of PBL

The article also illustrates how PBL can be applied in practice, state Gavin.

Gavin, K. 2011. Case study of a project-based learning course in civil engineering design. European Journal of Engineering Education, 36, 6, 547–558.

Enquiry is the engine of deep learning

“Inquiry is the engine that drives learning in” project-based learning, which “has the potential to create powerful—and memorable—learning experiences for students” (Krauss & Boss 2013, viii-ix). The topic of this post reflects the title of the first section of a publication by Krauss and Boss (2013, 1-64). They unpack this description in tabular format:

“In project-based learning, students gain important knowledge, skills, and dispositions by investigating open-ended questions to ‘make meaning’ that they transmit in purposeful ways” (Krauss and Boss 2013, 5). 

	Meaning	So
In project-based   learning	The emphasis is on student experience—learning	The teacher does less direct instruction. He or she designs,   prepares, and guides projects and learns alongside students.
students gain important knowledge, skills, and dispositions	Projects are the curriculum—not an add-on—and through them, students   develop important capabilities	The teacher designs toward and assesses growth in all three areas.
by investigating open-ended questions	Questions activate, arousing curiosity and driving students to   inquiry	The right question at the start leads to more questions—ones that   students can investigate.
to ‘make   meaning’	The learning is important, unique, and holds value for the student   and others	Projects elicit high-order thinking: theorizing, investigating, analysing,   creating, and drawing unique conclusions.
that they transmit in purposeful ways	The form the project takes matches the function it’s meant to serve   (inventing, entertaining, persuading, motivating, or inspiring)	A “loose” project structure allows for creative expression, and   transmission of knowledge makes the learning “stick”.

(Krauss and Boss 2013, 6)

Similar to school teachers, unless academics gained substantial experience in the community of practice /occupational-field prior to moving into higher education, and regularly update their experiential frame of reference, it is unlikely that they will be equipped to “guide real-world inquiry into fields that they have never explored” (Krauss & Boss 2013, ix).

Krauss, J. and Boss, S. 2013. Thinking through project-based learning, guiding deeper inquiry. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Corwin (Sage).

Constructivism teaching approach, inquiry- and project-based learning

It appears as if Frank, Lavy and Elata (2003) use project- (PjBL) and problem-based learning (PBL) interchangeably. They present the findings of a qualitative study about the perceptions and attitudes of students about a PjBL course introduced in mechanical engineering. Teams of students were required to carry out mini-projects involving design and construction of predefined devices. The data collection methods include semi-structured interviews, observations and analyses of students’ reports.

The objectives of this PjBL course are “to provide a clear overview of the different fields in mechanical engineering, to introduce the essence of engineering work and the processes of design and development of new technological products, to increase students’ awareness of the importance and necessity of analysis for finding optimal solutions for engineering problems, … and familiarize them [students] with the different aspects of mechanical engineering expertise” (Frank, Lavy and Elata 2003, 273).

This course is taught through mini-projects. “Many elements of PBL [meaning PjBL] are derived from principles of inquiry-based learning, which in turn, were derived from the constructivist teaching approach” state Frank, Lavy and Elata (2003, 273).

Constructivism as theory entail that humans are active learners who construct knowledge based on their experiences and their efforts to derive meaning from such experiences. In this course students were required, through trial and error, to form and modify their concepts of engineering. Frank, Lavy and Elata (2003, 274) mention three modes of constructivism, namely radical, contextual and social. The third mode applies to this PjBL course in that students construct their understanding as result of doing, contemplating and interacting with other students in the social contexts of teams. Frank, Lavy and Elata (2003, 274) name five characteristics of social constructivism, namely “active engagement, use and application of knowledge, multiple representations, use of learning communities, and authentic tasks”.

The teaching environment of this PjBL course is enquiry-based learning, which entail “applying the principles of scientific research to teaching”, state Frank, Lavy and Elata (2003, 275). Students are required to create knowledge, in contrast to the lecturer being ‘purveyor of knowledge’ or ‘provider of facts’. Each mini-project, as enquiry-based learning unit, comprise six stages, namely “defining the problem [or need], proposing hypothesis [or consider alternative solutions], doing the project/experiment [selecting the best solution and building the artefact], analysing the data [or measure the artefact’s performance], interpreting [or explaining] the results, and drawing conclusions”.

The means of instruction of this PjBL course is project-based learning through teams. It engages students in exploring meaningful engineering issues or problems. PjBL would probably increase the motivation of participating students, as well as providing a sense of satisfaction. PjBL contributes to developing long-term learning skills. Students gain “deep, integrated understanding of content and process” remark Frank, Lavy and Elata (2003, 276). Teamwork promotes collaboration to solve problems. Working together with other from varied backgrounds, is an important real-work skill. PjBL promotes independent learning and acceptance of responsibility. PjBL further develops data collection and presentation skills.

Frank, M.; Lavy, I. and Elata, D. 2003. Implementing the project-based learning approach in an academic engineering course. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13, 273–288.

Project-based (PjBL) versus problem-based learning (PBL)

Experiential Learning is defined by Wheeler (2008, 63) as a method of education, a “type of learning [that] occurs when students participate, reflect, and use analytical skills to gain useful insights from an activity, and then incorporate these experiences into their daily living”. He explored two methods of experiential learning, namely project-based learning (PjBL) and problem-based learning (PBL), which share many characteristics, but are different. Krauss and Boss (2013, 10) state that “project-based learning overlaps with problem-based learning”; that there are “more similarities than differences”; and that “similar pedagogic concerns influenced the development of both”. 

A project is usually assigned to students individually or groups of six to eight students, when project-based learning (PjBL) is used. The primary objective of PjBL is to engage students in a relevant and substantial investigation, either individually or collaboratively. The emphasis is on “information search and retrieval, knowledge application, and critical thinking”(Wheeler 2008, 63). Projects assigned are “based on commonly encountered [complex] real-world problems and situations”. The activities of students revolve around the “design, problem solving, decision-making, and investigation” concerning the project and PjBL typically ends “with the delivery of a realistic project plan and formal presentation”. 

Krauss and Boss (2013, 10) indicate that “problem-based learning emerged in medical schools during the 1950s”, because medical students experienced difficulty to “make the leap from academic work to effective clinical practice”. Wheeler (2008, 63) defines PBL as “an instructional method that challenges students to ‘learn to learn,’ working cooperatively in groups to seek solutions to real world problems”. It is small group oriented, requiring of “students meet regularly to investigate, explain and resolve multiple, real-world problems”. Problems assigned to students “often describe a situation requiring an explanation and resolution”, such as business cases. Krauss and Boss (2013, 10) affirm this by indicating that teaching physicians developed clinical scenarios that mirrored challenges of daily physician practice which medical students had to resolve. The learning shifted from memorizing text books to problem solving, which became the standard in many disciplines. 

Krauss and Boss (2013, 10) point out that John Dewey, the education and social reformer, in 1916, argued that students are not receptacles to pour knowledge into, but that intellectual engagement is a necessity. They state that “both problem- and project-based learning press students beyond knowledge acquisition” to active engagement and critical thinking resulting in constructing own meaning and the ability to apply what learned. 

Both PjBL and PBL employ open-ended questions, scenarios and/or challenges. “Neither state the steps to a solution” caution Krauss and Boss (2013, 7 & 10) by stating “be wary of project plans that call for too many scripted steps”, because “step-by-step projects leave little room for students to wrestle with uncertainty, raise new questions, or solve problems in novel ways”. Furthermore, “overplanning is a symptom of teacher-directed instruction” and students are unlikely to be challenged and “to reach their full potential as capable, creative learners”. 

Krauss and Boss (2013, 11) state that the biggest difference between PjBL and PBL “have to do with the focus, duration, and outcomes of each”. The processes for PjBL are more diffuse, the learning path and work products are likely to be unique, and teams often exceed the standards for minimally accepted outcomes of the projects. Krauss and Boss (2013, 12) state that “a good project sets up conditions in which students are compelled to inquire”.

Krauss, J. and Boss, S. 2013. Thinking through project-based learning, guiding deeper inquiry. Thousand Oaks: Corwin (Sage).

Wheeler, R. 2008. Experiential learning: impact of two instructional methods on student – instructor interaction, student critical thinking, and student course evaluations. Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, 12, Summer, 63-78.

Online enabled workplace degree

Revill et al (2005, 231) published a paper that illustrates distance presents no restriction to collaborative learning and reports on a “learning in the workplace degree based upon an online learning community approach”. “Individualised learning plans, shared electronic portfolios and collaborative reflection on practice” (emphases added) are supplemented with online ‘hotseating’ and the use of workplace advocates. Revill et al (2005, 242) explain ‘hotseating’ as a “special type of discussion with expert witnesses [or specialists], who can be interrogated by” programme participants. Revill et al (2005, 238) state that “workplace advocate is ideally someone within the workplace who is both able to support study and to ensure that the place of work will benefit from the participant’s involvement in the programme”. Revill et al (2005, 231) claim is that the “paper exhibits that it is possible to build an online community for an award-bearing workplace learning degree”, however, they state that “tools and approaches need to be developed to ensure self-directed learning from experience and through reflection can take place in a community of learners”.

Revill et al (2005, 231) point out the “belief that the relationship between those studying for the degree and those offering the degree, is not one of ‘expert’ and ‘student’ exchange, but is aiming to develop a student-centred learning experience where students are valued as” co-practitioners for their contributions.

The underpinning ‘deep learning’ pedagogic principles of the online bachelor’s degree in learning, technology and research, which is directed at participants who have not previously had the opportunity of higher education, include “learning from experience; critical reflection; action enquiry; collaborative discourse in online learning communities; self-directed adult learning” and the use of “learning journals to collect and reflect upon critical incidents at work” (Revill et al 2005, 232, emphases added).

Revill et al (2005, 232) emphasise that “content does not form the basis of this degree” and report on experience “in online communities [that] has proven to be a powerful further stimulus and influence focusing upon collaborative discourse about practice in online communities”. Learning is promoted primarily through brief stimuli that lead into online discussions. Participants are empowered online through the facilitation of construction and structuring to move from specific tasks to the broad. This social action of negotiating meaning, participant choice and self-direction served as basis to plan the degree. The experiences with the first cohort served to establish a pathway for quality assurance requirements. The pathway is in essence a shell of generic modules that is adaptable the meet the contexts, learning needs and job roles of individual participants. The coherence of the curriculum gets negotiated at modular level with the learning facilitator concerned.

Each individual learning plan (ILP) frames the individual participant’s learning requirements for the term, explain Revill et al (2005, 233-4). It is a shared and negotiated web-based document created through a web-based tool. The ‘tool’ caters for individual ‘electronic portfolios’ of learning plans, assignments and commentaries according to the learning outcomes of each participant. Individuals can design their own learning activities, negotiate and modify their learning outcomes to ensure relevance to their own workplace. The intention is to maximise the impact of individual learning on-the-job. Participants further create their own products for assessment purposes, such as “CD-ROMs, web site or slide show presentations, digital films or text-based accounts”.

Revill et al (2005, 234-5) explain the use of the portfolio tool “to capture critical incidents, notes and moments of learning through the use of electronic journals, digital photographs and video clips”. Work-based ‘artefacts’ are meant to represent significant points of learning. Quantity of artefacts and data; such as notes, minutes, plans, methods, interview notes, survey results, observations and other; are encouraged to reflected upon and analyse.

Revill et al (2005, 236) state that “there is a growing body of evidence of the positive personal and professional effects that engaging in action research has on the practitioner”, which is the reason for it being at the heart of the degree. The intent of action research is “to build collaborative enquiries and development in the workplace”. Participants get guidance with the design of their projects, their data collection, analyses and ethics. The final year of the degree revolve around the notion of exhibiting and informing peers and the community of practice about lessons learned. This sharing in turn serves “as a lever of change and a stimulus for more collaborative and negotiated change”.

Reflective writing in the workplace represents the classic double-loop learning state Revill et al (2005, 236). The notion of ‘patchwork writing’ is encouraged, in addition to accumulation of work-based artefacts. Participants are required to document alternative reflective pieces and even encouraged to ”make photo albums, write poetry and design posters illustrating key incidents”, which are often reflected upon by using frameworks suggested in literature.

In addition to the ideal candidates to serve as workplace advocates, Revill et al (2005, 238) explain that the “advocate is not involved with the academic side of the degree work and its assessment but in providing an environment that will maximise” the participant’s learning. The advocate’s role include clarification of joint expectations; negotiation of appropriate learning activities; and enabling the sharing of effective practice, action enquiry and reflective practice. Revill et al (2005, 237) point out that “workplace degrees have a long history of developing mentoring and partnership arrangements”, because of “the importance of a conducive learning environment for work-related learning and emphasises”. It has been found that “more experienced peers offer the best workplace learning support”. Good human capital practices, such as widespread performance management and appraisal systems, imply that it should not be difficult to identify workplace advocates.

Revill, G.; Terrell, I.; Powell, S. and Tindal, I. 2005. Learning in the workplace: a new degree online Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 42, 3, 231–245.

Walking the talk of Project-based Learning and Community Service

Savage, Chen and Vanasupa (2007, 18-20) outline how a variety of projects about various aspects of engineering enriches the undergraduate engineering curriculum. They indicate how the design and construction of a solar hot water system and a water purification system meet the needs of local rural residents. This provided a service-learning element to the curriculum and affords students the opportunity how their efforts can positively impact their local community. In addition it gives students the opportunity to develop an appreciation for the role of technology in improving society.

Savage, Chen and Vanasupa (2007, 17) illustrates the goal to develop awareness within students about how technology can have an impact on society, economics and the environment through a dual tetrahedron (a solid figure having four plane faces) model.

Figure: The dual tetrahedron represents the balancing of technical knowledge, economic, environmental and social factors when developing a design solution.

Savage, R.N.; Chen, K.C. and Vanasupa, L. 2007. Integrating Project-based Learning throughout the Undergraduate Engineering Curriculum. The Journal of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) Education: Innovations and Research, 8(3), 15-27. Electronically accessible from http://ojs.jstem.org/index.php?journal=JSTEM&page=article&op=view&path%5B%5D=1387