Complete thesis - Murdoch University

development of students skills and understanding in generalisable and transferable skills isa necessary dimension of professional education (McLaughlan and Kirkpatrick, 2004). Activelearning approaches (which include collaborative learning, problem-based learning, casemethods and combinations of roleplays and simulations) are advocated to engage studentsin such higher order thinking tasks as analysis, synthesis and evaluation (Bonwell and Eison,1991). Active learning methods attemptto develop the cognitive [knowledge, understanding and thinking] and affective[emotive] dimensions of the learning process in such a way that learners’ activeinvolvement in the learning is improved(Learning and Teaching Support Network (LTSN), 2003).In the UK criticism has arisen regarding Engineering graduates’ ability to improvise withthe equipment and resources at hand in dealing with day-to-day operational problems. Theneed for flexibility, fluency and originality in day-to-day dealings, which typically define thecreative effort (Guilford, 1967), is seen as a lack in training. A research focus has also emergedin developing creativity in (engineering) design (Winograd, 1996; Cropley and Cropley, 2000),with creativity described as a balance of convergent and divergent thinking appropriate tothe situation (Nickerson, 1999). The process of design is seen to rarely be convergent, in thesense of being directed towards a single preferred solution.The implication of this is that approaches such as the Studio Learning model developedthrough this research have increased importance in an Engineering context. The commentsby the accreditation panel support this (see Section 9.3.2).9.5 Future workFrom the research perspective, some issues were identified both from observation of theStudios in general, from comparison of the SE Studios with other Engineering Studios andfrom discussions with staff and students.Of prime importance was the development of staff in order to support the model of learning.The adoption of Studio Learning across the School may be considered ’transformational’,a second order change that required a fundamental shift in behaviour and resources (Levy,1986). A correlation appeared to exist between attendance at staff development sessions andthe ‘success’ of the specific Studio. The implication of this result is that no staff should teachwithin the Studio Learning environment without adequate and appropriate training (both413