BLENDED AND PROJECT-BASED LEARNING: THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY

BLENDED AND PROJECT-BASED LEARNING: THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY

A. Meikleham, R. Hugo, R. Brennan (2018).  BLENDED AND PROJECT-BASED LEARNING: THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY. 15.

Since its inception, the CDIO initiative has advocated the use of experiential learning. Problemand Project-based learning (PBL and PjBL) have been widely acknowledged as an approach to dovetail experiential approaches into the learning process. The often-cited benefit of this approach is that participation in experiential projects in which students take on roles that simulate professional engineering practice results in dual-impact learning experiences. These experiences encourage the development of both technical knowledge and professional skills – consisting of personal and interpersonal skills, and product, process, and system building skills (Crawley et al., 2014). A drawback to PjBL is that it requires considerable contact time for facilitation, therefore blended learning has been identified as a method to free up limited contact hours for more active engagement. This paper presents our experience implementing blended, project-based learning in a technical fluid mechanics course, including contextual factors which impacted effectiveness of this approach. Student engagement with online lecture material was analyzed using user watch minutes; it was found that techniques implemented to reduce cramming appeared to be effective in achieving this goal. Data from end of term student feedback surveys was used to gain insight into student satisfaction with this blended project-based learning class. Findings from this course were compared with student responses on previous blended and traditional delivery courses. Findings indicated that when perceived workload increased, student perception of quality of instruction decreased. An analysis of expected vs. actual hours revealed that while hours dedicated to course work were lower than expected, students perceived the course load to be much higher than other courses. This suggests that time spent on this course required a higher level of activity and engagement per hour than what students are used to. Instructors should consider whether institutional support exists for the time- and resource-intensive development process of project-based learning, as promotion and tenure reviews could be negatively impacted by student evaluations. The paper will close with a discussion on insights that can be utilized productively by instructors to inform future PBL/PjBL development. 

Authors (New): 
Alexandra Meikleham
Ronald J Hugo
Robert W Brennan
Pages: 
15
Affiliations: 
University of Calgary, Canada
Keywords: 
Project-Based Learning
PjBL
PBL
Blended Learning
Student-centered learning
CDIO approach
CDIO Standard 2
CDIO Standard 3
CDIO Standard 5
CDIO Standard 7
CDIO Standard 8
Year: 
2018
Reference: 
Biggs, J. B., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching For Quality Learning At University. Teaching for Quality Learning at University.: 
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(5), 5–31. : 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092- 008-9068-5
Courses of Instruction - How to Use. (2018). Retrieved from Proceedings of the 14th International CDIO Conference, Kanazawa Institute of Technology, Kanazawa, Japan, June 28 – July 2, 2018. http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/current/course-how-to-use.html: 
Crawley, E. F., Malmqvist, J., Östlund, S., Brodeur, D. R., & Edström, K. (2014). DesignImplement Experiences and Engineering Workspaces. In Rethinking Engineering Education: The CDIO Approach (pp. 117–142). Springer International Publishing.: 
Crawley, E. F., Malmqvist, J., Östlund, S., Brodeur, D. R., & Edström, K. (2014). The CDIO Approach. In Rethinking Engineering Education: The CDIO Approach (2nd ed., pp. 11–46). Cham: Springer International Publishing. : 
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05561-9
Crawley, E. F., Malmqvist, J., Östlund, S., Brodeur, D. R., & Edström, K. (2014). The CDIO Syllabus: Learning Outcomes for Engineering Education. In Rethinking Engineering Education: The CDIO Approach (pp. 54–85). Springer International Publishing.: 
Edström, K., & Kolmos, A. (2014). PBL and CDIO: Complementary models for engineering education development. European Journal of Engineering Education, 39(5), 539–555. : 
https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2014.895703
Graham, R. (2016). Does teaching advance your academic career? London. Retrieved from http://www.raeng.org.uk/RAE/media/Publications/Reports/RAoE-Temp-for-EvaluatingTeaching-Achievement_D8.pdf: 
Hugo, R. J., & Meikleham, A. (2016). Statistical Analysis of Global Online Watch Data. In A. Rose (Ed.), AAEE2016 Conference (pp. 1–9). Coffs Harbour, Australia: 
Kirschner, P. A., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why Minimal Guidance Instruction Does Not Work : An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching, 41(2), 75–86.: 
Malmqvist, J., Hugo, R., & Kjellberg, M. (2015). A Survey of CDIO Implementation Globally Effects on Educational Quality. In Proceedings of the 11th International CDIO Conference (p. 17). Chengdu, China.: 
Meikleham, A., & Hugo, R. J. (2017). Understanding Feedback to Improve Online Course Design. In B. Brennan, K. Edström, R. J. Hugo, J. Röslof, R. Songer, & D. Spooner (Eds.), 13th International CDIO Conference. Calgary, AB.: 
Meikleham, A., Hugo, R. J., & Brennan, B. (2018). Fluid Mechanics Project-Based Learning Kits: An Analysis of Implementation Results. In 14th International CDIO Conference (p. (Submitted)). Kanazawa, Japan.: 
Norman, G. R., & Schmidt, H. G. (1992). The Psychological Basis of Problem-based Learning: A Review of the Evidence. Academic Medicine, 67(9), 557–565.: 
Pleiss, G., Perry, M., & Zastavker, Y. V. (2012). Student self-efficacy in introductory ProjectBased Learning courses. Proceedings - Frontiers in Education Conference, FIE, 8–13. : 
https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2012.6462457
Thomas, J. W. (2000). A Review of Research on Project-Based Learning. The Autodesk Foundation, 1–45. : 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-009-0302-x
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. In Gauvain & Cole (Eds.), Readings on the Development of Children (pp. 34–40). New York, NY: Scientific American Books. : 
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3495(96)79572-3
Yeo, R. (2005). Problem-based learning: lessons for administrators, educators and learners. International Journal of Educational Management, 19(7), 541–551. : 
https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540510625581
Zhang, Y., Dang, Y., & Amer, B. (2016). A Large-Scale Blended and Flipped Class: Class Design and Investigation of Factors Influencing Students’ Intention to Learn. IEEE Transactions on Education, 59(4), 263–273. : 
https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2016.2535205
Go to top