Presentation for the 2014 ASEE paper, "Project Management Learning Takes Flight" by V. Townsend and J. Urbanic.

1. Project
Management
Learning
Takes
Flight
Victoria
Townsend
&
Jill
Urbanic
Department
of
Industrial
&
Manufacturing
Systems
Engineering
Windsor,
Ontario
Canada
Wednesday
June
18,
2014
IED
Technical
Session
3
121st
ASEE
Annual
Conference
Indianapolis,
IN

2. PresentaQon
Overview
1
Why?
Methodology
Plan
Do
Check
&
Act
Conclusion

3. Threshold
concept
–
transformaQve,
integraQve,
and
oUen
troublesome
for
learners
[1]
Deep
vs.
surface
learning
[2]
How?
IteraQve
development?
Project
Management
2

4. Challenges
Students
Face
in
Capstone
Challenges
A
reluctance
to
ask
quesQons
Feeling
“stuck”
by
constraints
Group
conflict,
limited
negoQaQon,
inability
to
divide
work
Being
unaware
of
bias
Responding
to
change
3

5. Workshop
Learning
Outcomes
Each
student
will
have
the
opportunity
to
experience…
A
reluctance
to
ask
quesQons
Feeling
“stuck”
by
constraints
Group
conflict,
limited
negoQaQon,
inability
to
divide
work
Being
unaware
of
bias
Responding
to
change
4
1.
Asking
quesQons
and
observing
what
posiQve
effect
may
come
from
asking
quesQons
2.
Challenging
constraints
and
the
percepQon
vs.
reality
of
constraints
3.
TesQng
negoQaQon
in
a
small
group
sedng
along
with
division
of
work
4.
QuesQoning
bias
and
the
relaQonship
between
bias
and
behaviour
5.
Asking
what
risks
may
be
present
and
creaQng
conQngency
plans
6.
Having
a
fun
experience
with
a
group
-­‐
all
as
a
reference
datum

6. Mobilizing
the
Learning
Outcomes
Deming’s
PDCA
[4]
Plan
Do
Check
Act
Kolb’s
Experien8al
Learning
Cycle
[5]
Concrete
experience
ReflecQve
observaQon
Abstract
conceptualizaQon
AcQve
experimentaQon
5

7. Appropriate
Learning
Methods
6
Plan
Do
Check
Act
Phase
1:
story-­‐telling
and
mini-­‐lecture
Phase
2:
experienQal
learning
acQvity
Phase
3:
discussion
and
feedback

8. SupporQng
Deeper
Learning
1. Recollection
4. Analysis
3. Application
2. Comprehension
6. Evaluation
5. Synthesis/Creation
Uni-
Structural
Multi-
Structural
Relational
Extended
Abstract
P
D
C
A
P
D
C
A
P
D
C
A
Deming’s
Cycle
Bloom’s Taxonomy
SOLO
Taxonomy
Workshop
Phase
1
2
3
7
[7]
[8]

9. Phase
1:
Plan
(Comprehend)
• Storytelling
–
professor
and
students
• Mini-­‐lecture
8
Project(
Ini,a,on(
Planning(or(
Design(
Monitoring(&(
Controlling(
Execu,on(or(
Produc,on(
Comple,on(((
or(Closing(
1 2
3 4 5
[6,
p.49]

10. Phase
2:
Do
(Apply,
Analyze,
Create)
“Flying Apparatus”
Project Charter
Objectives/Goals
– To experience and reflect on a project management cycle with your team; to plan (design), execute
(construct), and monitor (successfully fly) a flying apparatus that yields the longest flight.
– To interpret and apply Henri Fayol’s 5 major stages of project management
– To utilize the conversation cards to question your experience
Scope
– Work within groups of approx. 5 people to design, construct, and fly a “flying apparatus” from
available resources and fly it within the time allotted (Note: constraint).
– The team who fulfills the objectives to the fullest degree is deemed the most “successful”
Participants
– IE Capstone students, 5 people in a group max. (approx. 6 groups)
Timeline – Friday, September 18
– 11:15 – 11:25 (approx.) – planning & design stages
– 11:25 – 11:35 (approx.) – execution and monitoring/controlling stages (deliver results!)
Resources
• Tape
• Paper
• Scissors
• Pipe cleaners
• Elastics
• Straws
• Etc.
• Fork
• Fasteners
• The Great Outdoors
• Glue
• People (groups of 5)
• Paper
• Bristol board
• Foam board
9

11. Phase
2:
Do
(Apply,
Analyze,
Create)
10
Scissors
1
6
Bristol
board,
pipe
cleaners,
tape,
scissors,
cardboard,
glue,
stapler,
fork
Printer
paper

12. Phase
2:
Do
(Apply,
Analyze,
Create)
Appendix A: Contemplation Cards
(Approximately 8 members per group)
Resources(
What(resources(are(present,(
missing,(limited,(predictable,(
unpredictable,(etc.?((What(
impact(does(effec9vely(
managing(resources(have?(((
Change(
What(changes(over(the(
course(of(the(project?((How(
do(the(people(in(the(group(
respond(to(change?((How(
can(change(be(managed?(((
Work(Breakdown(
What(tasks(need(to(be(done(
in(order(to(reach(the(goal?((
How(does(work(breakdown(
affect(the(project(and(team?(
Nego9a9ng(
Is(there(nego9a9on(in(the(
group?((What(is(being(
nego9ated?((Why?((When?((
Is(nego9a9on(important?((
How(so?(((
Constraints!
What(limita9ons(are(
present?((Does(this(affect(the(
project(scope?((Does(it(make(
the(project(easier?((Harder?(((
What(is(constrained?(
Ques9ons(
What(ques9ons(can(be(
asked?((Do(ques9ons(affect(
knowledge(of(a(boundary?((
Can(ques9ons(eliminate(or(
change(a(perceived(
boundary?(((
11
What(resources(are(present,(
missing,(limited,(predictable,(
unpredictable,(etc.?((What(
impact(does(effec9vely(
managing(resources(have?(((
Change(
What(changes(over(the(
course(of(the(project?((How(
do(the(people(in(the(group(
respond(to(change?((How(
can(change(be(managed?(((
Work(Breakdown(
What(tasks(need(to(be(done(
in(order(to(reach(the(goal?((
How(does(work(breakdown(
affect(the(project(and(team?(
Bias!
What(preferences(exist?((
What(assump9ons(are(being(
made?((Knowingly(and(
unknowingly?((How(does(this(
affect(the(project?((
Is(there(nego9a9on(in(the(
group?((What(is(being(
nego9ated?((Why?((When?((
Is(nego9a9on(important?((
How(so?(((
Constraints!
What(limita9ons(are(
present?((Does(this(affect(the(
project(scope?((Does(it(make(
the(project(easier?((Harder?(((
What(is(constrained?(
Ques9ons(
What(ques9ons(can(be(
asked?((Do(ques9ons(affect(
knowledge(of(a(boundary?((
Can(ques9ons(eliminate(or(
change(a(perceived(
boundary?(((
Risk(&(Con9ngency(
What(risks(are(present?((What(
con9ngency(plans(can(be(put(in(
place(to(help(minimize(this(risk?((
A(con9ngency(plan(addresses:(“if(
this(doesn’t(work(then(this.”(
What(would(be(an(even(beQer(
statement?(((
ContemplaQon
Cards

13. Phase
2:
Do
(Apply,
Analyze,
Create)
• Students
“get
to
work”
• Value
of
quesQoning
unfolds
– Reconvening
to
fly
the
flying
apparatuses
– Test
protocol?
– “Longest
flight”
– Clear
definiQon,
asking
quesQons,
assumpQons
– Example
of
students
insight
12

14. Phase
3:
Check
and
Act
(Evaluate)
• AAR
(aUer
acQon
review)
• Engage
contemplaQon
cards
• Discussion
quesQons
in
Appendix
– What
bias
may
have
affected
your
understanding
of
“flying
apparatus”?
– Differences
in
team
approaches
–
building
one
versus
many?
– Any
other
observaQons?
–
e.g.
simple
design
13

15. Phase
3:
Check
and
Act
(Evaluate)
the resources, while the group with only paper has all of the resources needed. This is an
excellent way to segue the discussion towards capstone groups who may feel that they, and their
project, are somehow disadvantaged and highlight blessings in disguise.
One of the class discussions is organized as a mind map in Figure 4. The format of the mind map
embraces non-linear thinking and highlights the relational learning SOLO taxonomy. It is also a
way to document the discussion with students, creating a visual representation of the discussion
and an artefact of the discussion that the students can further reflect on at a later time.
Figure 4: A Mind Map of the Class Discussion and Debrief of the Experiential Learning Activity
While Figure 4 is an example of a class discussion, the purpose of the discussion is not to mimic
14
Discussion
&
AAR

16. Phase
3:
Check
and
Act
(Evaluate)
15
collectively brainstorm potential areas of learning, resources, etc. and share with one another
what has been helpful, what hasn’t, and what could be.
Following the discussion, students are asked to give feedback on the workshop and their learning
in the form of answering the question, “One thing that I learned today was…” This helps the
workshop facilitator to understand what each student found as the most influential and critical
lesson. It also helps each student to summarize what the workshop has meant to him or her. The
feedback results of one class are shown below in Figure 5.
Figure 5: Student Feedback Statements on the Workshop and their Learning
The feedback in Figure 5 articulates the students’ expressions of their beliefs relative to project
management and their learning experience (relating to the affective domain of learning). This
Feedback

17. Aligning
Learning
Feedback
with
Learning
IntenQon
16

18. Aligning
Learning
Feedback
with
Learning
Discovery
17

19. Conclusion
• 4-­‐year
results
(undergrad
and
grad
students)
• Pedagogical
grounding
– PDCA
+
Bloom’s
+
SOLO
scaffolding
for
deeper
learning
• Encourage
situaQonal
awareness
– ContemplaQon
cards
&
learning
outcomes
• Mindmaps
and
feedback
– Alignment
with
learning
intenQon
and
discovery
• Materials
in
appendices
– Conduct
workshop
– Adapt
it
-­‐
other
threshold
concepts
in
engineering
18

20. References
[1]
J.
H.
F.
Meyer
and
R.
Land,
2005,
“Threshold
concepts
and
troublesome
knowledge
(2):
Epistemological
consideraQons
and
a
conceptual
framework
for
teaching
and
learning,”
Higher
Educa-on,
49(3):
373–388.
[2]
F.
Marton
and
R.
Säljö,
1976,
“On
qualitaQve
differences
in
learning:
I—Outcome
and
process*,”
Bri-sh
Journal
of
Educa-onal
Psychology,
46(1):
4–11.
[3]
J.
B.
Biggs
and
K.
F.
Collis,
1982,
Evalua-ng
the
quality
of
learning:
the
SOLO
taxonomy
(structure
of
the
observed
learning
outcome).
New
York,
NY:
Academic
Press.
[4]
W.
E.
Deming,
2000,
The
new
economics
for
industry,
government,
educa-on,
2nd
ed.,
Cambridge,
MA:
The
MIT
Press.
[5]
D.
A.
Kolb,
1984,
Experien-al
learning:
experience
as
the
source
of
learning
development.
Englewood
Cliffs,
NJ:
PrenQce
Hall.
[6]
2013,
A
Guide
to
the
project
management
body
of
knowledge
(PMBOK
Guide),
5th
ed.,
Newton
Square,
PA:
Project
Management
InsQtute
(PMI),
ANSI
standard
PMI
FS-­‐PMBOK-­‐2013.
[7]
B.
S.
Bloom,
1956,
Taxonomy
of
educa-onal
objec-ves:
the
classifica-on
of
educa-onal
goals
Handbook
I,
New
York,
NY:
McKay.
[8]
M.
Poxer,
2011,
“A
primer
on
learning
outcomes
and
the
SOLO
taxonomy,”
Windsor,
ON:
University
of
Windsor.
19

21. Acknowledgements
• Thank
you
to
the
students
who
have
parQcipated
and
helped
us
to
learn
• Thank
you
to
the
Centre
for
Teaching
and
Learning
at
the
University
of
Windsor
-­‐
especially
Dr.
Pierre
Boulos
(mentor),
and
for
the
CTL
travel
grant
to
axend
this
conference
• This
research
has
received
clearance
by
the
Research
Ethics
Board
of
the
University
of
Windsor
#14-­‐035
QuesQons?
townsenv@uwindsor.ca
20