An Assessment Rich Pbl vs Classical Teaching Approach: a Case of an Embedded Systems Course

Proceedings of the 2nd International Research Symposium on PBL, 3-4 December 2009, Melbourne, Australia

An assessment rich PBL vs classical teaching approach: a case of an embedded systems course

M. Abdulwahed1, W. Balid2
1

Loughborough University, Loughborough LE11 3TU, UK ([e-mail]) 2 Faculty of EEE, Aleppo University, Aleppo ALP, Syria ([e-mail])

Abstract This paper reports on a study where the PBL was investigated whether it would enhance the students learning and engagement of an MCU laboratory course or not. The students were divided into two equivalent groups, experimental and control. The control group students were taught the lab in the classical way, i.e. attending the lab session only. The experimental group was taught with assessment rich PBL pedagogical methodology where they were weekly assigned problems to solve during and after each laboratory session, these were discussed and corrected by the lecturer and feedback was sent to the students, also they were asked to prepare and evaluation quizzes were conducted each week to measure the impact of the assignments and preparation benefit. The control group students were free to communicate the lecturer for any feedback, if they needed. After four weekly laboratory sessions, both groups were examined unexpectedly. The exam included questions covering the whole four weeks. As for statistically analyzing of the exam results, the Null Hypothesis was laid down. The latter stated that “There is no statistically difference between the control and the experimental group due to the assessment rich PBL approach”. The statistical analysis of the exam results showed very strong statistical evidence to reject the Null Hypothesis. The experimental group students outperformed significantly the control group students. The results showed a pedagogically rooted didactic reform could lead to radical enhancement of the learning outcomes. The lecturer observed significant engagement

References: [1] Jones BF, Rasmussen CM, Moffitt MC 1997. Real-life problem solving.: A collaborative approach to interdisciplinary learning. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. [2] Thomas, J. W., Mergendoller, J. R., and Michaelson, A. (1999). Project-based learning: A handbook for middle and high school teachers. Novato, CA: The Buck Institute for Education. [3] Moursund D 1999. Project-based learning using information technology, International Society for Technology in Education. [4] Diehl, W., Grobe, T., Lopez, H., & Cabral, C. (1999). Project-based learning: A strategy for teaching and learning. Boston, MA: Center for Youth Development and Education, Corporation for Business, Work, and Learning. [5] Thomas JW, San Rafael CA 2000. A review of research on project-based learning, Autodesk Foundation. Retrieved April, 2000. [6] Torp L, Sage S 1998. Problems as possibilities: Problem-based learning for K-12 education. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. [7] Macias-Guarasa et al., 2006 J. Macias-Guarasa, J.M. Montero, R. San-Segundo, A. Araujo and O. NietoTaladriz, A project based learning approach to design electronic systems curricula, IEEE Transactions on Education Vol 49 (2006), pp. 389–398. [8] Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1, 37-68. [9] Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 141-178. [10] Gallagher, S. A., Stepien, W. J., & Rosenthal, H. (1992). The effects of problem-based learning on problem solving. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 195-200. [11] Engel, C. E. (1997). Not just a method but a way of learning. In D. Boud & G. Feletti (Eds.), The challenge of problem-based learning (2nd ed.; pp. 17–27). London: Kogan Page. [12] Cawley, P. (1989). The introduction of a problem-based option into a conventional engineering degree course. Studies in Higher Education, 14, 83–95. [13] Mills, J. E. & Treagust, D. F. (2004). Engineering education: is problem-based or project-based learning the answer? Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 2003–04, online publication. Retrieved 14 February 2007, from http://www.aaee.com.au/journal/2003/mills_treagust03.pdf [14] Gonzalez V and Musa, 2005. A development of a communication course integrating a virtual laboratory and complex simulations. Proceedings of the American society for engineering education annual conference & exposition. [15] Chu RH and Lu DD, 2008. project based lab learning teaching for power electronics and drives. IEEE Transactions on Education, Vol. 51, No.1, 108-113. [16] Balid W and Abdulwahed M, 2009. Multi Purpose Open Source Embedded Systems Laboratory Kit for Engaging Students Towards Experiential Education. The 9th Annual American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Global Colloquium on Engineering Education Budapest, Hungary October 12-15. [17] Sweller, J., Van Merriënboer, J., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–296. [18] LabCenter, 2009. http://www.labcenter.co.uk/index.cfm [19] Howell, D. C. (1999). Fundamental Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. [20] Conover. 1999. Practical Nonparametric Statistics. Second Edition. Sale: John Wiley and Sons [21] Dallal, J, 2003. http://www.jerrydallal.com/LHSP/p05.htm Page 9 of 10 Proceedings of the 2nd International Research Symposium on PBL, 3-4 December 2009, Melbourne, Australia [22] Abdulwahed M, Nagy Z K, Blanchard R, 2009. Constructivist Project Based Learning Design, a Cybernetics Approach. Journal of Education, Information and Cybernetics, 1(2), 2008, pp 1-8, ISSN 1943-7978. [23] Ertmer, P., Newby, T. J., and MacDougall, M. (1996). Students’ responses and approaches to case-based instruction: The role of reflective self-regulation. Am. Educ. Res. J. 33: 719–752. [24] Abrandt Dahlgren, M., and Dahlgren, L. O. (2002). Portraits of PBL: Students’ experiences of the characteristics of problem-based learning in physiotherapy, computer engineering, and psychology. Instr. Sci. 30: 111–127. [25] Albanese,M. A., and Mitchell, S. (1993). Problem-based learning: A review of literature on its outcomes and implementation issues. Acad. Med. 68: 52–81. [26] Hmelo, C. E. (1994). Development of Independent Thinking and Learning Skills: A Study of Medical ProblemSolving and Problem-Based Learning, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN. [27] Vernon, D. T., and Blake, R. L. (1993). Does problem-based learning work?: A meta-analysis of evaluative research. Acad. Med. 68: 550–563. [28] Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control, Freeman, New York. [29] Dweck, C. S. (1991). Self-theories and goals: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. In Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1990, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, pp. 199–235. [30] Kolb DA 1984. Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall. [31] Atkinson R C, Shiffrin R M 1968, Human Memory: A proposed system and its component processes. The psychology of learning and motivation, Vol 2, New York: Academic Press. [32] Weenk GWH, 1999. Learning Pyramid. Educational Center, University of Twente, 1999. Page 10 of 10