Parameter 2 of PBL – Learner Engagement

Building the Model of General Teaching and Learning & Determining Key Parameters of PBL in Engineering Design

Learner engagement is also called student engagement or student involvement (Astin, 1984; Kuh, 2001). Although seemingly self-evident in its meaning, this term was considered to be a buzzword in education circles, and there is little consensus as to how to define it.

Generally speaking, definitions of learner engagement usually include a psychological and behavioural component, as can be seen in the two trends of definitions in the research area of learner engagement:

In the first, student engagement has been used to depict “students’ willingness to participate in routine school activities, such as attending classes, submitting required work, and following teachers’ directions in class” (Chapman, 2003). Defined in this way, school engagement overlaps considerably with compliance, which in its more general form involves meeting expectations implicit in school contexts (Chapman, 2003).

The second definition used focuses on more subtle cognitive, behavioural, and affective indicators of student engagement in specific learning tasks (Pintrich and Schrauben, 1992). The details of the definition include (Chapman, 2003):

i. Cognitive criteria, which index the extent to which students are attending to and expending mental effort in the learning tasks encountered (e.g. efforts to integrate new material with previous knowledge and to monitor and guide task comprehension through the use of cognitive and meta-cognitive strategies),

ii. Behavioural criteria, which index the extent to which students are making active responses to the learning tasks presented (e.g. active student responding to an instructional antecedent, such as asking relevant questions, solving task-related problems, and participating in relevant discussions with teachers/peers), and

iii. Affective criteria, which index the level of students’ investment in, and their emotional reactions to, the learning tasks (e.g. high levels of interest or positive attitudes towards in the learning tasks).

5.2.2.2 The Role of Learner Engagement in PBL

In recent decades, learner engagement is increasingly seen as an indicator of successful classroom instruction as well as a valued outcome of school reform. The importance of student engagement in the teaching and learning process has been repeatedly recognized.

The NSSE project identified five indicators of learner engagement based on large-scale survey among college students. They are: level of academic challenge, active and collaborative learning, student-faculty interaction, enriching educational experience and supporting campus environment (Kuh, 2003).

Building the Model of General Teaching and Learning & Determining Key Parameters of PBL in Engineering Design

Astin’s study of college student engagement in the US also found that two factors- interaction among students and interaction between faculty and students- were most predicative of positive change in college students’ academic development, personal development and satisfaction (Smith et al., 2005). Similarly, relevant research showed that the degree to which the student is actively engaged or involved in the undergraduate experience is one of the crucial factors in the education development of undergraduates.

Project-based learning (or team projects), along with other constructive learning approaches, is regarded as effective instructional interventions which can better engaging undergraduate students, compared with the traditional lecture-based teaching approach because of the supporting interactive learning environment it provides to the student.

“Teaching is to engage student in learning” (Smith et al., 2005). As an indicator of successful instruction, the more students engage in PBL, the better the PBL will be. Thus, learner engagement plays an important role in PBL and is suitable for being a parameter of PBL.

5.2.2.3 Quantification of Learner Engagement as Parameter

There are several methods to measure student engagement, including self-reporting such as survey, questionnaire, checklists and rating scales. Researchers also use direct observations, work sample analysis and focused case study (Chapman, 2003).

Self-report measures have been used by many researchers to assess the behavioural, cognitive, and affective aspects of task engagement. Items relating to the cognitive aspects of engagement often ask students to report on factors such as their attention versus distraction during class, the mental effort they expend on these tasks (e.g. to integrate new concepts with previous knowledge), and task persistence (e.g. reactions to perceived failures to comprehend the course material). Students can also be asked to report on their response levels during class time (e.g. making verbal responses within group discussions, looking for distractions and engaging in non- academic social interaction) as an index of behavioural task engagement. Affective engagement questions typically ask students to rate their interest in and emotional reactions to learning tasks on indices such as choice of activities (e.g. selection of more versus less challenging tasks), the desire to know more about particular topics, and feelings of stimulation or excitement in beginning new projects (Chapman, 2003).

The NSEE project used method of self-reported survey to assess college students’ engagement across the US. The benefits of using self-report measures are that they can not only quantify the items regarding learner engagement by asking the question of whether students are engaged in

Building the Model of General Teaching and Learning & Determining Key Parameters of PBL in Engineering Design

learning tasks (e.g. Likert type scale), but also provide indication of why this is the case (Chapman, 2003).

5.2.2.4 The Schematic Model of PBL Effectiveness with Learner Engagement as Parameter With learner engagement being quantified, it is possible to study the relation between LE and PBL effectiveness. Their relation could be shown in the schematic model in Figure 5.7:

100

LE 2 … LE 1

0

The optimal proportion of LE (The optimal type of PBL)

Degree of LE (PBL)

LE n

Effectiveness

Figure 5.7. The schematic model of PBL effectiveness with learner engagement as parameter.

(PBL1) (PBL2) (PBLn)

In this model, the horizontal axis, LE1, LE2, LE3, …LEn, represents the degrees of learner engagement which, as parameter of PBL, also represents the different types of PBL. The vertical axis represents PBL effectiveness. By examining the relation between the degrees of learner engagement and effectiveness values, the optimal degrees of learner engagement, that is, the optimal type of PBL can be determined and the trend of PBL effectiveness can be identified.

5.3 CONCLUSIONS

In this chapter, considering the complex nature of learning with various factors involved, a schematic model of general teaching and learning was built, and the role of different nature of parameters (i.e. sensitive and insensitive) and different quantity of parameters were analyzed in differentiating different teaching and learning approaches as well as the different types of the same teaching and learning approach. The analysis indicated that identifying suitable parameters of PBL is the core issue in studying the effectiveness of PBL. Accordingly, based on educational theories, i.e. self-directed learning theory and learner engagement theory, two key parameters of PBL were identified, and two schematic model of PBL effectiveness were proposed. What need to be done further is to verify the two schematic models.

Chapter 6.

A PILOT STUDY FOR VERIFYING THE THEORETICAL

MODEL OF PBL EFFECTIVENESS

In this chapter a pilot study of the effectiveness of design project modules were introduced. The aim of the pilot study was to check the possibility of the existence of the relation between the identified parameters and PBL effectiveness. For simplicity, only SDL was chosen as the parameter of PBL in this study. The results indicated that a certain trend exists between SDL and corresponding improvement in design project modules, thus it is possible to identify a relative optimal PBL approach. This pilot study paved the way to the verifying of the feasibility of the PBL effectiveness model through a survey at a wider scale conducted subsequently.