Search

CONTEXT: There is a growing interest in engineering education that the curriculum should include collaborative design projects. Problem-based and project-based learning context of this study is a design project in the fifth semester of the problem-based Architecture and Design programme at Aalborg University. The students had the task to design a real office building in collaborative groups of 5–6 students. PURPOSE: Collaboration and collaborative learning imply a shared activity, a shared purpose, and a mutual interdependence to achieve the intended learning outcomes. In earlier studies we have highlighted the cognitive importance of tools and the use of a wealth of bodily and material resources in students’ collaborative interactional work in the design project. In this study, we focus on students’ collaborative group practices in the design project. The fine-grained details of collaborative work in engineering students design projects are currently under-researched.METHODOLOGY: The preparation for an upcoming status seminar was video recorded in situ. Video ethnography, conversation analysis and embodied interaction analysis were used to explore what interactional work the student teams did and what kind of resources they used to collaborate and complete the design task. Complete six hours sessions of five groups were recorded using multiple video cameras (2 – 5 cameras per group).OUTCOMES: The fine-grained patterns of social interaction within groups were found to be complex and dynamic. In the video recordings it was observed that students often changed constellations and break into subgroups of one, two or three students to do some work and to congregate later as a whole group. Thus, we found that the patterns of collaboration in groups practical day-to-day work were not static but displayed a myriad of different patterns.CONCLUSION: Our results challenge a naïve individual-collaborative-binary and point to the need to investigate group practices and individual and collaborative learning in design project groups and other collaborative learning environments in more detail.

ispartof: pages:1475-1487 ispartof: Proceedings of the 48th Annual SEFI Conference pages:1475-1487 ispartof: SEFI 48th Annual conference, 2020 location:Enschede, the Netherlands date:20 Sep - 24 Sep 2020 status: published

In this chapter, we analyse selected video data from a long-term, collaborative problem-based project work conducted by a group of Architecture and Design (A&D) students within the frame of the Aalborg PBL model. We initially discuss this pedagogical model in relation to the analytic framework for transfer developed in Chapters 2 and 3. Following that, we zoom in on selected extracts of video data of students’ actual group work. From the perspective of embodied interaction analysis, we analyse the various knowledge forms that are in play in the interaction. We focus on activities occurring during the students’ preparation for a formal review session and, more specifically, we focus on a group of six students.

“Are simulations or ‘real’ labs better for students’ learning?” is frequently discussed. Often positions in this debate are phrased in either or terms. In this study we report from a re-design of a lab where computer simulations were included together with experiments on real circuits in a transient response lab in an electric circuit theory course. In the first version of the lab students had difficulties doing the mathematical modeling of the experimentally measured graphs as it required students’ to link the time- and frequency domains as well as the object/event and theory/model worlds simultaneously. The inclusion of computer simulations as an addition to real experiments in the re-designed lab opened up for learning and enabled students to establish links that were impossible to access directly with real experiments. Still doing real experiments is important to secure students ability to make links between models and theories and the physical reality. This study demonstrates that synergetic learning effects can be achieved by a careful design using an insightful combination of real experiments and computer simulations. Hence, we propose that the question of “real” experiments or “virtual” labs using computer simulations are being best for students’ learning is not an either or question. Rather, it is a question of finding the right blend of carefully designed learning activities to achieve synergetic effects.

Active learning is generally defined as an approach that engages students in the learning process and is supposed to lead to consistently better and deeper understanding. In an earlier study students in mechanics were offered the choice between labs using probe-ware (MBL) [FMCE normalised gain: 48%] and experimental problem-solving labs [18% gain]. Both options were considered to employ active learning, but the difference in gains was remarkable. As this contradicts the conclusions in the literature a follow-up study was performed. Analysis of video recordings from the labs showed that in probe-ware labs students linked observed data to concepts, whereas students in the problem-solving labs made little use of physical concepts in their modeling of phenomena. One implication of this study is that we have to go beyond surface interpretations of “active learning”, and in a detailed and nuanced way look into the ways in which students are actually active in a learning environment.

In this study we report from our experiences designing and re-designing a lab where engineering students studied transient response in electric circuits. In the first version of the lab students had difficulties doing the mathematical modeling of the experimentally measured graphs as it required students’ to link the time- and frequency domains as well as the object/event and theory/model worlds simultaneously. In the re-designed lab some computer simulations were included together with the original experiments on real circuits. The simulations opened up for learning and enabled students to establish links that are hard access directly with real experiments.Still doing real experiments is important to secure students ability to make links between models and theories and the physical reality. This study demonstrates that synergetic learning effects can be achieved by a careful design using an insightful combination of real experiments and computer simulations. Hence, we propose that the question of “real” experiments or “virtual” labs using computer simulations are best for students’ learning is not an either or question. Rather, it is a question of finding the right blend to achieve synergetic effects.

In this paper we introduce some literature relevant for design-based learning, in particular for design-implement experiences in line with CDIO Standard 5. The aim is to inform the development of such learning experiences and to indicate some areas where new research would be of relevance to educators.

Design Science Research is a research approach that is widely used in information systems, IS, but also in other areas where the development of an artefact is parallel to the development of a theory or methodology for this development. In our research we have developed the model “the learning of a complex concept”, LCC, as a method to analyze learning outcomes, as well intended as experienced by students. In this paper we will show how this model was developed, and how design science research was used to develop a methodology that may now be used in the iterative design and analysis of learning outcomes. LCC was developed while designing teaching sequences in a course in electrical engineering. The model was derived as a means to analyse videorecordings of students’ actions, during lab-sessions in an electric circuit course in the first year of an electrical engineering program. The model has contributed to the understanding of learning but also to the design of learning materials, and design science research has improved the methodology. Can this become an especially appropriate methodology for analysis of CDIO-projects? What may be learned, and what is actually learned in a CDIO-project? How can “the learning of a complex concept” (LCC) be used in the iterative design process designing a CDIO-project?

BACKGROUND: Commonly in electric circuit theory courses, circuit laws are first introduced in the context of direct current (DC) electricity and first thereafter are alternating currents (AC) introduced. The extension of DC-theory to AC is quite easily done mathematically but is conceptually difficult for students. Engineering students have difficulties in understanding phase relationships and phasor representations in AC-electricity. Indeed, it has been suggested that phase should be seen as a threshold concept. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate if a re-designed introductory electric circuit course could improve students’ understanding of important concepts in AC-electricity. METHOD and COURSE DESIGN: The course was re-designed introducing AC and DC electricity simultaneously. DC was introduced as a special case of AC with requency equals zero. The re-designed course was taught for the first time during the spring semester 2014 and a new textbook was written. A conceptual test was developed and first administered in 2013 to serve as a baseline and in subsequent years to evaluate the revised course. In 2014 the students’ courses of action in selected lab-groups were video-recorded. RESULTS: In the first revision cycle many students had difficulties to complete the labs in time. Students revealed a mixed response towards the revised course and the results on the conceptual test showed neglible improvement. In the second cycle revisions the number tasks were reduced and focus was laid on tasks that were identified as most important for contributing to the development of student understanding. As a result the learning gain improved with an effect size (Cohen’s delta) of 0.56. Also the course and the textbook were very well appreciated. In the third cycle only small revisions are made. CONCLUSION: The results show that that AC-electricity can be taught concurrently with DC. However, two revisions cycles was needed which demonstrates that curriculum development needs a sustained effort over a considerable period of time with continuous revisions in light of gained experiences. In further revision we will continue to refine the labs and to develop appropriate interactive lecture demonstrations for the lectures and to develop the problems.

VR 721-2011-5570

Producing structured, meaningful and useful descriptions (representations) of students’ learning in labs is not straightforward. Two possible approaches are compared here. Students’ courses of action in labs of an electric circuit course were video-recorded, then the activities during the labs were described and analysed using “the learning of a complex concept” (LCC) methodology. Conversations during the full lengths of the same labs were also transcribed verbatim. Subsequent analysis indicates that transcription offers a more detailed representation of the learning and interaction that occurred. However, it is considerably slower than LCC methodology, which can also represent learning in the full length of a lab in some detail. Furthermore, the latter gave a better overview of the analysed labs than transcription and more readily facilitated representation of both learning complexities and linking theory to practice. In conclusion, both methods can play valuable roles in engineering education research, depending on the questions addressed. VR 721-2011-5570

Modelling is an engineering activity commonly used by engineers, and can be used also in engineering education research (EER). The use of qualitative research methods have in EER not always been widely accepted but have recently gained more attention (Case & Light, 2011). There are, however, also qualitative research methods in engineering research that may be used in EER (Bernhard, in press). One such approach is design science research, where the object of research is the design process, i.e. the knowledge retrieved is not always knowledge about the phenomenon, the artefact, the design, but rather knowledge about the method used. This paper aims at researching the method used when deriving the model “the learning of a complex concept”, the LCC-model, which we developed while designing teaching sequences in a course in electrical engineering. VR 721-2011-5570

Inom såväl ingenjörs- som naturvetenskap är experimentell verksamhet central och olika instrumentella tekniker såsom oscilloskop, mikroskop, röntgenapparater och andra sensorer används som medierande verktyg för att erfara världen med. Laborationer är ett centralt inslag i undervisningen i dessa ämnen. Vi visar i våra studier att instrumentering och andra teknologier som används i samband med laborationer inte är neutrala tekniker. Sådana teknologier kan ha kognitivt värde genom att de erbjuder möjligheter till urskiljande och fokusering, det vill säga ger möjligheter att utforma laborationer där kritiska aspekter i ämnesinnehållet kan urskiljas vilket ger goda läranderesultat. Lärandet under en laboration måste därmed analyseras med hänsyn till såväl de fysiska verktyg (artefakter) såsom olika mätinstrument, mätsystem och system för bearbetning och visualisering av experimentella data som de symboliska verktyg i form av modeller, begrepp och representationer som studenter använder. Studier av lärande inom ingenjörsvetenskap och ”techno-science” som en materiell diskursiv praktik

The capability to innovate is an important skill for engineers, thus stressing the critical issue of educating for innovation at technical universities. This paper investigates the feasibility of four different models for implementing and practicing new content in engineering education. Implementation efforts are looked at revealing systematic constraints and pitfalls, and also evaluating these approaches from the perspective of innovation capabilities and the desired effects from changes in education. The different models can be categorized as bottom-up and top-down approaches depending on actors’ roles in the education system. The top-down and bottom-up approaches are also categorized in accordance to the width of the approaches: programmatic changes with new content in many courses and specialized changes with new courses addressing the desired content and capabilities. A critical analysis is made of the four models intercepting specific learning elements that can be elevated to facilitate innovation in courses and programs. The critical analysis not only relates to educational values, but also relates more specifically to the needs of teaching and training innovation and consequently to developing innovation capabilities. This leads us to discuss the practical epistemologies involved in engineering practice in general and in innovation in particular; engineering as an art and as a science and both are essential. Finally arguments on how to actually reform education are addressed, with attention on leveraging innovation as a key driver to excel and challenge the learning experiences faced by current and future students.

The conception of quality in scientific work is fundamental and determines what researchers judge as reliable knowledge in their field. Although criteria of quality is used daily in research there are few extensive reviews available especially in Engineering Education Research (EER). For the development of high-quality research in EER in the future we argue that it is necessary that the EER-community begin to negotiate criteria for quality. In our reflection we consider: quality of a study in general, quality of the results and validity of the results.