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].