See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/228446643

Problem Based Learning in Engineering Design

Article · January 2004

CITATIONS READS
13 925

1 author:

Abdallah M. Hasna
Central Queensland University
29 PUBLICATIONS   195 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

teaching and learning View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Abdallah M. Hasna on 23 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Problem Based Learning in Engineering Design

Abdallah M. Hasna

Department of Engineering Management, Higher Colleges of Technology, Abu Dhabi Men's College,
PO Box, 25305 Abu Dhabi, (ahasna@hct.ac.ae),United Arab Emirates.

Abstract
Design has traditionally been an important part of an engineer’s training. The initial Engineering Design
course in second year undergraduate engineering degree play an integral part in combining the learned
knowledge and promote problem solving proficiency. Engineers Australia (Formerly the Institution of
Engineers Australia) outlines, soft skills and social proficiencies as a key competency in the
accreditation framework. Furthermore the Australian engineering competency standards gives design a
significant weight in its evaluation criteria, requiring engineering curriculum to have significant design
course experience (2004). Thus engineering design pedagogy including assessment and evaluation
strategies are of an increased emphasis for educators. This paper describes the application of problem
based learning in an undergraduate preliminary engineering design course with an emphasis on student
learning.

Keywords: Instructivist, PBL, Reflective practice, Strategy, Engineering Design,

1. INTRODUCTION

There is currently worldwide interest in improving the quality of engineering education and in some instances
governments have intervened to assess the quality of teaching and learning across the spectrum of subjects [1].
Globally, attention is increasingly being paid to the quality of teaching and learning in higher education. Higher
education teaching is becoming more professionalised with some countries setting up accreditation bodies to
ensure competencies [2]. Similarly companies are increasingly pressured by global competition and rapid
changes in technology to become more flexible and adaptive. The Australian national review of engineering
education identified the need for a cultural shift to recapture the societal relevance of the undergraduate
engineering curriculum, and the engineering profession itself [3]. The quality of student learning is directly
although not exclusively related to the quality of teaching. Therefore, the first and most promising way to
improve learning is to improve teaching writes [4].
Change is constant and everywhere [5] modern society is characterized by a rapidly expanding base of
knowledge and expertise, such that many students can not be expected to be cognisant of all of the knowledge in
their chosen area of learning, [6].Whilst trying to incorporate more “human” skills into their knowledge base and
professional practice, today’s engineers must also cope with continual technological and organisational change
in the workplace. In addition they must cope with the commercial realities of industrial practice in the modern
world, as well as the legal consequences of every professional decision they make[7].The challenge of preparing
engineering graduates for a fast changing work environment calls for the development of thinking programmes
[8].
On their first graduate placement many engineers are frequently challenged with functional realignment where
graduate engineers are working in unfamiliar terrain as part of multi-disciplinary multidimensional teams,
usually rescued by there process skills which are “soft” skills used in the application of knowledge. Although
traditional engineering design courses train student engineers to tackle design problems, the jury is still out on
teaching methodology. [9] reports on research into the development of generic skills, key engineering
competency and problem solving in traditional engineering courses in (higher education) with key findings were
engineering courses do not provide graduates with the level of communications or managerial skills which
industry, professional associations, governments or indeed the graduates themselves, consider necessary.
However given that our perceptions do not come simply from the objects around us, but from our past
experience as functioning purposive organisms [10]. The degree to which students develop soft skills determines
how they solve problems, write reports, function in teams, self-assess and do performance reviews of others, go
about learning new knowledge, and manage stress when they have to cope with change. Many instructors
intuitively believe that process skills are important, but most are unaware of the fundamental research that
provides a foundation for development of the skills. Their efforts to help their students develop the skills may
consequently be less effective than they might wish [11]. For instance we need to ask does the chalk and talk
(Instructivist) philosophy toady provide graduates sufficient skills needed to perform well in changing
environments. This paper investigates the application problem based learning methodology in engineering design.

2. PROBLEM BASED LEARNING RATIONALE

PBL is a teaching strategy that leads students to learn to learn and encourages students to develop critical
thinking and problem solving skills that they can carry for life. [12] PBL is the search for solutions to life’s
messy problems. It was developed by McMaster University Canada in medical and heath sciences by the end of
the 1960’s [13]. Problem-based learning (PBL) is an emerging teaching approach which has taken its
prominence in tertiary education in recent years[14]. [15] PBL crosses a broad spectrum of instructional patterns,
from total teacher control to more emphasis on self directed student inquiry. Patterns of power and control of
decision making are affected by what [16] calls “reculturing”. It is a shift from the traditional didactic teaching
where the core knowledge discovery process lies almost entirely in the hands of the learner rather than the
teacher. [17] articulated what has become one of the most widely used definitions of PBL. He termed it
“authentic PBL” and argued that it has four key characteristics:
1. Problem-based. It begins with the presentation of a real life (authentic) problem stated as it might be
encountered by practitioners.
2. Problem-solving. It supports the application of problem-solving skills required in “practice.” The role of the
instructor is to facilitate the application and development of effective problem-solving processes.
3. Student-centred. Students assume responsibility for their own learning and faculty act as facilitators.
Instructors must avoid making students dependent on them for what they
should learn and know.
4. Self-directed learning. It develops research skills. Students need to learn how to get information when it is
needed and will be current, as this is an essential skill for
professional performance.
5. Reflection. This should take place following the completion of problem work, preferably through group
discussion, and is meant to enhance transfer of learning to new problems.
Applying PBL methodology in engineering design requires first clarifying what is meant by terms such as
problem, whilst there are unintended consequences of using the term “problem” which may unnecessarily restrict
the investigation or carry negative connotations, I personally would prefer to use the term “project”.
Traditionally engineering design was effective in transmitting theoretical knowledge and skills to students, but it
was seldom that undergraduate student were exposed multidimensional interdisciplinary problems which were
similar to what’s likely they would encounter in real world. Knowledge of appropriate theoretical concepts does
not ensure that students can solve real industrial problems [18]. [19] Pointed out the difficulty their students had
in solving real problems, despite having knowledge of appropriate theoretical concepts. [20] Highlights the
importance of developing inquiry skills, which includes critical questioning, finding relevant evidence,
examining arguments and weighing alternatives.
In PBL the teacher becomes the facilitator to provide resources and guidance to students as they develop content
knowledge and problem solving skills. TABLE 5 is a summary of comparison between traditional and problem-
based learning environments. [21] have stated that there are three roles for PBL. The first is the acquisition of
factual knowledge, the second is the mastery of general principles or concepts that can be transferred to solve
similar problems, and third, the acquisition of prior examples that can be used in future problem solving
situations of a similar nature. Learning styles are preferred ways of organizing what we see, remember and think
about. Perhaps the best known dichotomy is between the convergent and divergent thinkers. Convergent thinking
is associated with classroom learning. Divergent thinking which is linked to creativity is not encouraged in the
classroom since divergers like to imagine and generate ideas [22].
Two elements contribute to one’s learning approach: motive and strategy. Motive denotes why one learns, while
strategy refers to how one learns [23], [24] outlined how to make the best and improve use of one's learning style,
• Pragmatist: Relevant and practical, Try things out with support from an expert, Given immediate
opportunities to implement what learnt
• Problem solving; Activists, New experiences, ‘Have a go’, Team work
• Reflector; Thinking things through, Observation, Paired discussions, Opportunity to review and
reflect
 • Theorist; Models and concepts, lectures, following step-by-step instructions, opportunity to ask
questions and probe ideas
Finally problem based learning in engineering design course pedagogy is made up of four components as
illustrated in FIGURE 1, further more we will investigate PBL in engineering design from these four different
lens.
PBL

Reflective Constructivist Collaborative & Cooperative Self

practice learning Learning learning
FIGURE 1: PBL mix in engineering design

3. REFLECTIVE PRACTICE

The concept of reflective practice is one that has roots in the work of [25]-[26], Dewey proposed a theory of
reflective thinking where he sought to’ present his theory with increased definitiveness and clarify therefore
making it more accessible for class room teacher” [27] Dewey’s approach to reflective practice has come to be
characterised by three learner attitudes; open mindedness, responsibility and wholeheartedness [28]. [29]
Identified two types of reflection: reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action. Reflection-in-action occurs when
the person reflects on behaviour as it happens, so as to optimise his or her immediately following actions.
Reflection-on-action is reflection after the event, allowing the person to review, describe, analyse and evaluate
the situation, so as to gain insights for improved practice in the future. [30] portray the professional as a problem
finder as much as problem solver. The concept of reflection and the psychological processes by which reflection
is carried out are fundamental problems in activity theory [31]-[32]. Reflection is defined as a specific
interaction between objects and phenomena that constitutes reflected objects within a dedicated medium of
reflection. The most complicated type of reflection is psychological reflection [33]. [34] write the plethora of
material associated with reflective practice has resulted in a diversity of labels, terms such as problem based
learning, situation learning, experiential learning, action learning, critical reflection, critical pedagogy, narrative
enquiry, reflection in action, despite the differences in nomenclature these forms of reflective practice indicate an
epistemology of practice which places technical problem solving within a broader context of reflective inquiry.
Through integrating theory and practice, [35] indicates how a variation on PBL also referred to as situation based
learning can be used to hep students reflect critically upon issues of practice.

4. CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING

Pedagogy can be defined as the art and science of teaching FIGURE 2 represents the pedagogical environment
dimension as having two ends, instructivist and constructivist [36]. Where instructivist theory aligns with the
classical instructional methods include lectures, demonstrations, writing term papers, preparing lab reports, and
taking written examinations. [37] Presents the theories constructive alignment and phenomenological. There are
two parts to constructive alignment: Students construct meaning from what they do to learn, the teacher aligns
the planned learning activities with the learning outcomes.

Instructivist Constructivist

Pedagogical environment
FIGURE 2: Pedagogical environment dimension.
Constructivism is a philosophical view on how we come to understand or know [38].In constructivist learning,
collaboration is important, as knowledge is socially constructed. [39] Describes that "Constructivist classrooms
cannot be created through transmittal forms of staff development. Rather than receiving "knowledge" from
"experts" in training sessions, teachers and administrators will collaborate with peers, researchers and their own
students to make sense of the teaching/learning process in their own contexts.
Students engaged in engineering design by and large are interpreting, analysing, discovering, evaluating, acting,
and problem solving. Hence the basis of engineering design consistent with constructivist learning, where
knowledge is constructed by the learners as they are actively problem solving in a real world context, compared
with hypothetical scenarios in traditional instruction, TABLE 6 [40] presents a comparison of design
perspectives. In [41] conceptions of learning, social-cognitive and social- constructivist perspectives, highlight
the central importance of student participation in social interaction. A constructivist view of knowledge, “is
particularly compatible with the notion of self-direction, since it emphasizes the combined characteristics of
active inquiry, independence, and individuality in a learning task” [42] placed self-direction within a framework
of four distinct yet related dimensions:
• a personal attribute,
• a self-management skill,
• a manner of organizing learning in a formal setting, and
• a manner of pursuing learning in non-institutional, natural settings.

Strategies used more in PBL than lectures
Using library resources
Using general reference texts
Preparing for class sessions
Participating in class
When working in groups each person looks
up one topic and then explains to others
TABLE 1: learning strategies differences between lectures and PBL contexts [43]
Strategies used more in lectures than PBL
Using material from class sessions and objectives
Using recommended texts, basic science texts
Reading assigned material is useful
Taking notes in class sessions
Regular review of class notes
Using objectives, class notes and provided notes to
decide what is important
Writing review notes in own words

5. COLLABORATIVE AND COOPERATIVE LEARNING

[44] distinguished between co-operative and collaborative learning, both are social, group-based approaches. Co-
operative learning focuses on the product, relating more to foundational knowledge, and can be seen as teacher-
oriented whereas collaborative learning focuses on the process, sees knowledge as authenticated by the learning
community and is learner-centred. According to [45] collaborative learning sharing of authority and acceptance
of responsibility consensus building through cooperation deals with individual group members' abilities and
contributions, in contrast to competition. Cooperative learning is defined by a set of processes which help people
interact together in order to accomplish a specific goal or develop an end product which is usually content
specific. [46] Myers identifies a middle way, called the ‘transaction’ approach, where we recognize the existence
of the curriculum, but expect students and teachers to engage in a dialogue with it. [47] Identified the promotion
of cross-cultural relations as one of the benefits of co-operative learning. Assessed tasks tend to be more
structured than totally learner-managed ones and may inhibit the development of a learning community but we
should seek to achieve ‘facilitative’ rather than constraining structure [48].

6. SELF LEARNING

According to Candy (1991) the learning cycle starts through a sequence:

• discrepancy, discomfort, challenge & conflict
• Identify problem/s
• Explore causes
• Research and analyze
• Develop solutions & implement
• Re-orientate & reform
Self-directed learning (SDL) is defined in very diverse ways within the adult and workplace education and
vocational training literature. Some definitions associate self-directed learning with tightly circumscribed
activities, like programmed learning. Others are much more open-ended, emphasizing autonomous or
independent learning on virtually any topic by almost any means [49]. Conceptual framework of the early
literature on self-direction [50]-[54] asserts orientation of self-directed learning in which the learner plans and
initiates the learning process. "self-directed learning describes a process in which individuals take the initiative,
with or without the help of others, in diagnosing their learning needs, formulating learning goals, identifying
human and material resources for learning, choosing and implementing appropriate learning strategies, and
evaluating learning outcomes" . Self-directed learning with a person's ability to:
• decide what knowledge and skills to learn;
• diagnose his/her learning needs realistically, with help from teachers and/or peers;
 • translate her/his learning needs into learning objectives in a form that makes it possible for the
accomplishments to be assessed;
• relate to his/her teachers as facilitator% helpers, or consultants and to take the initiative in making use
of their resources;
• relate to her/his peers collaboratively, to see them as resources for learning;
• identify human and material resources appropriate to different kinds of learning objectives;
• select effective strategies skilfully and with initiative;
• gain knowledge or skill from the resources utilised;
• evaluate his/her work and get feedback from others about progress;
• detect and cope with personal blocks to learning;
• Renew motivation for learning when motivation lags.

7. DISCUSSION

One of the paramount problems of learners in the discovery learning process is the regulation of their learning
behaviour. Obviously, in self-directed learning environments the demand on regulative capacities of learners is
larger than it is in traditional lectures. Planning and monitoring are central [55]. Whilst students learn in different
ways each has a preferred style. [56]-[57] engineering design through PBL provides exclusive learning activities
to the student’s inclination. Undergraduate students have the responsibility for their own learning, this is more so
highlighted in problem-based learning curriculum where the onus is on the student to identify what they need to
learn and what resources they are going to use to accomplish that learning.

Furthermore [58] provided the general philosophy of good practice in undergraduate education summarised by
the seven principles, encourage contact between students and faculty, develop reciprocity and cooperation
among students, encourages active learning, give prompt feedback, emphasizes time on task, communicates high
expectations, and respects diverse talents and ways of learning. While each practice can stand alone on its own,
when all are present their effects multiply in cooperation providing a commanding competence in education:
activity, expectations, cooperation, interaction, diversity, and responsibility.
One of the primary learning outcomes of engineering design courses is to incorporate a major design experience
into the undergraduate curriculum to reflect design projects in industry as illustrated in TABLE 2. In design
projects students are actively involved working cooperatively together to help each other learn [59], furthermore
they have clear goals, criteria to self pace, measure and tell them when the goals have been achieved [60]-[61]
prompt feedback about their performance also nourish this category.
routinely I role play with the engineering students; approaching design projects as play-acting, I present myself
as a client (mere customer), the assumption is that “I only understand things in layman’s term”, the scenario is “I
have hired you (students) to do the design occupation, with that comes moral support and motivation from
myself as well offering the students with self belief i.e. it is explained to the students that you are worthy
experts/engineers. Hence as a lecturer role playing the “facilitator” also participating in the project on a student
only request, is a basis to enhance problem solving skills, [62] found, it empowered the students to have some
role in the peer and self assessment, by providing a supportive work atmosphere that expects success. This is
usually done in parallel to the facilitators support, I usually approach it allowing students to scaffold using a mix
of metacognitive strategies for example in a typical engineering design session I would include; face-to-face
small group interaction; mind mapping reviewing information why and what are we designing; brainstorm using
illustration and drawing, encouraging peer-group conversation to generate questions; evaluating action, and ideas
for journal keeping reflection.
Hence up on the students presuming the role of an engineer, as a client I am at liberty to ask that they explain to
me why things are being done, part of the role play is to learn and use the experience “We learn by conceiving
and transforming our experiences” [63]. I also used to learn the engineers (students) preferred names for
communicate. More importantly I took a personal notice in their extracurricular interests i.e. favourite football
team, cricket leagues, squash player, hockey competition etc.. this view is in contratst with a formal student
teacher relationship; one where you communicate (directly or indirectly) to the students that my role is to "weed
you out," "cover the course material," "satisfy tough standards," "do my thing without getting personally
involved with you the students," or "do my thing because the real reason I'm here is to do research."[64].
Another good strategy to foster problem solving and inquiry in design projects are derived from the [65] the first
is KWHLAQ as illustrated in TABLE 3; I encourage the students to use these questions to determine the
direction of the inquiry.
This strategy derived from K-W-L [66] a pre-reading strategy designed to engage students in thinking prior
knowledge and purposes for reading. The second strategy derives from O-T-Q as illustrated in TABLE 4.
Reanalysis applied back to the design problem; where students apply through interactive discussions what they
have learned to provide a deeper understanding of the problem and generating hypotheses of the final analysis
of what was learned from the problem adding what concepts and principles which were used. This can be
achieved through reflective journal where the students expand on there understandings of the mechanism used.
In addition the student a proficient skills to self and peer asses. [67] highlight a series of rules for success,
develop new personal development approach to learning, use case study material drawn from real life, reinforce
the material with input from professional, ensure the student realisation that there is no one right answer. [68]
emphasised the value of projects in integrating course work and providing the opportunity to experience the
total design process; through design to manufacture, they highlight the open ended nature of the project for
which there is no one right solution.
The opportunity to obtain “design” experience, this means that the student goes through the complete design
process, from drawing up their own program to arranging formal engagements (deliverables). To Learn how to
avoid common pitfalls early in the design process the students assume responsibility for defining core interaction,
people, and resources related to the design process. The workshops allowed students the opportunity to work in
close contact with one another, Table 7, explains how collective experience was acquired and used in the design
process through the mechanism listed.
K What do we know about pump selection?
W What do we need to find out about; flow rate, total head, friction, fluid
viscosity, temperature, PH, temperature, RPM, pump performance, energy
balance, Bernoulli’s equation, suction size, discharge size, failures causes
(vibration)?
H How will we go about sizing a pump?
Manufacturer’s catalogue, pump curves, rules of thumb, [69]-[71] industry
standards ICheme, AIChE,
How will we go about finding out?
Use reference: [72]-[75]
L What do we expect to learn?
Pump selection, (centrifugal, positive displacement, Reciprocating,
diaphragm), pipe sizing, Best efficiency point (BEP),
A How will we apply what we have learned to our next projects?
Individual responses
Q What new questions do we have following our inquiry?
Individual responses
O Observe objectively
We apply an approach to design that's focused on the total student experience;
our goal is to simplify.
T Think reflectively
To reflect the importance of this experience and to provide the students with
as much supervised design time as possible.
Q Question frequently
The process for which the students have the opportunity to question as often
as they wish without fear of retribution or inadequacy.
TABLE 7: Sizing a pump through PBL

8. A CRITICAL STANCE OF PBL

PBL required the engineering students (learner) adopt a change in mindset from teacher-dependence to self-
reliance. Whilst I support PBL philosophy, as a lecturer I occasionally observe PBL’s short comings and glitches,
for instance independent and team learning are two key characteristics of PBL with self-reflection as an essential
component in the learning process [76]. Although students are typically ingrained in their role as content
receivers, as a lecturer I had often found myself increasing my own workload during PBL sessions in the
following order; provide course content and more real examples, encourage engineering students to articulate the
skill of reflective writing, and finally conducting the classroom as a facilitator. However my role is further
diversified with other facets i.e. attending to at-risk students.
A major source of conflict identified during this PBL course was the “student not pulling in their own weight in
PBL” Whilst a plethora of terms exists across the world for defining such students, the most common student
slang I have recorded were; loafer, freeloader, sponger, stowaway. this contributes to conflict within teamwork
in PBL, hence as a lecture my role was to conflict resolve aggrieved team members concerns which needs to be
attend to along with the issue of assessment of team assignments in PBL, as for assessment in PBL this topic
falls outside the scope of this article however as PBL lecturer I also attempt to echo the engineering industry
standard in the assessment strategy, for example; students are marked for not turning up to meetings, not doing
their share of the written work, one or more members of their teams are not pulling their weight and that the
collaborative nature of the unit has failed.
[77] Identified several behaviours that significantly predicted student learning, such as exchanging explanations
and that student behaviour largely mirrored the discourse modelled by and the expectations communicated by
teachers. in my view the inadequacy of PBL are that sometimes it is far more challenging then a instructivist
teaching for instance establishing the social interaction, which happens to be one of the key ingredients of
success hence dependent students tend to require more help, similarly a creative self reliant student often leaves
me with a sense of guilt afterwards, for requiring minimal effort, hence wondering whether I ethically earned my
pay. This confirmed by [78]-[83] understanding of the most frequent issues regarding PBL process that are
raised as arguments against PBL are the dominant student, individual quietness and absenteeism or lateness and
the greatest hindrance to learning are the dominant student, a disorganised / haphazard tutorial reasoning process
and a superficial study of the problem.

9. CONCLUSION

The pedagogical environment in many engineering schools still remains predominantly instructivist in that,
regardless of the discipline, where as in a decentralized era, an age of which knowledge is available to anyone,
anywhere, at anytime professional life merges work and learning. Classical instructional methods views students
as relatively passive recipients, professors teach and students learn. Engineering design through PBL provides
Intellectual Maturity by allowing students to become Independent Learners, not only acquiring knowledge about
what they know but also making them aware what they do not know hence keeping their expectations real and
protecting them from what they do not know. It is fair to say that in terms of establishing a pedagogical
equilibrium environment it is essential in PBL as it is a highly social experiences, I suggest that managerial/
administration authorities at departmental level acknowledge the teaching load, schedule, class size, setting and
delivery format for teaching staff members as PBL workload is deceiving in the first few years.

REFERENCES

[1]Heywood J, (1995), “Toward the Improvement of Teaching Quality in Engineering Education”, Proceedings
of the ASEE/IEEE FIE Conference, Proceedings Editor, Dan Budny, Robert Herrick,
[2] Devlin, M. (2007),“The scholarship of teaching in Australian higher education: A national imperative”,
Keynote address at the Vice-Chancellors Colloquium, The University of the Sunshine Coast, Queensland
Australia, May 30, 2007.
[3] Wolfs P.J., Howard P., Vann A., Edwards R.,(1997), “balancing project based and lecture centric education
in a restructured engineering degree”, proceedings of the second annual JEFE symposium on engineering
education, editors Wolfs PJ, Howard P, Rockhampton.
[4] Angelo, T A., Cross, K. P. (1993), “Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers”,
San Francisco: Jossey Bass Higher and Adult Education Series ,427 pp.1.
[5] Warnken, P., (2004), “Managing Technology: The Impact of Technology on Information Literacy”,
Education in Libraries,The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 30 (2) March, pp. 151-156.
[6]Bruffee, K.A. (1993), “Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and the authority of
knowledge”, Baltimore, MA: Johns Hopkins University Press.
[7] Mills J. E., Treagus, D. F., (2003), “Engineering Education is problem- based or project-based learning the
answer? ”, Australasian Journal of Engineering Education,
[8] Chanson H., (2000), “Introducing originality and innovation in engineering teaching: the hydraulic design of
culverts”, European Journal of Engineering Education, VOL. 25, No. 4, pp. 377–391
[9] Wellington R. P,. Thomas I. D., (1998), Engineering and Business Students Co-operate on Industry Based
Projects”, Global J. of Engineering. Education, Vol. 2, No.1,UICEE.
[10]Kelley, E.C. (1947). Education for What is Real”, New York: Harper and Row Publishers
[11] Woods D R., Felder R M., Rugarcia A, (2000), “the future of engineering education”, III, Developing
critical skills, Chemical. Engineering Education, 34(2), pp.108–117
[12] Fogarty R., (1998), “Problem Based Learning, a collection of articles”, Hawker Brownlow Australia.
[13] Perrenet J.C., Bouhuijs P.A.J. Smits J.G.M.M. (2000), “The Suitability of Problem-based Learning for
Engineering Education: theory and practice”, Teaching in Higher Education, Vol. 5, No. 3.
[14]Yeo, R. (2005), “Problem-based learning: a suitable approach in tertiary education?”, in Tan, K.,Mok, J.,
Lee, M. and Ravindran, R. (Eds), “Problem-based Learning: New Directions and Approaches”, Teinasek Centre
for Problem Based Learning, Singapore, pp. 93-113.
[15]Barell J (1998), “ Problem Based Learning, an inquiry approach”, Hawker Brownlow Education, Australia
[16] Fullan M.,(1993),“change forces in education; probing the depths of educational reform”, London, England:
flamer press.
[17]Barrows, H. S., (1998), “The essentials of problem-based learning”, Journal of Dental Education,62 (9), pp.
630-633.
[18]Wellington R. P,. Thomas I. D., (1998), “Engineering and Business Students Co-operate on Industry Based
Projects”, Global J. of Engineering. Education, Vol. 2, No.1,UICEE.
[19]Woods, D.R., (1985), “Total Quality Management”, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON.
[20] Hudspith, R., (1992), “Using inquiry in engineering education”, Proc. 3rd World Conference on
Engineering Education, Portsmouth, UK, 3, pp.57-62
[21] ConleyM, Livingstone A, Meharg S., (2006), “Collaborative Problem-based Learning in a Peacekeeping
Environment: The Role of the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre in International Peacekeeping Training”, Presented
at the 6th International Conference on Knowledge, Culture and Change in Organisations, Prato, Italy, July 10-14.
[22] Heywood J , (1996), “Improving Engineering Teaching Through Classroom Research, Proceedings for FIE
1996 Conference, Frontiers in Education Clearing House, 1996 Salt Lake City, Utah , IEEE 96CH35946
[23] Zhang L f, (2004),“Predicting cognitive development, intellectual styles, and personality traits from self-
rated abilities”, Learning and Individual Differences 15, pp.67–88
[24] Honey P., Mumford A., (1992), “The Manual of Learning Styles” 3rd Ed. Maidenhead: Peter Honey.
[25] Dewey, J.D, (1910), “HOW WE THINK , Boston , DC, heath .
[26] Dewey, J.D, (1933), “How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative
process”,Henry Regnery: Chicago.
[27]Ross E W, Hanny L.M. (1986), “towards critical theory of reflective inquiry”, journal of teacher education,
37, 4, pp.9-15
[28] Dobbins R, (1995), “:student teacher learning in the practicum; the student teacher”, faculty of education,
university of south Australia, Magill.
[29] Schon, D., (1987), “Education the reflective practitioner”, Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.
[30] Schon D, (1983), “the reflective practitioner”, basic books, new York,
[31] Leont’ev, A. N. (1977), “Activity, consciousness and personality”, Moscow: Political Publisher.
[32] Platonov, K. K. (1982), “System of psychology and theory of psychic reflections” Moscow: Science
Publisher.
[33]Bedny. G Z., Karwowski W, Jeng O J, (2004), “The situational reflection of reality in activity theory and the
concept of situation awareness in cognitive psychology”, Theory Issues in Ergonomics Science, July–August,
vol. 5, no. 4, 275–296
[34] Hard L, Taffe R, (1995),“Problem based learning: the experience for early childhood students in the bed
early childhood at Charles Sturt University”, research and development in PBL, Edited P little, M Oswald, G
Ryan, Sydney, volume 3.
[35] Dockett, S, Tegael, K (1993), “But we was just turtles; situation-based learning in early childhood teacher
training”, Australia journal of early childhood 18, 3, pp. 43-48
[36] Reeves T C., Laffey J M., (1999), “Design, Assessment, and Evaluation of a Problem-based Learning
Environment in Undergraduate Engineering”, Higher Education Research & Development, Vol. 18, No. 2,
pp.219
[37]Biggs, J., (1999), “Teaching for Quality Learning at University”, Buckingham: SRHE/OUP.
[38] Savery, J. R., Duffy, T. M., (1995), “Problem based learning: an instructional model and its constructivist
framework”, Educational Technology, 35 (5), pp.31-38.
[39] Sparks, D, Hirsh, S. (2000), “A new vision for staff development, Activating and Engaging Habits of
Mind”, Edited by Costa A. L. and Bena Kallick by Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
[40]Johnson, D.W., Johnson R.T., Smith K.A., (1991), “Active learning: cooperation in the college classroom”,
Interaction Books, Edina, MN.
[41] Vygotsky, L. (1978), “Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes” ,Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
[40] Jonassen, D. H., Peck K. L., Wilson B. G. (1999), “Learning with Technology: A Constructivist
Perspective ”,Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
[42]Candy (1991), “self direction for lifelong learning: A comprehensive Guide to theory and practice”, san
Francisco: Jossey-Bass
[43] Delva M.D, Woodhouse R.A., Hains, S., Birtwhistle R.V., C. Knapper1, Kirby J.R., (2000),“Does PBL
Matter? Relations between Instructional Context, Learning Strategies ”, and Learning Outcomes, Advances in
Health Sciences Education, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 5: 167–177.
[44] Myers, J (1992) Cooperative Learning: a personal journey”, Journal of Education, 174, 2, pp.118.
[45] Panitz, T (1996), A Definition of Collaborative vs Cooperative Learning, De Liberations. Available online:
http://www.lgu.ac.uk/deliberations/collab. learning/panitz2.html (accessed 15 September 2007).
[46] Whatley J, Bell F, (2003), “Discussion Across Borders: Benefits for Collaborative Learning”, Educational
Media International, 40:1, pp.139-152.
[47] Goodyear, P and Stone, C., (1992), “Domain knowledge, epistemology and intelligent tutoring in social
science ”, In Moyse, R and Elsom-Cook, M (eds) Knowledge Negotiation, Academic Press, London, pp. 69–96.
[48] Morgan, C and O’Reilly, M (1999), “Assessing Open and Distance Learners”, Kogan Page, London.
[49] Gerber R, Lankshear C, Larsson S , Svensson L, (1995), “Self-directed learning in a work context,
Education and Training”, Volume 37 · Number 8, pp. 26–32
[50] Knowles, M. S. (1975) , “Self-directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers”, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
[51] Tough, A. (1971), “The adult's learning projects” (Research in Education Series No.1). Toronto: The
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
[52] Tough, A. (1978), “Major learning efforts: Recent research and future directions”, Adult Education, 28, pp.
250-263.
[53] Zimmerman, B.J. (1989), “A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning”, journal of
Educational Psychology, 81(3), pp. 329-339.
[54] Zimmerman, B.J. (1990), “Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: an overview”, Educational
Psychologist, 25(1), pp. 3-17.
[55] Keller, F.S. (1968), “Good-bye, Teacher”, Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis, 1, 79-89.
[56] Felder, R.M. ,Silverman L. (1988), “Learning and teaching styles in engineering education”,Eng. Ed., 78, 7,
pp. 674-681.
Education of Professional and Design Disciplines, Science and Engineering Ethics, Volume 10, Issue 2, pp.211
[57] De Jong T., Van Joolingen W.R., Swaak J., Veermans K., Limbach R., King S., Gureghian D.,(1998),
“Self-directed learning in simulation based discovery environments”, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 14,
pp.235–246, Blackwell Science.
[58] Chickering, A.W. Gamson Z.F. (1987), “Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education” ,
AAHE Bulletin, Mar, 3-7.
[59]Johnson, D.W. , Johnson F.P. (1982), “Joining Together”, 2nd edition, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs”, NJ.
[60] Mager, R.F. (1962), “Preparing educational objectives”, Fearon Publishers, San Francisco, CA.
[61]Kibler, R.J., Cegala D.J., Miles D.T. , Barker L.L. (1974), “Objectives for Instruction and Evaluation”,
Allyn and Bacon, Boston.
[62] Novak, J. (1989), “Helping students learn how to learn: a view from a teacher-researcher”, Third Congress
of Research and Teaching in Science and Mathematics, Santiago de Compostela, Spain, Sept. reviewed in PS
News.
[63] Kolb, D. A., (1984),“Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development” New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
[64] Woods D., Crowe C., Hoffman T., Wright J. (1985), “56 Challenges to Teaching Problem Solving Skills”,
Chem 13 News, Department of Chemistry, Univ. of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
[65]Barell J (1998), “Problem Based Learning, an inquiry approach”, Hawker Brownlow Education, Australia.
[66] Olge D, (1996), “K-W-L: a teaching and learning model that develops active reading of expository text”,
the reading teacher 39, pp.564-571.
[67] Barr, A. Fordyce, D.S.E., (1992), “Making engineers who manage”, Proc. 3rd World Conference on
Engineering Education, Portsmouth, UK, 2, pp.535- 540
[68] Jarvis A.P., Quick N.J (1992), “the integration of design and manufacture a project based approach to
learning”, 3rd world conference on engineering learning, volume 3, Portsmouth, UK, September, pp. 20-25,
[69] Woods D.R.,(2007), “Rules of Thumb in Engineering Practice”, Wiley, UK.
[70] Branan C., (1998), “Rules of Thumb for Chemical Engineers”, 2nd edition, Gulf Publishing Company.
[71] Walas, S.M., (1990), “Chemical Process Equipment - Selection and Design”, Elsevier
[72] Perry, R.H., and Green, D. (1998), “Perry’s Chemical Engineer’s Handbook”, 7th Edition, McGraw-Hill.
[73] Douglas, J.M. (1988), Conceptual Design of Chemical Processes”, McGraw-Hill.
[74] Coulson, J.M., Richardson, J.F. , and Sinnott, R.K. (1999), “Chemical Engineering ”,Volume 6: An
Introduction to Chemical Engineering Design 3rd ed, Butterworth Heinemann .
[75] McCabe, W.L., Smith , J.C., and Harriott, P. (1993), “Unit Operations of Chemical Engineering”, 5th
Edition, McGraw-Hill, chapters 17, 18 and 19.
[76]Creedy, D. Hand, B. (1995), “Determining changing pedagogy in PBL”, in Chen, SE., Cowdroy, R.,
Kingsland, A. and Ostwald, M. (Eds), “Reflections on Problem based Learning”, Australian PBL Network,
Sydney, pp. 141-56.
[77] Baptiste, Sue E. (2003), “Problem-Based Learning: A Self-Directed Journey”, Slack Incorporated: New
Jersey. pp. 50-51, adapted from Traditional Versus PBL Classroom. Centre for Problem-Based Learning and
Communications: Birmingham, AL.
[78] Hendry, G.D., Ryan,G., and Harris, J. (2003), “Group Problems in Problem-Based Learning”, Med. Teach.
25(6) pp. 609–616.
[79] Coley F, Houseman O, Rajkumar R, (2007), “An introduction to capturing and understanding the cognitive
behaviour of design engineers”, Journal of Engineering Design Vol. 18, No. 4, August, 311–325
[80] Coley, F, (2005), “Understanding the cognitive behaviour of cost and design engineers” Thesis, Cranfield
University, Cranfield, UK,
[81] Cross, N (1989), “Engineering design methods”, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester
[82] Eysenck, M.W., (2001), “Principles of Cognitive Psychology”, 2nd edn, Psychology Press Ltd: East Sussex.
[83]Moyse, R and Elsom-Cook, M., (1992), “Knowledge Negotiation”, Academic Press, London, pp. 69–96.
[84] Guide to assessment of eligibility for membership, Appendix B, (2004) Australian engineering competency
standards - stage 1 competency standards for professional engineers.

Appendix
STAGE 1 Competency Standards For Professional Engineers
PE1 KNOWLEDGE BASE
PE1.3 Techniques and resources
a. Ability to develop and construct mathematical, physical and conceptual models
of situations, systems and devices, ability to utilise such models for purposes of
analysis and design, and understanding of their applicability and shortcomings
PE2 ENGINEERING ABILITY
PE2.2 Understanding of social, cultural, global, and environmental responsibilities and the
need to employ principles of sustainable development
PE2.3 Ability to utilise a systems approach to complex problems and to design and
operational performance
PE2.5 Ability to conduct an engineering project
PE2.6 Understanding of the business environment
PE3 PROFESSIONAL ATTRIBUTES
PE3.1 Ability to communicate effectively, with the engineering team and with the
community at large
TABLE 2: Australian engineering competency standards (Draft 5 February 2004) [84]
K What do we know about the subject?
W What do we want/need to find out about it?
H How will we go about finding out?
L What do we expect to learn? What have we learned?
A How will we apply what we have learned to other subjects? To our personal
lives? To our next projects?
Q What new questions do we have following our inquiry?
TABLE 3: KWHLAQ inquiry
O Observe objectively
T Think reflectively
Q Question frequently
TABLE 4: O-T-Q inquiry
Traditional Classroom PBL Environment
Instructor assumes role of expert or formal Faculty member is a facilitator, guide, co-learner, mentor, coach.
authority.
Faculty members tend to work independently. Faculty members work in teams together and with others from outside
the discipline.
Faculty structure is supportive and flexible.
Faculty members are involved in changing the instructional culture
though the development of assessment tools that is congruent with PBL
principles, including peer review.
Faculty members transmit information to Students take responsibility for learning, creating partnerships with
learners. teachers.
Faculty members organize course content into Faculty members develop learning scenarios designed to empower
lectures based on discipline content. students to seek information and to integrate what they find.
Student motivation is enhanced through providing scenarios from real
life, and thereby activating prior knowledge.
 Students are viewed as passive recipients of Faculty members support students, encouraging initiative, guiding
information. learning to enable students to transfer knowledge.
Students work mostly independently and often in Students interact with faculty and peers, thus facilitating the provision
isolation. of immediate feedback and leading to remediation and improvement.

Students absorb, transcribe, memorize, and
repeat information to accomplish content-specific
tasks such as tests, exams, and quiz.
Learning is individualistic and competitive.
Students look for the “right answer” in order to
succeed in an exam-driven context.
Performance is measured on content-specific
tasks.
Faculty members design course materials based on case scenarios, thus
creating flexible learning environments for students.
Students experience learning in a collaborative and supportive
environment.
Faculty members discourage one “right answer”, assisting students to
frame questions, formulate learning issues, and explore alternatives.
Students identify, analyze, and resolve learning issues using knowledge
from previous experiences and learning, not relying solely on recall.

Grading is summative and the instructor is the
only evaluator.
Lectures are based on one-way communication
with information being conveyed to a student
group.
TABLE 5: Comparison of Traditional and Problem-Based Learning Environments (Baptiste,2003)
Students evaluate their own contributions as well as those of other
group members.
Students work in groups of varying sizes to approach the required
learning task.
Students acquire and apply knowledge in a variety of contexts.
Students discover resources with faculty guiding them to the best
information.
Students seek useful and relevant knowledge to be able to apply into
the future.

Constructivist Traditional
Knowledge Constructed, emergent, situated in action or Transmitted, external to knower, objective, stable,
experience, distributed fixed, decontextualized

Reality Product of mind External to the knower

Meaning Reflects perceptions and understanding of Reflects external world

experiences

Symbols Tools for constructing reality Represents world

Learning Knowledge construction, interpreting world, Knowledge transmission, reflecting what teacher
constructing meaning, ill-structured, authentic- knows, well-structured, abstract-symbolic,
experiential, articulation-refection, process-oriented encoding-retention-retrieval, product-oriented

Instruction Reflecting multiple perspectives, increasing
complexity, diversity, bottom-up, inductive,
apprenticeship, modeling, coaching, exploration,
learner-generated
TABLE 6: [40]
Simplify knowledge, abstract rules, basics first, top-
down, deductive, application of symbols (rules,
principles), lecturing, tutoring, instructor derived
and controlled, individual, competitive

View publication stats