Research in Engineering Education Symposium 2011 - rees2009

Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM) Página 213 de 957
most attention, student discomfort, depth versus breadth, and role as teacher versus
facilitator, were all within the PBL set of tensions as opposed to the engineering education
reform area. This is not completely surprising, as the engineering education reform
tension tend to be situated with the larger system, whereas the PBL tensions are situated
within the educator’s classroom where he/she may have more control and influence over
the management of the tensions.
Analysis of the transcripts revealed two main themes related to the management of
students’ discomfort with the initial transition to a PBL environment. The transition of
students to PBL was supported by (1) setting and explaining expectations to help students
understand the new learning environment, and (2) by tailoring the learning activities to
the level of the student.
With regard to the management of the tension of depth versus breadth of the curriculum,
three themes emerged. Educators made adjustments to (1) the learning environment by
initially providing more structure and constraints for assigned problems/projects,
modifying the scope of the problem to make is doable and relevant to the student, (2) the
use of class time by using a hybrid/blended approach to minimize lecture and focus class
time on exploration and hands-on activities, and (3) the content by reducing the breadth
and focusing on need-to-know content and removing content that was duplicated in other
courses.
Finally, two themes were defined for the management of the tension between the
traditional role as teacher versus the role as facilitator in PBL. Educators managed this
tension by (1) shifting the relationship between the content, the student, and the
instructor in order to put more of the onus for learning on the student, reframing their
engineering educator identity and (2) optimizing the educator’s role and use of time by
offloading basic administrative functions and using class time for key points, discussion,
activities, and practice, and have students work in groups to take advantage of team/peer
learning.
In conclusion, engineering education reform continues to move toward outcomes-based
programs, PBL has been noted to be a pedagogy poised to meet the learning needs of
engineering students. While the engineering educators encountered tensions at both the
classroom and the system level, those who incorporated PBL into the early years of their
engineering programs tended to focus their energies on managing tensions at the
classroom level. This approach appears logical, in that this is the level at which educators
had not only greater controller of the environment, but also had the potential to have a
greater impact on their students’ learning and development as engineers of the future.
Future research plans
Our preliminary findings may be relevant for (1) professional development programs,
carrying appropriate incentives, for educators who want to implement PBL into their
teaching practice, (2) administrators/policy makers who are planning curriculum
redesign to meet outcomes-based program accreditation needs and ways to support their
faculty.
Proceedings of Research in Engineering Education Symposium 2011
Madrid, 4 th - 7 th October 2011