Complete thesis - Murdoch University

offerings at third and fourth year level. From 2005 both Year 1 and 2 became common for(all) Engineering students, with specialisations focussed in the final two years. In addition,all units would be taught in a Design Studio model, informed by the approaches describedin this study, in particular the CreativePBL model discussed in Chapter 7, and the StudioLearning described in this chapter. An advantage of this was that the orientation to PBL andStudios could be centralised: all third year (and fourth year, for 2005 only) students would berequired to undertake an orientation programme in the first week of semester. This ensureda common base of understanding on the part of students, and gave academic staff (some ofwhom had undertaken the PBL training described below, but had not yet implemented aPBL unit) some exposure to issues surrounding such a radical change in learning.Implementing the Studio Learning model in Engineering required considerable revision ofunits. The most influential to this study was the decision to go from eight 3-point units (hencefour units per semester) to three 6-point Studios in each specialisation. Within the SoftwareEngineering discipline the revision required was relatively minor, except that ENG260 neededto be moved to third year to fit into the revised curriculum model.Each Engineering specialisation was defined as three Design Studios, taken over two years.Within SE the RE unit (ENG260) was proposed as the initial SE Studio, ENG301. Thisunit absorbed all the material of ENG260, and integrated components of another SE unit,which addressed process within the SE development lifecycle. The main impact on theresearch being undertaken was the addition of an assessment activity that required studentsto develop a tool for estimating effort within a development project. Triggers for the problemsin ENG260 were broadened to ensure students engaged with the appropriate resources toundertake this additional task.Development of the Studio model also required changes in class timetabling. Rather thantime set aside for lectures, tutorials and labs, Studios worked in a block-teaching framework– each Studio was allocated 10 hours of class contact (teacher present)– generally on theone day and another 10 hours of additional class time. Therefore students were expected tospend a minimum of two days a week on each Studio plus any additional time required byindividual study habits.For ENG301, I did not consider this timetabling practical – students needed time to absorband reflect on the problem, as well as do the research required. Having to wait a weekto interact with the teacher I also considered too long, even with an ‘open door’ policy.Fortuitously, a colleague felt the same about his Studio. The compromise reached was toschedule two 5-hour blocks separated by at least a day (ie in practice Tuesday afternoon andThursday morning). This allowed both students and teacher the time to follow up on issues334