Problem-based learning curricula in engineering

This chapter explores Problem-Based Learning (PBL) curricula in engineering in Australasian universities, in particular its effects on student approaches to learning in PBL teams. Exploring from the three view points: curriculum design and implementation; institutional support structures assisting the transition to PBL for both students and academics; and student learning experiences in PBL teams this chapter intends to close the loop for institutions and academics using PBL to educate future engineers. In particular, this chapter examines the design of engineering PBL courses or subjects within programs and the ways in which learning experiences are designed for students, the support structures that institutions put in place for both academics and students to transition to PBL, teacher practices and student experiences of learning both individually and as a team in PBL. It is argued that many engineering programs still undermine the need for designing learning experiences to help students achieve the desired learning outcomes; seldom consider the learning cultures adopted by PBL teams and how students engage in learning as individuals and as a team. This chapter argues the need for approaches to PBL that enhance student learning and experiences in engineering and the need for support structures that assist both students and academics in the transition to problem-based learning.

Project oriented design based learning – staff perspectives

The focus of this paper is to get staff perception on design based learning in their respective disciplines and how they could be aligned to the newly proposed model, in project oriented design based learning (PODBL). In academia, students and staff are supposed to work together in order to achieve a balanced learning and teaching process. By using different teaching and learning approaches, teachers are aware of escalating the student knowledge to fulfill current technology needs. This paper is part of a continuing process of a research project, which analyses better teaching and learning approaches in engineering. As part of this research, face-to-face interviews with staff members of the school of engineering in Deakin University who are teaching engineering design were conducted. The interview questions are based on
qualitative analysis. The questions covered here are designed to determine the staff level of experience from teaching engineering using design based learning approach as an educational model. From the analysed results, this research encourages the school to practice a unique pedagogy that will accomplish the students learning outcomes.

Constructive alignment in the built environment: enhancing teaching in line with graduate outcomes

The paper examines the manner in which to review an undergraduate degree in construction management using a top-down approach known as “Constructive Alignment”. The research addresses not only the perceived teaching problems, but it also discusses the methods used to rejuvenate the course in a manner that aligns with the graduate outcomes. However, it was also clear that teaching staff were not especially aware of the need to address the course learning outcomes. This highlighted the need for teaching staff to be involved in a process of constructive alignment to embed the course learning outcomes within their subjects, while also addressing the teaching issues involved with assessment. This process provided an opportunity to determine the incremental skill and knowledge development, both within the subjects, as well as between subjects across the course. The paper concludes with the production of a conceptual framework, which can be used to assist with the alignment of professional standards, course outcomes and graduate attributes into a discipline-specific degree program.

Leading WIL: A distributed leadership approach to enhance work integrated learning : final report 2014

Work Integrated Learning (WIL) provides rich, relevant learning through a partnership between universities and employers. Through a collaborative approach to building knowledge, the capability and capacity of experienced WIL leaders in the university and orkplace will be enhanced for improved student outcomes. Having established how and where WIL leadership is situated, the project will identify the critical challenges to WIL leadership capabilities and structures. Through institutionally-based Master Classes that model and employ a distributed learning approach, through national Communities of Practice and a WIL Leadership Summit, a framework and guidelines to support WIL leadership capacity building nationally will be developed, trialled and validated. The project will draw upon expertise and experiences of staff from five Australian universities, each with a demonstrated strong WIL commitment. The distributive leadership approach to WIL will be developed and tested within employer-based individual disciplines. The framework and guidelines will be sustained nationally through the key WIL professional association, the Australian Collaborative Education Network.

Early years education in the primary years programme: implementation strategies and programme outcomes

This mixed-methods study investigated implementation strategies and child learning outcomes in early years education in the Primary Years Programme. Researchers from Deakin University evaluated processes and outcomes in four early years programmes, two in Singapore and two in Melbourne, Australia. Researchers collected qualitative data through classroom observations, drawings and writing produced by children, and interviews with educators, coordinators and parents. Quantitative data was collected through assessments of children’s literacy, developmental school readiness and learning skills. Three of the early years programmes appeared to support the development of learner profile attributes through inquiry-led learning and play-based approaches, while one site in Singapore was still in a developmental stage of implementing the programme. The study suggested that literacy skills at all sites were fairly developed; that children were performing at levels commensurate with or better in terms of school readiness; and that children were developing learning skills at higher rates than a comparative sample.

Enhancing and assessing group and team learning in architecture and related design contexts

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYTeamwork skills are essential in the design industry where practitioners negotiate often-conflicting design options in multi-disciplinary teams. Indeed, many of the bodies that accredit design courses explicitly list teamwork skills as essential attributes of design graduates e.g., the Australian Institute of Architects (AIA), Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) of the United States and the Institution of Engineers, Australia (IEAust). In addition to the need to meet the demands of the accrediting bodies, there are many reasons for the ubiquitous use of teamwork assignments in design schools. For instance, teamwork learning is seen as being representative of work in practice where design is nearly always a collaborative activity. Learning and teaching in teamwork contexts in design education are not without particular challenges. In particular, two broad issues have been identified: first, many students leave academia without having been taught the knowledge and skills of how to design in teams; second, teaching, assessment and assignment design need to be better informed by a clear understanding of what leads to effective teamwork and the learning of teamwork skills. In recognition of the lack of a structured approach to integrating teamwork learning into the curricula of design programs, this project set out to answer three primary research questions: • How do we teach teamwork skills in the context of design? • How do we assess teamwork skills?• How do design students best learn teamwork skills?In addition, four more specific questions were investigated:1. Is there a common range of learning objectives for group-and-team-work in architecture and related design disciplines that will enable the teaching of consistent and measurable outcomes?2. Do group and team formation methods, learning styles and team-role preferences impact students’ academic and course satisfaction outcomes?3. What combinations of group-and-team formation methods, teaching and assessment models significantly improve learning outcomes?4. For design students across different disciplines with different learning styles and cultural origins, are there significant differences in performance, student satisfaction (as measured through questionnaires and unit evaluations), group-and-team working abilities and student participation?To elucidate these questions, a design-based research methodology was followed comprising an iterative series of enquiries: (a) A literature review was completed to investigate: what constitutes effective teamwork, what contributes to effectiveness in teams, what leads to positive design outcomes for teams, and what leads to effective learning in teams. The review encompassed a range of contexts: from work-teams in corporate settings, to professional design teams, to education outside of and within the design disciplines. The review informed a theoretical framework for understanding what factors impact the effectiveness of student design teams. (b) The validity of this multi-factorial Framework of Effectiveness in Student Design Teams was tested via surveys of educators’ teaching practices and attitudes, and of students’ learning experiences. 638 students and 68 teachers completed surveys: two pilot surveys for participants at the four partner institutions, which then informed two national surveys completed by participants from the majority of design schools across Australia. (c) The data collected provided evidence for 22 teamwork factors impacting team effectiveness in student design teams. Pedagogic responses and strategies to these 22 teamwork factors were devised, tested and refined via case studies, focus groups and workshops. (d) In addition, 35 educators from a wide range of design schools and disciplines across Australia attended two National Teaching Symposiums. The first symposium investigated the wider conceptualisation of teamwork within the design disciplines, and the second focused on curriculum level approaches to structuring the teaching of teamwork skills identified in the Framework.The Framework of Effectiveness in Student Design Teams identifies 22 factors impacting effective teamwork, along with teaching responses and strategies that design educators might use to better support student learning. The teamwork factors and teaching strategies are categorised according to three groups of input (Task Characteristics, Individual Level Factors and Team Level Factors), two groups of processes (Teaching Practice & Support Structures and Team Processes), and three categories of output (Task Performance, Teamwork Skills, and Attitudinal Outcomes). Eight of the 22 teamwork factors directly relate to the skills that need to be developed in students, one factor relates to design outputs, and the other thirteen factors inform pedagogies that can be designed for better learning outcomes. In Table 10 of Section 4, we outline which of the 22 teamwork factors pertain to each of five stakeholder groups (curriculum leaders, teachers, students, employers and the professional bodies); thus establishing who will make best use the information and recommendations we make. In the body of this report we summarise the 22 teamwork factors and teaching strategies informed by the Framework of Effectiveness in Student Design Teams, and give succinct recommendations arising from them. This material is covered in depth by the project outputs. For instance, the teaching and assessment strategies will be expanded upon in a projected book on Teaching Teamwork in Design. The strategies are also elucidated by examples of good practice presented in our case studies, and by Manuals on Teamwork for Teachers and Students. Moreover, the project website ( visited by representatives of stakeholder groups in Australia and Canada), is seeding a burgeoning community of practice that promises dissemination, critical evaluation and the subsequent refinement of our materials, tools, strategies and recommendations. The following three primary outputs have been produced by the project in answer to the primary research questions:1. A theoretical Framework of Effectiveness in Student Design Teams;2. Manuals on Teamwork for Teachers and Students (available from the website);3. Case studies of good/innovative practices in teaching and assessing teamwork in design;In addition, five secondary outputs/outcomes have been produced that provide more nuanced responses:4. Detailed recommendations for the professional accrediting bodies and curriculum leaders;5. Online survey data (from over 700 participants), plus Team Effectiveness Scale to determine the factors influencing effective learning and successful outputs for student design teams;6. A community of practice in policy, programs, practice and dialogue;7. A detailed book proposal (with sample chapter), submitted to prospective publishers, on Teaching Teamwork in Design; 8. An annotated bibliography (accessed via the project website) on learning, teaching and assessing teamwork.The project has already had an international impact. As well as papers presented in Canada and New Zealand, the surveys were participated in by six Canadian schools of architecture, whose teaching leaders also provided early feedback on the project aims and objectives during visits made to them by the project leader. In addition, design schools in Vancouver, Canada, and San Diego in the USA have already utilised the Teacher’s Manual, and in February 2014 the project findings were discussed at Tel Aviv University in a forum focusing on the challenges for sustainability in architectural education.

Inquiry-based learning in teacher education: a primary humanities example

Inquiry-based learning features strongly in the new Australian Humanities and Social Sciences curriculum and increasingly in primary school practice. Yet, there is little research into, and few exemplars of, inquiry approaches in the primary humanities context. In this article, we outline and explain the implementation of a place-based simulation as a vehicle for inquiry in a humanities subject in a teacher education course. Preliminary findings of surveys of pre-service teachers conducted pre and post the implementation of the inquiry model suggest increased engagement and enhanced learning outcomes. Further analysis is required in order to determine the depth of pre-service teachers’ understanding of inquiry approaches.

Improving laboratory learning through self and peer assessment of laboratory reports

The laboratory provides an opportunity for students to achieve many learning outcomes including to critically evaluate information, interpret and draw conclusions from scientific data, and communicate scientific results, information, or arguments. This paper describes a laboratory-writing task that involves self and peer evaluation. After discussion of the expectations of laboratory report writing during class, students self and peer evaluate reports. In a process similar to double-blind journal refereeing, students practise critically evaluating the quality of academic writing using a rubric. The summative assessment is based on how consistent their evaluations are with the evaluations of the same reports performed by their peers. The formative assessment is that students receive peer evaluations and feedback via a rubric on reports that they have written. The skill of critically evaluating their own reports is used to improve the laboratory reports in subsequent assessment tasks.

The role of the facilitator in a project/design based learning environment

The Project Oriented Design Based Learning (PODBL) is a teaching and learning approach (TLA) that is based on engineering design activities undertaken during a project. PODBL encourages independent learning and a deep approach to student learning outcomes. The Centre for Advanced Design in Engineering Training (CADET) is a new engineering building with cutting edge technology facilities at Deakin University. It acts as a catalyst for a pedagogical change in the way that Engineering is delivered. This paper is focused on the role of the facilitator in a project/design based learning environment and it also looks in to appropriate staff development training for a project/design based learning environment.

Assessing team learning practices in project/ design based learning approach

Team learning is considered as a constructive way for enhancing students learning in collaborative environment. It involves interaction between students through peer-to-peer learning, which makes students to be problem solver, an excellent communicator, a good reviewer and a manager. The School of Engineering at Xxx University practices project/design based learning as one of its learning and teaching approach. The project/design based learning process helps students to be self directed leaners which enhances the student learning outcomes towards attaining graduate career expected skills. An Overarching goal of this study is assessing the team learning experiences of cohort of students from third year civil undergraduate engineering in a project/design based learning approach at Xxx University. From the students’ experiences and views, this study will investigate and visualize the students choice of a unique team learning practice which enhances their learning outcomes in project/design based curriculum.

A framework for managing learning teams in engineering

BACKGROUND: Team learning is an integral part of engineering education today and teamwork knowledge, teamwork skills and teamwork product have been included as one of the major components of engineering graduate outcomes in undergraduate engineering course/program curriculum. In spite of enormous research advances in theoretical aspects of learning and working in teams, anecdotal evidence suggests that most engineering academic staff are inundated by student complaints of not being able to work in a learning team due to numerous reasons. In addition to student complaints, most engineering academic staff are non-expert in team learning theories and methodologies and hence are unsure of specific learning outcomes of a teamwork, approaches to achieve those learning outcomes, suitability of team learning in a particular unit/subject, planning required for implementing teamwork, implementation and monitoring teamwork and teamwork reflection. Too often engineering academic staff include teamwork, yet without adequate preparation and with little understanding about how to use their time to achieve the greatest gains for themselves or for their students. Hence, there is a clear need for a framework for managing learning teams in engineering units.
PURPOSE OR GOAL: This study develops a framework for managing learning teams in engineering units through extensive review of existing literature and anecdotal practices. The focus is to provide step-by-step procedure so that the problems of team learning in engineering can be reduced. Depending upon the time and resources available to academic staff, the framework would help to choose an optimal path and associated strategies.
APPROACH: This study uses evidence-based literature knowledge to develop a framework that help to manage engineering students’ learning teams. The literature information are discussed in reference to anecdotal practices from undergraduate engineering classrooms.
DISCUSSION: The literature review suggests that for better management of learning teams, engineering academic staff need to focus on specifying learning outcomes of a teamwork, identifying appropriate approaches to achieve these learning outcomes, judging the suitability of team learning in a particular learning context, developing a clear plan for implementing teamwork, implementing and monitoring teamwork and reflecting and re-evaluating teamwork. Elaborated discussions regarding these issues can help academic staff to manage learning teams effectively and efficiently.
RECOMMENDATIONS/IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSION: Depending upon the availability of time and resources and the suitability of a particular educational context, managing engineering learning teams can be both simple as well as complex. The developed framework may assist engineering academic staff to manage teamwork in their engineering units. For further research, the framework need to implemented, monitored, evaluated and revised.

Relationships between civil engineering students’ learning approaches and their perception of curriculum and teaching quality

BACKGROUND: Deakin University graduated its first cohort from four-year undergraduate civil engineering course/program in 2012. The internal annual Course Experience Survey, which has been running annually since 2012, targets to identify the graduating students’ learning approaches and students’ perceptions of the curriculum and teaching quality. Literature suggests that students’ learning outcomes can be achieved more efficiently when the students’ perceptions of curriculum and teaching quality are closely aligned with their learning approaches. Where the students’ approaches to learning and their perception of curriculum and teaching quality are mismatched, a series of frustrations can result for the students that may not only negatively impact their learning achievement but also their learning experience.
PURPOSE OR GOAL: This study explores the relationships between students’ learning approaches and their perception of curriculum and teaching quality in an undergraduate civil engineering program/course. This will help understand whether the curriculum and teaching quality provided by the university have actually accommodated ‘all’ enrolled students in the similar way.
APPROACH: To uncover these relationships, this study adopts questionnaire survey approach to collect response data over a two year period by asking students about their perception through a series of statements. 5-point Likert-scale questionnaire survey (strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, strongly agree) is developed and responses are collected. The responses are then statistically analysed in order to uncover the relationships between students’ learning approaches and their perception of curriculum and teaching quality provided by the university.
DISCUSSION: Deep learners and surface learners had a statistically different perception of curriculum and teaching quality. These results contradict the assumption that learners will have uniform preferences on the curriculum, teaching quality and the way they deal with the demands of specific learning situations. Anecdotal belief that ‘good course/program curriculum and good teaching approaches are good for all students and vice-versa’ may not be strictly true for contemporary heterogeneous student cohorts.
RECOMMENDATIONS/IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSION: This finding highlights the challenge for curriculum designer to design appropriate course curriculum and teaching staff to implement efficient teaching strategies that benefit both surface and deep learners, who are usually enrolled together. It may be beneficial to provide diversity and flexibility in the curriculum and teaching approaches (rather than a uniform approach). However, this may demand additional resources and may also be questioned for equity and consistency of education. It is also important to note that due to relatively a small dataset, these results may not be generalised.

Design of learning spaces for engineering education

BACKGROUND OR CONTEXT: With the re-imagining of engineering education at Deakin University an opportunity was presented with the ability to design purpose built spaces. With this development a review of leading practice educational spaces was undertaken specifically in a product development unit as well as a materials unit. Whilst both areas have different needs there were some common elements with the location of teaching aids, apparatus and experimental set-up and collaborative teaching spaces.
PURPOSE OR GOAL: This study examined what would a best practice learning environment look like in two different disciplines and what is the connection and similarities in a problem based learning environment. A benchmarking study and literature review on best practice was undertaken; this learning space was intrinsically linked to the educational model. Aspects of the educational model have started to be implemented in this long term project
APPROACH: Student perceptions were measured primarily through standard unit feedback for both units as well as student comments on the units. Engagement of students was the primary focus of the redesign of purpose built spaces as well as curriculum review. By placing students into specifically designed spaces to enhance learning outcomes it is anticipated that the knowledge and skills attainment will be higher for all students.
DISCUSSION: The redevelopment of learning spaces has forced staff to think hard about their units and how space impacts on student educations. With both the materials and product development units, student had the ability to move through spaces depending on what they were doing. This ability to move is a combination of the educational model, the facilities and staff/student interaction.
RECOMMENDATIONS/IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSION: While part of a long term redevelopment of facilities and curriculum, it has been found that when the facilities match the educational model student engagement is higher. This has been support in both the literature and observation through student and staff evaluations of the unit. It is expected that as students adapt to the new educational model further they will make greater use of the purpose built facilities.

Simplified framework for managing team learning in engineering subjects

Teamwork has been included as a major component of graduate attributes in all engineering programs at universities. In spite of enormous research advances in theoretical aspects of learning and working in teams, anecdotal evidence suggests that most engineering academic staff are inundated by student complaints of not being able to learn and work in teams due to numerous reasons. In order to facilitate engineering academic staff and engineering schools, this study develops a simplified framework for managing learning teams in engineering subjects that integrates theoretical conceptions, empirical evidences and anecdotal practices by reviewing a substantial body of existing literature. The framework identifies that in addition to managing student complaints about learning and working in teams more effectively and efficiently, engineering academic staff and engineering schools need to focus on specifying learning outcomes of teamwork, identifying appropriate approaches to achieve these learning outcomes, judging the suitability of teamwork-based learning in a particular educational context, developing a clear plan for implementing teamwork, implementing and monitoring teamwork, and reflecting and re-evaluating teamwork. The developed framework can be a useful tool to help understand these essential components and complexities of team learning.

Collaborative learning experience of students in distance education

Educational institutions recognised that the distance education mode is a preferred way to combine study with life, family and work commitments for distance learners. Distance education has played an important role in the provision of educational equity for distance learners who live in remote Australian communities. Engaging students and academic staff will always enhance student-learning outcomes to ensure a positive experience in distance education. It can be effectively achieved through collaborative learning. In distance education, academic staff and students face a number of challenges such as lack of student motivation, high student attrition rates, and a sense of isolation from a university community. Collaborative learning experience will enhance learner-staff and learner-learner interactions in distance learning, which can be achieved through developing a learning process. The learning process for distance learners involves student-learning strategy, Staff interactive sessions, peer-to-peer support, e-assessment, and self-realization of graduate learning outcomes. This distance learning process is confined for Deakin University learning environment, however the expectations is that the distance learning will be more mainstream in future of learning and teaching in Australian institutions. The focus of this research is to analyse and share collaborative learning experience of distance learners (off-campus) students in project management unit. It helps to analyse the barriers in distance education and finding ways to initiate collaborative programs in future. It also helps to fulfil the distance learners’ expectations on program delivery.