Research in Engineering Education Symposium 2011 - rees2009

Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM) Página 363 de 957
1. the research team phase, which established the background of the project,
developed the „strategic framework‟ collaboratively and, at the time this paper
was written, had arrived at the point of „piloting‟ the framework;
2. the teacher / individual researcher phase, in which the interventions aimed at
achieving the desired outcomes are designed and documented; and
3. the teacher engaging students phase, in which the interventions are „trialled‟, their
effectiveness evaluated, further refinements or modifications proposed, and new
insights into the theoretical underpinnings of the intervention gained.
The research team phase involved participation in a current Australian project, entitled
Assessing individual learning in teams: Developing an assessment model for practice-based
curricula in engineering. The project, funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching
Council, has developed a strategic framework for assessing individual student learning in
team-based subjects. This framework is currently being piloted in undergraduate
engineering courses in four Australian universities, and is comprised of a number of
processes, one of which is co-creating learning intent between students and academic staff
(Howard and Eliot, 2011).
The “teacher / individual researcher” phase comprises the majority of the current paper
and is characterised by a number of “decision points”, at which the researcher makes a
choice between directions in which the research could head or in the subject of study and
so on. In most cases, the decision point determines the subsequent nature of the research
and its outcomes.
The first decision point required that an element of the framework be chosen for deeper
exploration. Co-Creating Learning Intent (CCLI) was selected primarily because it is a
concept of deep interest to the author, and is fundamental to the principles of studentcentred
learning.
The second decision point related to the design of interventions and responded to the
question “What are the theoretical underpinnings that will inform the design?” In this
case, the dilemma was that while theory of DBR indicates that designs must be grounded
in theory, there is no prior theory about CCLI. To identify theories that informed
understanding of Co-Creating Learning Intent, the author drew on theories from a
disparate range of disciplines that highlighted what must be incorporated into the
intervention. Ultimately the theoretical scaffold developed included theories about cocreation
(Ramaswamy and Gouillart, 2010), learning (Blumer, 1969; Golub, 1988;
Johnson and Johnson, 1989; Johnson et al, 1990; Schön, 1983 – to name but a few) and
intent (or conation) (Assagioli, 1974; Confessore and Park, 2004). However, it is not the
purpose of this paper to discuss these theories in depth.
The third decision point was about the design of the actual intervention - in this case, a
number of teaching and learning activities. In response, the following interventions were
designed:
1. clearly stated learning outcomes / graduate attributes – an important element of
this was that there was an on-going dialogue throughout the semester about what
Proceedings of Research in Engineering Education Symposium 2011
Madrid, 4 th - 7 th October 2011