Research in Engineering Education Symposium 2011 - rees2009

Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM) Página 688 de 957
fromexpectations that graduates will be “practice-ready” as soon as they graduate; that is,
reliance on learning these abilities from practical experience after graduation (eg,
internships) is no longer acceptable.
Recently in engineering education, group-learning has been increasingly adopted to
varying extents, ranging from individual projects to whole courses, and generally
identifiable with established group-learning methods such as Problem-Based Learning
and Project-Based Learning [3]. Reasoning for these adoptions is primarily to increase
relevance of the respective courses to “real-world” practice. An associated tacit
assumption is that experience of group work develops design team abilities appropriate to
real-world design team environments.
However, mere participation in group problem-solving is ineffective unless it is
underpinned by understanding (by the student) of the abilities they are expected to
demonstrate, and unless acquisition of those abilities is verified by assessment.
As it is, group learning is rarely accompanied by strategies for development of
understanding of the group dynamics involved (and individual contributions to those
dynamics), and rarely by assessment strategies that identify and verify individual
achievement of group-member skills. Customary practice is to assess the group’s product
(design or solution to a technical challenge or problem), and to allocate the group’s
assessment grade equally to all members. Thus an outside observer (eg an employer)
cannot determine who has these abilities and who does not. At one level of consequence,
this “one size fits all” practice causes dissatisfaction among students who want their own
contributions recognised in individual marks, particularly those who feel that they have
been disadvantaged by other individuals who have contributed less or who have disrupted
the affective potential of the group and its products. At another level, this dissatisfaction is
an increasingly important consideration as student satisfaction scores are crucial
components of governments’ quality assurance requirements.
At a third level, course objectives (develop teamwork abilities) set out in the course
handbook imply development of individual teamwork abilities, however the salient
abilities are rarely identified or differentiated in the curricula and rarely assessed on an
individual basis. Consequently, there is an absence of alignment between course objectives
(to develop individual teamwork abilities), learning methods (involvement in group or
team work) and assessment (verification of individual achievement) and, therefore, failure
to satisfy the most basic requirement of quality assurance: alignment between objectives,
curriculum, assessment and outcomes. Assessment of group-member skills must be on an
individual basis if alignment is to be achieved, and if student satisfaction is to be achieved,
and if quality assurance criteria are to be met [4][5].
Dynamics in design teams in industry
In order to define teamwork abilities in students, and to be consistent with pursuit of
relevance of education to professional practice, we must first identify team dynamics
required for effective design practice in industry; that is, dynamics that are conducive to
optimal progress towards an optimal design outcome. However we must also
Proceedings of Research in Engineering Education Symposium 2011
Madrid, 4 th - 7 th October 2011