FA_ReflectionsOnPBL_Dec2015_NoBleed

[pbl][pbl]
Reflections on
Problem-Based Learning
Issue 16 [ December 2015 ]

Contents
Editorial
Karen Goh and Mark Chia
Photo Highlights
Montage from the 4th
International PBL Symposium
Muhd Nur Ridhuan and Kevin Lam
Article 1
Highlights of Keynote Speeches from the 4th
International
PBL Symposium
Andrea Chew
Article 2
A Case Study of the Implementation of Problem-based Learning in
Bahrain Polytechnic’s Mechanical Engineering Programme
John Donald and Kealan Allen
Article 3
Using Problem-Based Learning to Teach Research: A Case Study
Hanin Bukamal
Article 4
Project-oriented Design-based Learning in Engineering Education
Siva Chandrasekaran, Guy Littlefair, and Alex Stojcevski
Article 5
Learning Polarisation of Light in a Student-Centred
Learning Environment
Erkan Polatdemir and Tan Peng Kian
Article 6
‘Let The Body Talk’: The Role of Embodied Experience in
Reflection and Problem-based Learning
Yeong Poh Kiaw
03
04
06
08
12
16
22
27

3
Editorial
As 2015 draws to a close, our editorial team is pleased to share with you a special issue
of “Reflections on PBL”, focusing on the 4th
International PBL Symposium which was
held in Republic Polytechnic, Singapore, from 18 to 20 March 2015. The Symposium
was attended by over 400 delegates from 13 countries, including Australia, Hong Kong,
Indonesia and Europe. 66 research papers and workshops were also presented at the
Symposium, with our popular “PBL-in-Action” series and campus tours receiving noteworthy
mention from participants for their enactment of PBL principles in authentic curriculum and
learning spaces.
We have put together a collation of papers and highlights from the event to reflect the
Symposium’s theme – “Research and Practice: Two Sides of the Same Coin”, as our way
of reflecting on a number of key ideas and initiatives presented by delegates from different
institutions and countries.
Our first article summarises the insights shared by our keynote speakers who have offered
a truly international perspective on the “what”, “why”, and “how” of PBL across time and
space – collectively, they challenge us to refocus on what really works instead of resting on
our laurels and institutional traditions. The rest of the articles are full papers contributed by
various delegates that are chosen to represent a myriad of challenges, strategies, lessons,
and reflections in the fields of engineering, science, and sports education. They attest to
the Symposium’s spirit of research in practice, offering practical solutions through case
studies, as well as criticism of how current processes can be improved for more measurable
student learning outcomes.
As a bonus, we are also sharing with you our PBL blueprint: “Institutionalisation of PBL:
Principles, Standards, and Practical Considerations”, which is Republic Polytechnic’s
commitment towards furthering the scholarship and practice of PBL. This paper articulates
and documents the types of institutional framework, support, and resources that should be
in place in order to successfully implement PBL in an evolving and sustainable manner. Do
refer to the last page of this publication for the link to the paper.
We hope you enjoy reading the selection of articles in this special issue as you critically
reflect on your organisation’s own understanding and implementation of PBL, and seek
inspiration from the diverse approaches and strategies shared by the contributing authors.
It leaves us to wish you happy holidays and a fantastic new year.
From the Editorial Team @ Centre for Educational Development
Editor: Karen Goh, Deputy Director
Sub-editor: Mark Chia, Lecturer
Designer: Nur Rosliana, Administrative Support Officer

6
Article 1
Highlights of Keynote Speeches from the 4th
Andrea Chew
Co-Chair for the 4th
Centre for Educational Development
Republic Polytechnic, Singapore
If research is about creating new knowledge, then practice must be a process where that new
knowledge is put to the test, and even newer knowledge emerges. Indeed, it is with this growth
mindset that we met many like-minded delegates and associates at the 4th
International Problem-
based Learning Symposium, held at Republic Polytechnic, Singapore from 18 to 20 March 2015.
Over the years, the symposia themes have evolved from introductory ideas about PBL to new
research and practices in PBL, as well as criticisms of PBL. Through this international platform,
we can see that our understanding and implementation of the key tenets of PBL have matured and
evolved, with emerging trends in the practice of varied PBL models observed in various institutions.
Some of these trends and insights were captured by our distinguished keynote speakers: Professor
Anette Kolmos (Aalborg University), Professor UlissesArauj (University of San Paulo), and Professor
Alex Stojcevski (Deakin University).
In her opening keynote speech, Professor Anette Kolmos shared the brief
history of how PBLgained traction in the European countries over the last forty
years, starting with universities such as the medical faculty of Maastricht and
theengineeringfacultyinAalborgUniversity. Duetotheirsuccessinimproving
student learning and engagement, other European universities also started
implementing PBL in their curriculum. Today, PBL is widely accepted as a
student-centric pedagogy in Europe that helps students learn in authentic
contexts, which in turns prepares them well to meet the needs of industry.
In addition, PBL practitioners in Europe started to form professional learning
communities to share best practices, discuss challenges in implementing
PBL, and strategies to overcome these challenges in a concerted manner.
Such an endeavour has progressed beyond a means of sharing information
to professional development opportunities. Some key challenges and areas
for improvement Professor Kolmos highlighted include:
1. The need for institutional ‘energisers’, or new and creative ways of doing PBL, so as to inject
new ‘life’ and energy to the routine of an adopted PBL approach.
2. The creation of flexible student-centred curriculum that focuses on the needs, abilities, and
readiness of students.
3. The development of PBL competencies in both teachers and students, so that the potential
of PBL can be fully optimised.
4. The development of ICT and new learning opportunities for learning beyond the classroom.
5. The development of rigorous assessment in PBL so that we can assess learning in a reliable
and valid manner given the complexities of a PBL classroom.
While these domains are not always easy to manage, there are a number of successful case
studies. In Professor Ulisses Araujo’s keynote, he shared that while PBL is popular in Europe, it

7
is still in its infancy stage in Latin America; furthermore, there is no evidence
of an entire institution practicing PBL, unlike Republic Polytechnic in
Singapore. He spoke on the worldwide educational evolution that started with
aristocracy in education, and progressed to education for the masses and
universal access to education as educational opportunities opened up to more
people. He highlighted that the problem that we face in the third educational
revolution of universal access to education is that while we have increased
accessibility and equity to education for the masses, the quality of education
has suffered. He argued that PBL has the potential to balance demand with
quality, while promoting diversity. He went on to delve deeper into the current
stage of education in the virtual and digital age where students learn anytime
and anywhere in collaborative settings that mirror real life contexts for better
knowledge transference and preparation for work life.
To showcase how educators can leverage on PBL and technology to create a student-centred
learning environment, Professor Araujo demonstrated the 3D TERF learning environment used by
his students. This learning environment is akin to the “Second Life” concept of virtual reality and is a
fully immersive virtual learning environment for students. This clever marriage between technology
and PBL allows students to truly learn at their own pace and decide on the depth and scope of their
learning goals collaboratively in teams. Assessment of their learning is curated and archived for
easy retrieval by the lecturer too. This delightful demonstration gave delegates a glimpse into a
feasible and sustainable future in a technology-enabled PBL environment.
Interestingly, the first two keynote speeches pointed out the key areas of
development a PBL practitioner should undertake in order to cope with the
dynamic educational landscape that we currently traverse. Both Professor
Kolmos and Professor Araujo provided insights on the ‘why’ and ‘what’ of
future developments in PBL. Subsequently, in the final keynote speech by
Professor Alex Stojcevski, he addressed the ‘how’ of this development, making
a passionate case for the importance of translating knowledge from research
into actual practice by looking at empirical evidence on what actually improved
student learning. He proposed that for PBL to remain relevant and effective,
there can be variant modes of PBL blended to harvest the best outcomes from
PBLand other modes of learning. The key is in changing the way we traditionally
view PBL from a purist perspective to one which embraces blendedness
and diversity; from one that focuses on method to one that is grounded
in PBL principles.
Professor Stojcevski listed the key ingredients required for this change to take place: Firstly, it has
to be both a top-down and bottom-up institutional decision, and there has to be consensus among
stakeholders to embrace the change and follow-through with the plan. Secondly, for this change to
be sustainable, there must be a strong faculty development unit which works with stakeholders at all
levels to effect the change. Thirdly, PBLshould be implemented at different levels from the classroom
level and between groups of modules to broader project and institutional levels. A key reminder
Professor Stojcevski shared was that new skills are not just for students to learn – educators need
to learn new skills too. This speaks volumes about the great responsibility we have as educators
to maintain and sharpen our sword constantly, and not to be complacent. Indeed, opportunities for
professional growth provided by conferences and professional learning communities are important
platforms that help educators reflect on our practice, renew ourselves and our strategies, thus
promoting innovation in the field of teaching and learning.

8
Article 2
A Case Study Of The Implementation Problem-based Learning In Bahrain
Polytechnic’s Mechanical Engineering Programme
John Donald1
and Kealan Allen
School of Engineering
Bahrain Polytechnic, Bahrain
ABSTRACT
Bahrain Polytechnic (BP) aims to build up a new generation of skilled professionals who can
contribute to the diversification and growth of the economy. To this end, BP chose to move towards
a Problem-based Learning (PBL) approach to build both the technical skills and the soft skills needs
in professional engineers of the 21st
Century. This paper outlines the design of the PBL curriculum
in Mechanical Engineering and shares the results of the programme evaluation. In so doing, the
authors aim to provide confirmatory evidence to support the efficacy of PBL and contribute to the
conversation the implementation issues of PBL institutions around the world.
Keywords: Mechanical Engineering, industry-ready graduates
INTRODUCTION
Established to fill a gap in Bahrain’s labour market for applied professional and technical graduates,
Bahrain Polytechnic (BP) opened its doors in 2008 with around 200 foundation students. Today it
boasts more than 2000 students, studying a range of programmes designed in collaboration with
local industry to meet Bahrain’s needs for skilled talent to drive economic growth and diversification
beyond oil-based resources. The industry-focused programmes offered by BP aim to produce
professional and enterprising industry-ready graduates through a Problem Based Learning (PBL)
infused curriculum. While all BP programmes are expected to apply this delivery model, Mechanical
Engineering is a subject discipline that has presented particular challenges to PBL implementation
worldwide (Hung & Choi 2003). This paper reviews the PBL approach taken by BP, evaluates
whether it has achieved its objectives, and aims to share learning points gleaned from our experience
of implementing PBL within the context of a Mechanical Engineering Programme.
CURRICULUM DESIGN
In the first two years of the 4-year Mechanical Engineering programme, students are exposed to
PBL through short projects embedded within traditional subject areas. Engineering theories and
concepts are scoped and sequenced based on increasing levels of difficulty. Through this ‘staircased’
model, each student develops the minimum core information upon which to build the application of
specialised knowledge and skills through PBL. Embedded within these core subjects, small PBL
projects augment students’ proficiency in self-directed learning, team work, problem solving and
interpersonal communication. These bite-size PBL projects culminate in a theme-based, full-time
engineering design project in Year 3, modelled after an authentic industry experience.
1 Corresponding author: john.donald@polytechnic.bh

9
Each year, the details of the project topic changes. Thus, even though the PBL design project
involves a car design, students may be required to design a buggy, a sports car or a racing car
and, although similar design parameters exist, the application of these parameters changes greatly
and material specifications, geometry and layout vary dramatically from one application to the next.
Students are first given the design brief by tutor-facilitators who act as ‘clients’. After discussing the
design requirements and clarifying the project parameters, students then research on how each
problem is to be resolved at a fundamental level, before getting into more detailed investigations.
Students identify any conflicting or non-aligning requirements and begin to see how the design
and manufacture of one component can impact on the placement, design and manufacture of
many others. Students are constantly encouraged to explore alternatives and use any material or
processes they feel are most appropriate, taking into account the project scope and time constraints.
During the early implementation of the Programme, the PBL project involved entirely group work.
However, that created a problem because it became very difficult to ascertain how well students had
learnt the basic foundational knowledge, which is the basic requirement for each graduate. Thus,
the current version of the PBL design project comprises both an individual and group component.
The individual component involves a theory-based assignment which requires each student to
develop a unique and individual solution model for the problem. The second aspect of the project
is the manufacturing phase which is done via group work. The students manage this themselves by
setting targets and allocating tasks, while being monitored and advised by the ‘clients’ (tutorial staff).
Whereas the individual component held each student accountable for their learning and helped us
monitor the foundational knowledge attained, the group component helped build the employability
skills needed in truly industry-ready graduates. Indeed, we felt the individual and group work
dovetailed to produce very complementary results.
Of special mention is the learning environment in which students develop their projects. The facility
in which these projects take shape is a large open workshop, comprising work areas equipped
with lathes, milling machines, welders, fabrication equipment and hand tools. In one area of the
workspace set apart slightly from the machining area, work stations and computers allow for the
initial briefing, problem definition and project design. This space was intentionally set out such that
students can design on the computer then seamlessly progress onto the manufacturing phase.
Furthermore, the space was also intentionally designed to allow students from different semesters
to work alongside each other, even though they were working on different projects. This created a
learning environment in which students across levels and projects were able to discuss other design
and manufacturing options and participate in a cross fertilisation of ideas. In addition, the facility was
designed to integrate various stages of the problem-solving process, from design, to manufacture
and assessment of each item, thus enabling students to reflect constantly on their designs in a
iterative fashion. This mimics an authentic environment where professional engineers are required
to constantly re-evaluate their initial ideas and critique their own work to identify where manufacture
or design could be improved in a variety of ways.
RESEARCH QUESTION
While it is well and good to design a PBL experience, the ultimate goal of the BP Mechanical
Engineering Programme is a pragmatic one: Preparing our graduates to be industry-ready in
practice, and not just in theory. The Enginnering department therefore went through an internal
programme evaluation to ascertain the impact of the curriculum intervention in terms of PBL on
our students. This specific research question was this: “Does the PBL approach taken improve
the quality of our engineering graduates?” Through investigating this research question, we
wish to measure the extent of impact the PBL curriculum intervention has had on our graduates
in order to provide justification to enhance the ongoing development work for the Engineering
curriculum in BP.

10
METHOD
This paper adopts a qualitative approach based on a logic model for programme evaluation. Under
a simple logic model for programme evaluation, we sought to examine the impact of inputs (e.g.
currculum redesign, infrastructal and manpower investment) and outputs (students who graduated
from our PBL curriculum) in terms of outcomes like employability. This measure of employability
was developed from our stakeholder metrics: Graduate profile, employability skills, real world
employability, and other industry requirements. To increase the validity of the findings, the outcomes
were measured via a triangulation of data from various perspectives: Documentary analysis,
stakeholder perceptions and graduate destinations data respectively.
Students’ perspectives were sought via a student survey, followed by a focus group discussion, to
allow for emergent themes. In each session, after first having the protocols explained (and informed
consent and confidentiality assured), they answered the individual questionnaire and then came
together in a circle so some discussion around key themes could occur in the focus group. Each
session took approximately 20 minutes for the individual survey and an hour for the focus group.
We took care to ensure that the process involved an independent facilitator who was not involved
in the programme, and who was not a tutor to the students for the course. This was done not only
to encourage students to speak up more freely, but also, to remove bias in the data collection and
raising the validity of the qualitative data. Additionally, the focus group took part on the last day of
the teaching programme, a timing selected to ensure that students felt free to openly express their
opinions as they had then completed all of the course work. Finally, these findings were triangulated
with results from a Polytechnic-wide graduate destinations telephone survey conducted by the
Career and Employment Centre (CEC). This was done to ensure that any impact students claimed
the programme had corrobated with evidence provided by students who had gone into industry.
RESULTS
The Participants
The entire class from the Year 3 Mechanical Major (11 students) agreed to take part, after filling out
a consent form. These students were responding directly after the conclusion of a full semester of
participation in a car design PBL project. Of these participants, two were female; ten were school
leavers and one was a mature student who had studied at another university and in a different
discipline before enrolling in the engineering programme. Only one student had been educated at a
private school, which gave that person an initial advantage as the medium of delivery in this course
was English. None of the respondents who did raised language as an issue felt that it presented a
major problem for them, as all mentioned they quickly adjusted to the English medium of instruction.
The impact of the PBL curriculum intervention was reflected in their feedback in both the survey and
the focus group. Major themes which surfaced from the data include improvments in self-regulated
learning skills, intrinsic motivation for learning and collaborative learning skills. A selection of several
of the students’ feedback comments from the focus group survey illustrates these themes:
• “The most important skill I have learned is the ability to find answers regardless of the
problem […] The PBL program increased my interest in the subject; I started to learn for
my own knowledge rather than for marks only […] I learned way more than i was supposed
to learn, and I enjoyed it all together”.(S5)
• “Team work is crucial regardless of the field anyone is in […] I was able to recognise
the different attitudes of various team members and manage a team of people with
different levels of skills […] The manufacturing phase also highlighted the importance of
planning and organizing. The very first day was a chaos due to the lack of organisation and
poor planning, however, soon we managed to create a plan and stick to it.”(S3)
• “It is true that I was stressed throughout the course, but I did enjoyed every second of the
design process. I started out working for marks, but then I fell in love with what I was doing,
in the end, it was ‘my baby’”(S4)

11
Furthermore, like their Year 3 counterparts, informal feedback from Year 4 students indicated that
while students initially had difficulty with the PBL concept, they later recognised that their ability and
confidence to problem solve and find answers to ill-defined questions had improved immensely. The
critical and creative thinking skills, socio-emotional self-regulation and collaboration skills developed
in the process of finding solutions greatly increased their self-confidence. They became more aware
of the importance of their responsibilities morally and ethically to themselves, their employers and
society at large and they took great pride in their accomplishments, as evidenced by feedback from
industry. Their comments reflected this change:
• “...because of the PBL course my personality as an engineer has shifted to a whole new
level […] (because) most of the assignments were about making important decisions
and providing a professional justification and most importantly take responsibility
for them”.(S8)
• “At first we hated you guys, you made us work so hard and forced us to make choices
and justify them. But now I understand, this is what I experience at my workplace. I have
the confidence that I can do it.” (S9)
In addition, destinations data gathered from employer surveys by CEC on graduates now holding
positions in industry showed that Bahrain Polytechnic students had succeded through developing
the blend of qualities aquired in the PBL programme: Willingness to learn, cooperation and team
work, communication skills and technical knowledge were all cited as the strengths of Polytechnic
students. Destinations data collected through telephone surveys conducted by CEC show that
on average, over 70% of Polytechnic mechanical engineering students are already holding
positions within industry which compares favourably with figures provided in a discussion with the
British Council indicating that the local average for mechanical engineering postgraduates finding
employment is around 45%.
CONCLUSION
Our research found that initially many students had little belief that they are capable of completing the
car project, being somewhat overwhelmed by the scale of it. However as they progressed through
the project their confidence increased dramatically. The confidence to be able to tackle a large
and complex problem is fundamental to success in industry, where analysis, research, definition
and resolution of problems or challenges are a regular occurrence. Evidence from destinations
data and employer feedback supported the concept of using PBL to engage learners and assist
them in developing the skils, knowledge and attitudes that industry required. This case study has
shown the advantages of using the PBL pedagogy in developing industry-ready graduates. Further
longitudinal research over successive years will need to be done to refine the curriculum design,
confirm the outcomes of the programme, and build greater stakeholder confidence in the teaching
of Mechanical Engineering through a social-constructivist approach.
REFERENCES
Hung, I. W., Choi, A. C. K. (2003) An Integrated Problem-Based Learning Model for Engineering
Education. International Journal of Engineeering Education. 19(5), 734-737.
Kolmos, A., De Graaf, E. (2003) Characteristics of Problem Based Learning. International Journal
of Engineering Education. 19(5), 657-662.
Mills, J.E., Treagust, D.F. (2003) Engineering Education – Is Problem Based or Project Based
learning the answer? Australasian Journal of Engineering Education.[Electronic Version].
Retrieved 15 August 2015 from http://www.aaee.com.au/journal/2003/mills_treagust03.pdf

12
Article 3
Using Problem-Based Learning to Teach Research: A Case Study
Hanin Bukamal1
Academic Development Directorate
Bahrain Polytechnic, Bahrain
ABSTRACT
Bahrain Polytechnic formally began the journey of implementing Problem Based Learning (PBL) as
the main teaching and learning methodology. A major part of the implementation plan was for the
leader of PBL implementation to experience teaching in PBL first hand in a research methodologies
course. This was done in order to identify the various challenges that other tutors might encounter
when shifting from one teaching methodology to another. Through a student observational diary
and a student perception survey, it was found that the majority of students enjoyed learning in a
PBL context.
Keywords: Online tools, facilitation modes, collaboration, research literacy
INTRODUCTION
In March 2015, I attended the Republic Polytechnic PBLSymposium to share the Bahrain Polytechnic
journey of implementing Problem Based Learning (PBL) as the main teaching and learning
methodology in our institution. This implementation journey formally began in September 2014 where
I was delegated the responsibility of leading the implementation of PBL at an institutional level. The
implementation comprised a number of steps such as a staff perceptions survey, a PBL inventory
survey, and a PBL training needs analysis (Bukamal, Janahi & McLoughlin, 2015). Another part
of the assessment phase of PBL implementation was for me to teach a course in full PBL mode in
order to understand the challenges tutors face when making the transition from a generally student
centered teaching method or even a didactic teaching method towards a full PBL class. This paper
will showcase a journey of teaching in PBL for the first time in a research methodologies course
specifically catered for logistics students by first explaining the background of the course, followed
by demonstrating the course structure, and the applied model of facilitation. The paper will then
conclude by exploring the students’ perceptions of learning in a PBL class and future considerations
for this research course.
BACKGROUND
The purpose of providing this research methodologies course is to better prepare logistics students
for the final step of their Bachelor of Logistics which is the ‘industry project’. The industry project
is completed in the students’ final year and requires the students to do an internship in a logistics
company and then identify a problem or phenomenon within the company’s operations. The students
then conduct research and collect data from stakeholders to identify different ways of resolving the
problem, which is then followed by providing suitable recommendations. In order for the students to
fulfill the requirements of the industry project, they must encompass a good background in conducting
research, which is the main reason behind providing the research methodologies course.
1 Corresponding author: hanin.bukamal@gmail.com

13
It is important to note that while the course will be taught in PBL, the main course content and
assessment requirements remained the same. At the beginning of the semester, students were
given a choice of three topics to select from in order to complete all the assessment requirements
that eventually lead up to developing a comprehensive research proposal. This will be explained in
more detail in the next paragraph.
COURSE STRUCTURE
The course structure was predetermined by the programme and no changes were going to be
made regardless of the teaching methodology. PBL will be the teaching methodology while all
other components of the course remain the same. At the beginning of the semester, the students
were given a choice of three logistics companies to select from. They were required to complete
three assignments which were a literature review, a research plan, and a research proposal.
Students were allocated to groups based on their chosen topic or company. This company was
the theme for all problem triggers which were weekly mini problems that students work on during
instructional time.
The students were given the opportunity to select their own role within the group (for example:
chairperson, scribe, timekeeper, observer, and reader). The student roles were changed every 3-4
weeks of the semester so students were able to experience different responsibilities.
At the end of each of the 14 teaching weeks of the semester, the students were asked to report back
to their tutor in a number of ways by either formally presenting their output to the class, updating their
Padlet (online forum), or completing a progress report. Although these reporting techniques were
not summatively assessed, the students still showed an interest and always acted upon the tutor’s
instructions. The reason for selecting different reporting methods was to allow students to develop a
range of skills such as verbal communication, written communication, use of technology, team work,
and other employability skills.
MODEL OF FACILITATION
PBL is traditionally facilitated through tutorial groups of 8-15 students where the tutor sits in on group
meetings. This model is more commonly applied in teaching the medical and health fields. Anumber
of multi-disciplinary PBL institutions on the other hand use the floating facilitation model in classes of
20-25 students (Hamid, 2004; Kolmos, Holgaard & Jensen, 2008). The floating facilitation was the
model used in this research course where the tutor walks around the classroom listening in on group
discussions and sits with the groups to intervene or pose questions when required (Hamid, 2004).
This model was selected as it was the most appropriate given the existing institutional resources as
well as potential disruption to class scheduling.
Moreover, a number of benefits are usually associated with using this model of facilitation such as;
students have a larger opportunity to talk with minimal interventions by the tutor (Dutch, Groh &
Allen, 2001); and students rely more on each other for support (Mohd-Yusof, 2011). Although using
the floating facilitation could be hectic at times when more than one group needs tutor assistance, it
was observed that the students relied more on their roles (e.g. chairperson, timekeeper) to solve the
problem, rather than constantly referring back to the tutor for guidance.
STUDENT PERCEPTIONS
In the first half of the course, the students were given a paper survey to complete asking five
general questions about student perceptions of learning though the PBL method. This survey was
anonymous and was administered towards the end of class time, and students were given 15
minutes to complete it. Based on the student responses, three main themes emerged and were
related to the challenge of PBL, developing real life skills, and group work.

14
Students indicated how PBL constantly challenged them and tested their limits when given a problem
to solve:
“I like thinking of solutions, especially when it requires thinking outside the box and the thrill of
competition is what motivates me”.
“It’s better for learning, I like to work to learn, it’s fun and more challenging too”.
Other students explained how PBL helps them develop skills that will be helpful outside of class:
“That we can learn to be a problem solver in class and in life as well. PBL helps me to develop
problem-solving skills”.
“Skills acquired in PBL can help you in your daily life”.
The students also indicated their perceptions of working together with their groups to solve problems:
“It’s fun, more ideas, better learning environment and results”.
“My group always works hard and does good research together.”
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
With a few weeks remaining of the course, a number of students will be approached to participate
in an interview. The purpose of this interview is to question students on their perceptions of learning
within a PBL class and whether or not this has resulted in the development of their employability
skills. This will likely be a semi-structured interview in order to give the students the opportunity
to express their opinions. The students will also be asked whether they prefer learning in a more
didactic teaching environment or a more student centered environment.
A future direction of the course is to explore the possibility of assessing students within the PBL
process, and examine their team work and communication skills. Peer assessment and self-
assessment could also be an effective strategy to properly evaluate students’ performance within a
7-step PBL cycle to show evidence of the development of their skills.
CONCLUSION
It was certainly pleasing to observe that students had a positive learning experience in a PBL class
based on the student perceptions survey. Based on the personal observations of the tutor, using
PBL fully to teach this research methodologies course resulted in a number of advancements in
students’leadership, verbal and written communication skills, initiative, teamwork, self-management,
planning and organizing, and problem solving. The tutor also observed an increase in students’ use
of advanced research-related terminology, most of which students were not familiar with before
the start of the course. Developing these employability skills was the main purpose behind using
PBL as the teaching method. A limitation to this case study was that the development of students’
employability skills was not measured. Perhaps a future direction would be to do a formative or
summative assessment of the learning of employability skills by asking students to reflect on
their experiences and self-evaluate. Additionally, it will be useful to monitor the effectiveness of
this teaching technique by keeping track of student achievement in the industry project to explore
whether PBL enhanced their deep understanding of the subject and continued to improve the
students’ employability skills.

15
REFERENCES
Bukamal, H., Janahi, E., & McLoughlin, B. (2015). The Past, Present, and Future of Problem
Based Learning (PBL) Implementation at Bahrain Polytechnic: PBL Implementation in a
Middle-Eastern Institution. Proceedings of the 4th International PBL Symposium “Research
and Practice in Problem-based Learning: Two Sides of the Same Coin” (pp. 90-92). Republic
Polytechnic: Republic of Singapore.
Dutch, B. J., Groh, S. E., & Allen, D. E. (2001). The Power of Problem Based Learning: A Practical
“how to” for Teaching Undergraduate Courses in any Discipline. Stylus Publishing: Virginia.
Hamid, A., Kamaruddin, M., Mohd, A. H., Hassim, M. H. & Mohd. K. U. (2004). Implementation of
Problem-based Learning in a Typical Engineering Classroom. In: Conference on Engineering
Education (CEE 2004), 14-15 December 2004, Kuala Lumpur.
Kolmos, A., Du, X., Holgaard, J. E., & Jensen, L. P. (2008). Facilitation in a PBL Environment.
Aalborg: UCPBL UNESCO Chair in Problem Based Learning.
Mohd-Yusof, K., Helmi, S. A., Jamaludin, M. Z. (2011). Cooperative Problem-Based Learning
(CPBL): A Practical PBL model For a Typical Course. IJET,6(8), 12-20. Doi: ijet.v6i3.1696.

16
Article 4
Project-oriented Design-based Learning in Engineering Education
Siva Chandrasekaran1
, Guy Littlefair, and Alex Stojcevski
School of Engineering
Deakin University, Australia
ABSTRACT
The School of Engineering at Deakin University (SOE-DU) is committed to provide authentic and
unique learning experiences to students. Over the last five years, SOE-DU has undertaken a study
to develop a unique teaching and learning model. The proposed model was based on the Project-
Oriented Design Based Learning (PODBL) philosophy which is unique within Australia and in the
world. Fundamentally, the framework balances project-driven pedagogy with a design-focused
practice in response to industry needs. This paper focuses on the development of PODBL and
articulating how it helps nurture creative and industry-ready professional engineers.
Keywords: Project-oriented design-based learning, PODBL process cycle, Learning principles,
Engineering education.
INTRODUCTION
When students first enter the school of engineering at university, they will have a strong
academic foundation in physics, chemistry, mathematics and computer systems. However, such
knowledge alone does not make them an expert in any engineering field if they lack creativity,
innovation and communication skills which professional engineers need in order to find effective
solutions to real-world problems. It has always been the aim of Deakin University’s School of
Engineering to nurture students who demonstrate such skills. This paper outlines how the Project
Oriented Design Based Learning (PODBL) approach undertaken by Deakin and articulates how it
enhances student learning through authentic design problems which are tackled in a collaborative,
blended learning environment.
PROGRAMME OBJECTIVES
The School of Engineering at Deakin University has always tried to improve its unit delivery method
to enrich the student experience and to produce capable industry-ready graduates. To this end, it has
explored new teaching methods to aid in this process. One such method is Design Based Learning
(DBL). DBL is a self-directed learning approach where design skills must be learnt and applied
(Perrenet, Aerts, & Woude, 2003). Students are required to locate the resources and analyse any
needs in order to create a design (Iwane, Ueda, & Yoshida, 2011). This method provides students
the freedom to apply their design skills creatively, while keeping the needs of the client in mind. DBL
not only looks at the end product but also at the underlying process in creating that product (Wijnen,
1999). This paper outlines the considerations undertaken in the development and implementation
of PODBL in Deakin University, and briefly examines its impact on staff and students.
1 Corresponding author: siva.chandrasekaran@deakin.edu.au

17
DESIRED OUTCOMES
From the onset, it is important to clarify that the purpose of PODBL is not to completely change the
curriculum content but to reform the learning process. At the end of the day, industry still expects
graduates to be educated with knowledge and skills expected of any professional engineer. What
PODBL does is to value-add by developing the qualities of innovation and creativity through design-
based activities oriented by a project. Hence, PODBL allows students to demonstrate not just the
professional capabilities expected of graduates, but creative professionals who can confidently
respond to complex problems of the 21st
Century as well (Chandrasekaran 2013a, 2013b;
Chandrasekaran, Stojcevski, Littlefair, & Joordens, 2013b, 2013c).
Onthebasisofrecommendationsbyindustryandacademics,aswellasfromnationalandinternational
research, it is critical to identify a framework unique to Engineering at Deakin (Chandrasekaran,
Stojcevski, Littlefair, & Joordens, 2013a; Chandrasekaran et al., 2013c). In developing PODBL, this
research acquired preceptions of current students, staff, and industry to remodel pedagogy. It was
also important to include all stakeholders in the curriculum development process in order to ensure
support for and fidelity to the PODBL model during the implementation process.
PROJECT ORIENTED DESIGN BASED LEARNING
PODBL is designed to encourage independent (self-directed) learning and the development of
deep skills which better equip students to meet the ever evolving needs of industry. Two key
learning outcomes in modern provision engineering are particularly important in this regard: (1) the
ability to critically assess research (information literacy) and (2) the abilitity to find applied solutions
which meet the specific needs of clients (design thinking). To this end, PODBL integrates cloud and
located learning, allowing students to learn through in an the interactive online classroom anytime
and anywhere. This unique learning environment was designed to promote the development of
skills such as collaboration, critical thinking, creativity, innovation, and problem solving and increase
instrinsic motivation for and engagement with learning.
Additionally, online learning and collaboration is supported with physical infrastructure such as the
Centre for advanced design in engineering training (CADET). Students gain access to state of the
art engineering equipment that allows that to create prototypes and test them in a simulated but
authentic environment. Students gain access to the kind of high-end equipment that allows for
on digital manufacturing, rapid prototyping, 3D modelling and visualisation technologies students,
researchers and industry will be able to experience and master the tools and techniques that will take
leading Australian industries beyond the 21st century. Through CADET, the School of Engineering
provides future-focused engineering and design facilities which are an integral part of a learning
environment conducive for a DBL curriculum.
In Deakin’s version of DBL, teams of four to six members with a facilitator. The same group meets
regularly throughout the trimester to work on a series of design activities. The defining characteristics
of PODBL is as follows:
• Students learn through real engineering design activities
• Students are driven by client-centred projects
• Students work in design based learning studios as teams
• Students learn through a focus on research, outcome and collaboration
• Staff acts as facilitator and also a mentor
• Staff work cooperatively with peer academics
The PODBL cycle involves seven main steps. All steps except for step 5 and 6, takes place in the
cloud. Instructional activites involve a combination of cloud and located learning activities. With
cloud-based learning experiences, students have the opportunity to engage in rich and varied forms
of interpersonal interaction with teaching staff and peers. Steps 5 and 6 are designed to focus on
located learning and are usually performed during the on-campus residential week. The seven main
steps of the PODBL cycle are illustrated in Figure 1 below.

18
Figure 1. PODBL process cycle

19
IMPLEMENTATION OF PODBL – A CASE STUDY
Design Problem For Students
In their third year, students learn the topic of Electronics Systems and Signals which is fundamental
to many applications in signal processing and control. The students need to apply fundamental
theoretical ideas in the area of electronic signals and systems to enhance learning outcomes. The
unit aims to develop students’ understanding of the basic terminology and properties of electronic
signals and systems. The aim is to design a spectrum analyser according to the following design
problem: A sound engineer needs to mix a multi track recording session with a range of instruments.
In order to distinguish the range of each recorded instrument, the engineer utilises a spectral
analyser. In this case, the analyser utilises 16 bands and provides the signal power in each band
and the frequency range for each instrument.
A brief overview of the PODBL cycle is illustrated in the semestral outline2
:
Week Learning Experiences PODBL Cycle
1 The problem/project is presented to students, teams are formed and
roles are distributed.
Stage 1
2 Teams meet individually with the facilitator and brainstorm the project.
Team members decide on concepts for individual research.
Stage 2
3 Teams meet and discuss the concepts. Information is shared on Cloud
Deakin. Teams update the facilitator on the concept research. Teams
take the first step towards the development of the design brief.
4 The information from the concept research is assimilated and the
teams collaborate to produce the design brief which is submitted for
facilitator’s feedback.
Stage 3
5 The design brief is refined and teams moves to select of ideas and
take the first step towards the design development of the final product.
Stage 4
6 Teams follow a cycle of design, model and evaluation for each individual
component of the product. The facilitator’s role is to provide feedback
and help the teams stay on track with the project.
Stage 5 - 6
7 The cycle of design, model and evaluation continues.
8 Teams continue the cycle and also begin to look at issues relating
to the integration of individual components. Students also begin to
prepare the presentation of the design.
9 Teams present the design and the intermediate results. Each team
member presents one component of the product, and the students
start working on the final report and their ePortfolios.
10 Teams move towards integrating all the individual components. Testing
and evaluation of the final design is also completed. Students continue
work on the final report and ePortfolios.
11 Final changes are made to the design. The final product and ePortfolios
are then delivered.
Stage 7
Table 1: PODBL mapped onto Semestral Outline
2 For a detailed explanation of the scaffolding embedded in the PODBL model, please write
to siva.chandrasekaran@deakin.edu.au

20
IMPACT ON STAFF
As mentioned earlier, facilitators are key to the success PODBL. Professional development for
facilitators is challenging yet critical to the success of PODBL. This is particularly so given that
educators need to make a successful transition from lecturers in a didactic teacher-centered
curriculum to facilitators in a student-centred curriculum to one which stresses the importance of
applied design thinking within an authentic problem situation. In order to measure this shift, workload
was used as a proxy for the student-centredness of the learning process in a PODBL cycle. Figure 3
shows a comparative analysis of the amount of workload for staff and students engaged in a PODBL
process from week 1 to week 11:
Figure 2. Workload of students and staff
Figure 2 shows the workload (number of hours) for students slowly rising at a range of 0 to 10 from
week 1 to week 6 and stabilising at a level of 10 from week 6 to 12. The workload for staff is at a level
of 8 (range), stabilises until week 4 and slowly dropping from range 8 to 1 between week 4 and week
6. It also continued at a constant value of 1 until the end of week 12. What the graph shows is that
as the weeks progressed, students were increasingly engaged in the process of self-directed and
collaborative learning, while facilitators’ control increasingly faded into the background. This is in
line with the desired outcomes of the a PODBL which aims to prepare students to act a independent,
engineers who can exercise professional judgment both individually and collaborative in response to
an authentic engineering problems.
IMPACT ON STUDENTS
The cohort of students who experienced the new learning and teaching model expressed their views
about PODBL through a feedback exercise conducted after the course. Some of the feedback
which cover issues of deep learning and intrinsic motivation are captured below:
Student A: “Learning through application in the project has helped me learn [not just the
content but] the principles.”
Student B: “I enjoy the self-directed learning approach.”
Student C: “I would like every subject to run this way.”
Student D: “The practical approach through projects is good and would like to see it
applied from ﬁrst year.”
Student E: “I can see the relation between theory and application.”
Overall, the results gave us confidence that PODBL had a positive effect on not just the building of
content knowledge but the development of skills such as collaboration, critical thinking, creativity,
innovation, and problem solving. Although it was challenging for academic staff to implement a
PODBL approach and incoporate technology in meaningful ways, it was encouraging how staff and
students came together to develop cutting-edge currriculum that better prepares our students to be
critical and creative professional engineers of the 21st
Century.

21
CONCLUSION
The impact of PODBL is encouraging because it allows for the remodelling of pedagogy without
deviating from the core curriculum. On the basis of previous recommendations by industry and
academics, as well as national and international research, a framework that is unique to engineering
education was developed. The PODBL framework for students, staff, industry and faculties is a
pathway that leads to a sustainable design practicing education. As the School of Engineering at
Deakin continues to explore the possibility of using PODBL beyond a single third year unit, this
author looks forward to a future where we do not just have engineering graduates.
REFERENCES
Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for Quality Learning at University, SRHE and Open University Press,
Buckingham.
Chandrasekaran, S., Stojcevski, A., Littlefair, G., & Joordens, M. (2013, January). Alinging Students
and Staff Perspectives in Design Curriculum. In REES 2013: Proceedings of the Research
in Engineering Education Symposium. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
Chandrasekaran, S, Stojcevski, A., Littlefair, G., & Joordens, M. (2013, January). Design Based
Learning - Students Views on Industry Requirements. In Proceedings of 5th
International
Symposium on Project Approaches in Engineering Education PAEE2013 (pp. ID-56),
Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands.
Chandrasekaran, S., Stojcevski, A., Littlefair, G., & Joordens, M. (2013, January). Accreditation
inspired project oriented design based learning curriculum for engineering education.
Meeting the Future: Proceedings of the 2nd International Engineering and Technology
Education Conference 2013 (pp.1-11). University of Technical Education, Ho Chi Minh City.
Chandrasekaran, S., Stojcevski, A., Littlefair, G., & Joordens, M. (2013). Project Oriented Design
Based Learning–Staff Perspectives. PBL Across Cultures, 389.
Chandrasekaran, S., Stojcevski, A., Littlefair, G., & Joordens, M. (2013c). Project-oriented design-
based learning: aligning students’ views with industry needs. International Journal of
Engineering Education, 29(5), pp. 1109-1118.
Godfrey, E., Hadgraft, R. (2009). Engineering Education Research: Coming of age in Australia and
New Zealand. Australasian Association for Engineering Education.
Littlefair, G., & Stojcevski, A. (2012). CADET-Centre for Advanced Design in Engineering Training.
In Profession of Engineering Education: Advancing Teaching, Research and Careers: 23rd
Annual Conference of the Australasian Association for Engineering Education 2012, The (p.
935). Engineers Australia.
Iwane, N., Ueda, H., & Yoshida, M. (2011). Design based learning by knowledge reuse: Towards its
application to e-learning. Paper presented at the Information Reuse and Integration (IRI),
2011 IEEE International Conference on IEEE, pp. 468-473.
Perrenet, J., Aerts, A., & Van der Woude, J. (2003). Design Based Learning in the Curriculum of
Computing Science - a Skillful Struggle. Paper presented at the proceedings of 2003
International Conference on Engineering Education, pp. 21-23.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes, Harvard
University Press, Harvard, MA.
Wijnen, W. (1999). Towards design-based learning. Educational Service Centre.

22
Article 5
Learning Polarisation of Light in a Student-centred Learning Environment
Erkan Polatdemir1
Hwa Chong Institution, Singapore
Tan Peng Kian
Centre for Quantum Technologies,
National University of Singapore, Singapore
ABSTRACT
While there has been an increasing awareness of how deep learning in physics is best facilitated
through social-constructivist approaches, little in the literature articulates the concrete experiences
of educators who experiment with creating such an environment. This paper documents the
experiences of the authors in designing and carrying out a Physics enrichment workshop on
polarisation of light conducted for Grade 11 students enrolled in the Gifted and Talented Education
(GATE) programme at Hwa Chong Institition (HCI). The authors seeks to empower fellow educators
by surfacing challenges of inquiry-based lessons, while encouraging educators to embrace teachable
moments even when the inquiry process appears to deviate from the planned curriculum.
Keywords: Inquiry-based instruction, Physics, Self-directed Learning, Collaborative Learning
BACKGROUND
Learning concepts in physics can be an insurmountable task. Due to its intellectual effort and
difficulty of learning tasks, students can only perform better in physics by working in groups (Donald,
2002) which is one of the important aspects of a student-centered learning environment. According
to Redish (1994), students lack of exisiting mental models of physics as a discipline and this can be
a problem, particularly with learning it within an ill-structured constructivist environment.
Unfortunately, traditional learning environments which are ineffective to engage students deeper in a
learning task still remains popular in schools (Jonassen & Land, 2012). There is a sense of urgency
in promoting inquiry-based learning environments for students in learning physics.
INTRODUCTION TO THE LESSON
At HCI, students who are in special programme like GATE are offered a number of modules in
various fields in addition to their standard school curriculum. The students have to complete 3
different modules, each lasting 3 weeks. The module on “Fundamental Concepts in Photonics” is
one such offering which covers the concepts in polarisation of light, electromagnetic spectrum and
diffraction of light in three lessons. Each lesson lasts about 3 hours. Fifteen (15) Grade 11 students
had chosen the enrichment module called “Fundamental Concepts in Photonics” as an elective.
1 Corresponding author: erkan@hci.edu.sg

23
The main objective in this lesson was to develop students’ critical thinking, reasoning
and presentation skills using the concepts in polarisation of light. For this purpose,
we prepared activities in four phases:
• Phase 1: Encountering the Trigger for Inquiry
• Phase 2: Self-directed and Collaborative Learning
• Phase 3: Presentation of Solutions
• Phase 4: Journaling of Reflections
We designed our lessons with main aspects of a student-centered learning environment such as
observations, brainstorming, teamwork, self-directed learning (research), presentation, reflection
and feedback. Here we will focus on the learning outcomes achieved in the first lesson which was
on the polarisation of light.
OUTLINE AND ANALYSIS OF LESSON
In Phase 1, our aim was to make students curious about observations with Polaroids and identify
their background knowledge. In choosing the problem to trigger inquiry, care was taken to ensure
the students had not learned about the polarisation of light nor seen the effects of Polaroids prior to
this activity. Otherwise, they would have simply provided the model answer using standard textbook
explanations. This would have been a focus on the product, rather than the process, defeating the
entire point of inquiry-based learning. This phase comprises observations and brainstorming lasted
about 45 minutes.
The trigger for scientific inquiry was introduced by getting students to observe the changes in light
intensity which comes from the classroom lighting
• through one Polaroid;
• through two Polaroids different with angles of orientation; and
• through three Polaroids with various angles.
We asked them to make similar observations with the light coming from the projector shining onto
a screen. Students were intrigued by how light intensity changes whenever we use a Polaroid or
2-3 Polaroids with different angles to each other. They observed that the color of light on the screen
changed from Violet to Green when the Polaroid was rotated slowly.
Although students did not have the pre-requisite concepts to give the standard textbook answer,
they were instrinsically motivated to figure out the problem. The fact that it was an elective chosen
on their own accord certainly played a part. We challenged students to provide any possible
explanation they could think of for every single observation (brainstorm). To support students in
regulating their encounter with the trigger for inquiry, teachers helped students capture contributions
on the whiteboard clearly in three separate columns: What We Know, What We Don’t Know and
What We Need To Find Out (henceforth “Find Out”). The following questions were learning issues
identified in the “Find Out” column:
• What is a Polaroid and how it absorbs light (mechanism behind it)?
• What does polarisation of light mean?
• Why is there a change in the intensity of light through Polaroid?
• Why does the color on the projector screen change as we rotate a Polaroid?
This entire brainstorming activity was done together with everyone in the class under our guidance
as this was a complex problem for our students with no single solution at that stage of the inquiry.
We felt that it was important for the teachers to carefully manage the process, but more importantly,
model for students the skills of metacognitive strategies of self-regulated learning used to manage
a complex problem.

24
In Phase 2, students worked in 5-member teams which lasted an hour. They were expected
to answer questions written in “Find Out” column by doing research online and discussing with
their team mates. Students were provided iPads to conduct self-directed learning. Two facilitators
circulated around the class to monitor students’ progress, to ask questions to scaffold their learning
and to help students ascentain relevant focus areas to conduct research. The authors observed
that most students were engaged in lively team discussions and/or self-directed learning. However,
some students overestimated their skills of learning by searching out websites or scientific papers
on online journals which covered topics that were not entirely relevant. Others were overwhelmed
by the sheer volume of information on the internet. To help guide students back to the relevant
topic areas, we had them focus on the main learning issues as identified in Phase 1, and helped
them judge the degree of relevance for information found, thus building research literacy and critical
thinking skills.
One of the major challenges we faced while conducting the lesson was promoting a high level of
collaborative learning. Most of the students preferred to learn on their own and did not take the
initiative to share their understanding with their team mates without the facilitators’ prompting. Some
students were apprehensive with joining in discussions when the facilitators were asking questions
to engage all in collaborative discussion. During our post-lesson discussion, the authors felt that
there are possible reasons contributing to this was the fact that the students were working in teams
that were newly formed and may not have developed the level of trust and implicit skills required
in collaboration. This is an issue worth investigating for future iterations of this inquiry lesson, the
extent to which pre-lesson scaffolding in terms of building regular team work routines would make
a significant difference.
In Phase 3, students presented what they have learned as a team. We wanted to make sure that every
student presented. We asked questions about their presentations to exercise their critical thinking
and reasoning skills. With this, we had a chance to test how well students defend their arguments,
and in turn how deeply they had understood the concept of light polarisation. The facilitators asked
questions to gauge their understanding. In general, some students had difficulties in defending their
arguments in the presentation phase. It was also clear that some students attempted to understand
a number of concepts without internalising the newly acquired knowledge one by one.
The greatest challenge in Phase 3 was the issue of engagement. It was clear that the student
presenters were investing much effort into explaining their findings. However, there were very few
questions asked by the student audience to the student presenters. The only exception were students
who managed to focus on the questions to be explored in the brainstorming session and considered
multiple perspectives (teamwork and reliable online resources) have achieved a satisfactory level
of understanding. For future investigation, an interesting research question to ask what specific
aspects of the inquiry process would affect the quality of class engagement in the consolidation
phase of learning.
To provide closure for Phase 3, we consolidated the learning by pointing them to how Polaroid traps
light, how electric field oscillations relate to the polarisation of light, and how the intensity of light is
reduced depending on the different orientation of Polaroids (Malus’ Law), as well as examples of
polarised and unpolarised light sources.
In Phase 4, we asked students to reflect on the learning activity today (reflection) by answering the
following three questions (the deadline was the next morning):
• What I did not know and what I learned today?
• What difficulties I encountered today?
• How I overcame these difficulties?

25
After students submitted their reflections, we provided individual feedback about their performance
in all phases. In our feedback, we focused on one positive and one area of improvement. We ended
up our feedback with an encouraging note to help students see feedback as less an evaluation of
learning and more of an assessment to promote further and deeper learning. Some of the questions
students grappled with include the following:
• What is an unpolarised light?
• What makes light polarised?
• What is an electromagnetic wave?
• Chemical compounds in Polaroid
• Similar observations done with laptop screens
• Emission of photons (excitation of electrons)
• Polarisations by reflection and scattering
• How LCDs work?
• RGB color combination in projector light
• Intensity of light and Malus’ Law
It was interesting to note that some of the items above were not intended in the planning stage. In
this activity, the concepts which were not intended to be covered but were understood by students
to a certain level are chemical compounds in Polaroid, how LCDs work, exciting electrons to higher
energy states and the emission of photons as electrons return to their original energy state. We
think that teachers of inquiry based learning need to be particularly open to such teachable moments
which could inform future planning as it gives us educator-practitioners evidence of prior knowledge,
and future learning areas which may interest the students. This provides further evidence that
students can better engage in deep learning with a student-centered learning environment.
EVALUATION
In this lesson, although students had not learned about the polarisation of light before, they
understood a satisfactory level of content knowledge such as the polarisation of light as a property
of light, the components (electric and magnetic fields) of an electromagnetic wave, the meaning of
light polarisation and how the intensity of light changes through different orientations of Polaroids. In
addition to these, they developed some understanding about the chemical compounds in Polaroids,
the excitation of electrons in these chemical compounds and the emitting of photons from excited
electrons. These were unintended, but enriching aspects which came up while delivering the
planned curriculum.
As far as the soft skills are concerned, their critical thinking, reasoning, teamwork and presentation
skills have been exercised throughout the lesson. They employed various ways to overcome the
obstacles such as team discussions, asking questions, research and listening to other presentations.
Of course, not all students benefitted from this learning style, especially students who are very much
used to spoon feeding were less responsive in Phase 1. Students who were not used to inquiry-
based learning could not effectively interact with their team mates both in Phase 2 and 3. With high
ability students, they can sometimes be overconfident in learning new material and cast their net too
wide in their research. As mentioned under the preceding section (Outline and Analysis), additional
scaffolding on research literacy was needed to manage or reduce the unavoidable frustrations that
necessarily come with engaging in the inquiry process.
To improve on this study, we should first relate the importance of brainstorming session to the
students very well and help students maintain a focus on the learning issues identified under the
“Find Out” column before completing the Phase 1. Second, we should monitor teams who diverge
from the learning objectives determined in the brainstorming session, and provide sufficient scaffolds
to help them stay on track. Third, we should employ more effective team dynamic strategies to
increase the interaction among team members. Fourth, we should focus on novel ways to quantify
the understanding of the concepts in the polarisation of light. Lastly, inquiry-based learning needs
to be a regular part of classroom practice, and not a one-off activity, in order for it to be successful.

26
CONCLUSION
Inquiry-based learning has its own merits and challenges. Since it requires an active participation
and mental effort, students’ response rate may not be encouraging in early attempts. The more
educators insist on this technique by considering improvements based on the needs of students,
the better students should respond. We felt that academically-inclined students tend to ignore the
benefits from peer learning. In a school setting where traditional learning is widespread, it requires
more effort to implement student-centered learning and to get students respond encouragingly. If
students are more familiar with this kind of learning environment, the learning outcomes would
be more encouraging. Schools and teachers should take more initiative to create inquiry-based
learning environment.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank Mrs Tan-Tiang Ai Chin Dean/Research at Hwa Chong Institution who
encouraged us to share and document this activity.
REFERENCES
Donald, J. G. (2002). Learning to Think. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Jonassen, D. & Land, S. (2012). Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments edited by
Jonassen, D. and Land, S. New York: Routledge.
Redish, E. F. (1994). The implications of cognitive studies for teaching physics. American Journal of
Physics, 62(6), 796-803.

27
Article 6
‘Let The Body Talk’: The Role of Embodied Experience
in Reflection and Problem-based Learning
Yeong Poh Kiaw1
School of Sports, Health and Leisure,
Republic Polytechnic, Singapore
ABSTRACT
Problem-based learning curricula emphasises reflection as means to support learners in sense-
making and meaning-making. This paper advances the significant role of embodied experience in
reflection and transformative learning using empirical evidence from a phenomenological research
project (Yeong, 2013) that took place in Singapore. The author discussed the importance of bodily
knowledge, particularly in ways that one’s body can be used to recall information, inform negotiation,
and create opportunities for self-alienation. This paper aims to encourage educators to adopt
embodied approaches to teaching and learning in problem-based learning curricula.
Keywords: Embodied experience, experiential learning, critical reflection, self-directedness,
collaboration, meaning-making
INTRODUCTION
Problem-Based Learning (PBL) curriculum emphasises the significance of reflection to support
knowledge and skill acquisition (Problem-based Learning Institute, 2015). Reflection is a core
concept in adult education theory and more specifically within experiential learning discourses
(Dewey, 1933; Kolb, 1984; Miettinen, 2000). The term ‘reflection’refers to meaning-making activities,
“in which people recapture their experience, think about it, mull it over and evaluate it” (Boud, Keogh,
& Walker, 1985, p. 33). Reflection is the key process in PBL through which learners collaborately
construct knowledge from their shared learning experiences.
To promote reflection and sense-making, trigger experiences in PBL curriculum should elicit emotion
as well as thoughts (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2013). In other words, reflection should not be viewed
solely as a cognitive, rational, and mental activity (Jordi, 2011), but an integration of the mind and
body (Hanna, 1988). This means accounting for ways of understanding how humans live and relate
to new meaning schemes leading to observable changes (van Manen, 1977; Yorks & Kasl, 2006).
There is a need to integrate a range of cognitive and nonconceptual elements that made up one’s
experience and consciousness.
Jordi (2011) posited that embodied reflective practices can encourage an integration of varied and
often disconnected aspects of human experiences and consciousness. This paper attempts to
advance the significant role of embodied experience in reflection and aims to suggest ways bodily
knowledge can be incorporated in a PBL classroom. Here, the embodied experience acts as the
‘prior knowledge’, ‘problem’, or ‘practice’ that cultivates situated, self-directed, collaborative, and
deep thinker. This paper draws on a phenomenological research project on adventure education in
Singapore (Yeong, 2013), shares some of the insights on experiential pedagogies, and argues for a
greater emphasis on embodied learning.
1 Corresponding author: yeong_poh_kiaw@rp.edu.sg

28
KNOWING BODIES, AWAKENING MINDS
The role of the body in learning is obvious, one needs a body to experience the world and to grow
(Dewey, 1918, 1988). The body offers itself as the subject of one’s embodied experiences. Merleau-
Ponty (1962) stressed that one’s body is part of their subjectivity and the basis of one being in the
world. The body, for him, is the subject of action; it is essentially a practical, pre-conscious subject in
the lived world that possesses both intentionality and knowledge. People’s experiences of things in
the world is lived from an embodied point of view. Thus, the subject is a perceiving body, situated in
time, and immersed in the living world. Since Merleau-Ponty’s introduction of embodied perception,
many contemporary thinkers have started to take an interest in the notion of embodiment across
various disciplines (e.g., Abram, 1996; Butler, 1990; Csordas, 1999; Lakoff & Johnson, 1999;
Shusterman, 2000).

In the context of education, O’Loughlin (1995) suggests that “experiential exploration is, first and
foremost, bodily exploration and knowing are, above all, bodily knowing” (p.7). Varela, Thompson
and Rosch (cited in Hocking, Haskell, & Kinds, 2001) futher add that embodiment can be defined as
the “integration of the physical or biological body and the phenomenal or experiential body” (p. xviii).
It is “a seamless though often-elusive matrix of body/mind worlds, a web that integrates thinking,
being, doing and interacting within worlds” (p. xviii). This definition is in line with Dewey’s (1925)
proposition; that ‘experience’ is reflective, social, and continuous learning. ‘Experience’ is also often
a reflective learning space where the impulses, feelings, and desires of the concrete experiences
have been transformed into higher-order purposeful action (Dewey, 1938).
How is it that ‘experience’ can be a reflective learning space? The narrative, phenomenological
oriented doctoral thesis investigated by Yeong (2013) offers a few insights on how one’s bodily
experiences could lead to the various learning stages mapped out by Moon (1999). I argue that the
body’s lived experiences represent mostly, an enabling trigger that initiates the process of knowing,
begin learning, begin reflecting, and begin meaning-making. This idea of the body offering itself as
the basis for learning, reflection, and subsequent transformation, occur through three progressive
stages. They are: (i) the inner sensory awareness; (ii) the self-management; and (iii) the bodily-
based reflection.
In the first stage of inner sensory awareness, the findings support the work of several authors (e.g.,
Gallagher, 2005; Gendlin, 1962/1997, 1992; Lakoff & Johnson, 1999), who theorised that new
feelings, emotions and situations, create opportunities for self-alienation as people become aware
of their inner feelings and senses. The internal sensing has great significance not only to trigger self-
alienation, but also to allow movements, patterns, and perceptions to be a part of the processing of
making sense of emotions and feelings.
At the second stage of self-management, responses from learners and educators in the research
indicated to varying degrees, that ‘body’ tells the individuals what to do (self-direction), and what not
to do (self-control). This phenomenon is usually observed after critical events, where the physical
and emotional aspects of an individual is being challenged beyond self-perceived limits. In one of
the learners’ journal reported in the research, the student recorded her experiences of attempting
a climb having been blindfolded. Her embodied sensations of confusion and uncertainty made her
realised the importance of the use of other senses. In a sense, embodied experiences transform
moments of physical and emotional tension into creative opportunities where learning takes place.
What is especially noteworthy in this second stage is the discovery and confirmation of two essential
ideas. First, ‘the body’ offers itself as a tool for learning new frames of reference.
Second, ‘the body’ assists individuals in negotiating meaning in terms of their true self and role self.
This discovery supports Bohm’s (1985) and Thompson’s (1996) assertion of soma-significant and
embodied action. Working with meaning is obvious when one tries to take control in negotiating
options and decision making, thus promoting critical reflection.
At the last stage of bodily-based reflection, Yeong’s insights (2013) also confirm Humberstone’s
(2011) argument that how one’s senses and body gives the expression for them to ‘know’ at the

29
personal, social, and political levels. The memories of one’s learning experiences reside in one’s
body. The body is capable of recollecting the different embodied experiences that are critical for
learning and sense-making later on. The body remembers the apprehension, the uneasiness, and
the tension in the muscles. The body records the discomfort, the fatigue, and the perspiration. The
body registers the fear, the distress, and the racing heartbeat. The body remembers the meaning of
success, ecstasy, and enjoyment after these emotions and feelings. These remembrances endure
as ‘true’ sentiments for as long as the body can recall. The bodily-based reflective learner surfaces
here. Consciousness translates into action when bodily-based reflections occur. These reflections
trigger or consolidate past feelings or emotions and meaning for new action and views to occur. This
is where transformation is significant.
In summary, the idea that whole body engagement is critical to the promotion of reflection and
transformation. The heart allows the flow of emotions and offers affective knowledge. The surfacing
of emotions is necessary to engage the mind. The mind engages the rational and logical reasoning
as one makes sense of emotions and feelings; thereby, offering itself as the basis for a cognitive
knowledge of the entirety of learning experiences. Consciousness translates into action when bodily-
based reflections are engaged. The physical body being the foundation and sensation ‘generator’
for the heart, and the mind offers the somatic knowledge. This is where Dirkx’s (1997, 2001) idea of
transformation as soul work surfaces. He argues that one’s beliefs derive largely from unconscious
inferences that one makes from their experiences in and with the physical world.
BODY TALK: THE USE OF EMBODIED EXPERIENCE IN PBL CLASSROOM
In PBL classrooms, teaching practices are guided by the principles of effective teaching and learning,
which includes the facilitation of reflection, promoting self-directed and collaborative learning, the
creation of a safe learning environment and the use of prior knowledge to guide meaning-making.
To let the ‘body’ talk, the author urges educators to consider the power of embodied experience
alongside these principles; and where possible, to incorporate such experiences into their classroom
practice. The following provides some suggestions for classroom practice:
1. Establish authentic relationships for a safe social learning environment
To establish an authentic and trusting relationship with students is to develop the students’
confidence to deal with learning on an affective level. Authentic relationships allow individuals to
question openly, share information freely, and achieve shared understanding. Without such positive
experiences, reflective thinking is feeble and hollow, lacking the genuine discourse necessary for
thoughtful and in-depth reflection (Taylor, 2006). I suggest that educators use explicit displays of
sincerity to establish authentic relationships and learning environment where learners feel safe to
participate. Let their ‘body’ talk.
2. Value individual and group experiences for the activation of prior knowledge
An individual’s experience consists of what each learner’s prior experiences and what s/he
experiences in the classroom. Both prior experiences and classroom experiences are valuable
teachable moments. They create an opportunity for reflective discourse, where learners critically
interrogate their unexamined assumptions, value judgments or expectations (Mezirow & Associates,
2000). Thus, I would like to suggest that educators exercise explicit acceptance and compassion
to assure learners that their prior knowledge or in-class experiences are being valued, that the
cognitive and affective tensions encountered are a natural part of the process of learning. Let their
‘body’ talk.
3. Develop awareness of context as the basis for effective facilitation and scaffolding
To develop an awareness of context is to deepen appreciation and understanding of the personal
and socio-cultural factors that influence the process of reflection. Several authors have proven that
contextual issues contribute to barriers inhibiting what is necessary for reflection and transformative
learning. Examples of these constraints can be time (Taylor, 2009), fixation with rules (Christopher,
Dunnagan, Duncan, & Paul, 2001), rigid role assignment (Taylor, 2003), and a culture of resistance

30
to technology (Whitelaw, Sears, & Campbell, 2004). Being attentive to these contextual concerns
offer educators potential “pedagogical entry points” (Lange, 2004, p. 129). Purposeful adjustments
of facilitation techniques or co-construction of scaffolding strategies with the learners can promote
deeper levels of dialogue and critical reflection for both learners and educators. Educators
should practice flexibility and inclusiveness, staying attentive to contextual barriers. They should
encourage the development of ownership in the facilitation and scaffolding strategies employed.
Let their ‘body’ talk.
4. Emphasise holistic engagement to encourage critical reflection
A holistic orientation to teaching promotes the engagement of other ways of knowing – the affective
and relational. Affective knowing, as was discussed earlier, is inherent in critical reflection. They
trigger the reflective process, promoting the questions of deeply held assumptions. Holistic
engagement means including opportunities for learners to experience presentational or expressive
ways of knowing. Yorks and Kasl (2006) emphasise that it is “about inviting ‘the whole person’
into the classroom environment, the person in fullness of being: As an affective, intuitive, thinking,
physical, spiritual self” (p. 46). It is about making the lesson alive! Educators could use music, arts,
photographs, movement, or anything that promotes multiple sensory engagements.
Educators could model creativity and emphatic connections of learners’ experiences through
expressive activities; for example, by storytelling or cooperative inquiry. Evoke experiences for
greater exploration, help learners become more aware of their feelings and their relationship in
sense making. Let their ‘body’ talk.
5. Adopt varied forms of reflection to promote self-directedness
Knowles (1975) describe self-directed learning as “a process in which [the] individuals take the
initiative, with or without the help of others, to diagnose their learning needs, formulate learning
goals, identify resources for learning, select and implement learning strategies, and evaluate learning
outcomes” (p.18). Here, the learner consciously accepts the responsibility to make decisions about
goals and effort; and is, hence, one’s own learning change agent. One can, therefore, say that
the main characteristic of self-directed learning is the degree to which the learner maintains active
control of the learning process.
To prepare learners to be self-directed is, therefore, to help them be concerned with why they learn
than with how or what to learn. To enhance the learner’s sense making experience in this area,
educators can consider the adoption of different types of reflection (Mezirow, 1995) as learning
tools: content (thinking back on what was done, perceive, think, feel, and act); process (considering
actions, origins and related factors); and premise (an awareness of why we perceive). Recently,
premise reflection has been purported as a form of reflection that learners need to be engaged
sooner and more often, for learning to be more meaningful (Kreber, 2004). Therefore, educators
should arouse curiosity and openness in learners, and allow their sense-making experience to find
for themselves the motivation and reasons for doing. Let their ‘body’ talk.
6. Engage in embodied dialogues as a form of assessment for learning
Assessment is always perceived to be a daunting task for both learners and educators. In PBL
classrooms, educators need to create opportunities for all learners to demonstrate their learning as
they engage in the process of learning. PBLeducators must provide timely and constructive feedback
to ensure that the learners can track their own learning. The term assessment is, more often than
not, perceived as a de-motivating element to learning. Yeong (2015) suggests that storytelling is not
only a tool for promoting student engagement, but also a powerful form of assessment as well. By
listening to the characteristics of lived and told stories, it is possible to assess the types of reflections.
Educators can then map these stories using Wildemeersch and Leirman’s (1988) proposed form
of dialogues to identify the depth of learning and reflection. Thus, educators could demonstrate
generosity and devotion in learners’ embodied dialogues to assess the depth of learning. Let their
‘body’ talk.

31
CONCLUSION AND REFLECTION
As a researcher of the doctoral study, I had the privilege to hear the words of the educators through
the interview process. Their stories (all of which rose from their embodied experiences) inspired me
much, as they told of how and why they became a believer in experiential education and acted upon
it. Beyond them, the admiration also comes from educators such as Green (1996a, 1996b), who
made the connection between the inner somatic sense and social consciousness. Educators have
to be prepared to work on their holistic awareness (Taylor, 2006), to create a learning environment
conducive to a whole person’s learning, modeling empathetic connections to and with learners’
experiences. As the ground for lived experiences, for knowing ourselves, our learners, and the
world we share, our bodies are basis for thinking and feeling as well as doing, that
whether we desire it or not, students live bodily in school […] Such lived experiences may
be productive of “understanding” or educative outcome, but only if we can become aware of
our educated bodies. Aesthetic experience, because it focuses on the senses, is particularly
well-positioned to aid us in coming to this experience[…] an experience that joins intellect
and body. (Blumenfeld-Jones, 1997, p. 3)
Therefore, I believe that all of the lessons I ‘teach’ in PBL curriculum can be taught through and
from the perspective of the ‘lived body’. This is to employ a pedagogy to help learners analyse
a situation through realisation, to reconstruct, to critically inquire, and to propose a solution to the
problem. Shapiro (1999) gave an example of the “critical pedagogy of the body […] where the body/
subject as a lived medium becomes part of the curriculum” (p. 142). She described how she created
a choreography in collaboration with her students, helping them used personal memory to create
movement while transforming their consciousness of who they are as women.
I am supportive of the suggestion to claim education of the ‘lived body’ as appropriate terrain for all
that draws on a learner’s experiences or prior knowledge. The focus is on inner sensory awareness,
which is studied by those in the field of somatics. The term somatic was described by Hanna (1988)
as a way of perceiving oneself from the “inside out, where one is aware of feelings, movement and
intentions, rather than looking objectively from the outside in” (p. 20). The experience begins with
the education of the senses. Seeing, hearing, and feeling from the inside is essential if one is to
appreciate any learning journey (Humberstone, 2011) or to be an effective PBL facilitator.
To be an effective facilitator, one has to be his own teacher. To be an effective facilitator is to create
forms, grounded in one’s lived experience, which express knowledge and meaning – forms that will
touch others. As a way forward, these discoveries of the lived-body revealed here should be taught
to youth. The youth who will be the innovative and critical thinking learners, educators, and PBL
supporters of the future. They are the ones who will be creating the education we live ‘with’ and the
world we live ‘in’.
REFERENCES
Abram, D. (1996). The spell of the sensuous: Perception and language in a more-than-human world.
New York: Vintage books.
Blumenfeld-Jones, D. S. (1997). Aesthetic experience, hermeneutics, and curriculum. Philosophy of
Education. Retrieved 10August, 2012, from http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/eps/PES-Yearbook/97_
docs/blumenfeld-jones.html
Bohm, D. (1985). Unfolding meaning: A weekend of dialogue with David Bohm. London: Routledge
& Kegan Paul.
Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985). Reflection: Turning experience into learning. London:
Kegan Page.
Butler, J. (1990). Gendern trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York:
Routledge Indent.

32
Christopher, S., Dunnagan, T., Duncan, S. F., & Paul, L. (2001). Education for self-support: Evaluating
outcomes using transformative learning theory. Family Relations, 50, 134-142.
Csordas, T. J. (1999). Embodiment and cultural phenomenology. In G. Weiss & H. F. Haber (Eds.),
Perspectives on embodiment: The intersections of nature and culture (pp. 143-162). New
York: Routledge.
Dewey, J. (1918). Introduction. In F. M. Alexander (Ed.), Man’s supreme inheritance (pp. xiii-xvii).
New York: Dutton.
Dewey, J. (1925). Experience and nature. United States of America: Open Court Publishing
Company.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative
process. Boston: Heath.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.
Dewey, J. (1988). John Dewey: The later works, 1925-1953. In J. Boydston, P. Baysinger & B.
Levine (Eds.), (Vol. I:1925). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Dirkx, J. M. (1997). Nurturing the soul in adult learning. In P. Cranton (Ed.), Transformative learning
in action: Insights from practice (pp. 79-88). San Franscisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Dirkx, J. M. (2001). Images, Transformative learning and the work of soul.
Adult Learning, 12(3), 15-16.
Gallagher, S. (2005). How the body shapes the mind. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Gendlin, E. T. (1962/1997). Experiencing and the creation of meaning: A philosophical and
psychological approach to the subjective. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Gendlin, E. T. (1992). The wider role of bodily sense in thought and language. In M. Sheets-Johnstone
(Ed.), Giving the body its due (pp. 192-207). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Green, J. (1996a). Choreographing a postmodern turn: The creative process and somatics. Impulse,
4(4), 267-275.
Green, J. (1996b). Moving through and against multiple paradigms: Postpositivist research in
somatics and creativity - Part II. Journal of Interdisciplinary Research in Physical Education,
1(2), 73-86.
Hanna, T. (1988). Somatics: Reawakening The Mind’s Control Of Movement, Flexibility, And Health
Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Hocking, B., Haskell, J., & Kinds, W. (2001). Unfolding bodymind: Exploring possibility through
education. Brandon, Vermont: Foundations for Educational Renewal.
Humberstone, B. (2011). Embodiment and social and environmental action in nature-based sport:
spiritual spaces. Leisure Studies, 30(4), 495-512.
Jordi, R. (2011). Reframing the concept of reflection: Consciousness, experiential leanring, and
reflective learning practices. Adult Education Quarterly, 61(2), 181-197.
Knowles, M. (1975). Self-directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers. New York:
Association Press.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

33
Kreber, C. (2004). An analysis of two models of reflection and their implications for educational
development. International Journal for Academic development, 9(1), 29-49.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to
Western thought. New York: Basic Books.
Lange, E. (2004). Transformative and restorative learning: A vital dialectic for sustainable societies.
Adult Education Quarterly, 54(2), 121-139.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). The phenomenology of perception. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Mezirow, J. (1995). Transformation theory of adult learning. In M. R. Welton (Ed.), In defense of the
lifeworld (pp. 39-70). New York: State University of New York Press.
Mezirow, J., & Associates. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in
progress. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.
Miettinen, R. (2000). The concept of experiential learning and John Dewey’s theory of reflective
thought and action. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 19(1), 54-72.
Moon, J. (1999). The place of reflection in learning. In J. Moon (Ed.), Reflection in learning &
professional development (pp. 152-161). Great Britain: Biddles Ltd.
O’Loughlin, M. (1995). Intelligent bodies and ecological subjectivities: Merleau-Ponty’s corrective to
postmodernism’s ‘subjects’ of education. Philosophy of Education. Retrieved 15 May, 2012,
from http://www.cpd1.ufmt.br/gpea/pub/o%27loughlin(MPonty).pdf
Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2013). Curriculum Design Curriculum: Foundations, principles,
and issues (6th ed.). United States of America: Pearson Education Inc.
Problem-based Learning Institute. (2015). Institutionalisation of PBL: Principles, Standards, and
Practical Considerations. Singapore: Republic Polytechnic.
Shapiro, S. B. (1999). Pedagogy and the politics of the body: A critical praxis. New York: Garland.
Shusterman, R. (2000). Performing live: Aesthetic alternatives for the ends of art. Ithaca: Cornell
University Press.
Taylor. E. W. (2003).Attending gradute school in adult education and the impact on teaching beliefs:A
logitudinal study. Journal of Transformative Education, 1(4), 349-368.
Taylor.E.W.(2006).Teachingforchange:Fosteringtransformativelearningintheclassroom(Vol.109).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Taylor. E. W. (2009). Fostering transformative learning. In J. Mezirow, E. Taylor & Associates (Eds.),
Transformative learning in practice: Insights from community, workplace, and higher
education (pp. 3-17). United States of America: John Wiley & Sons.
Thompson, E. (1996). The mindful body: Embodiment and cognitive science. In M. O’ donovan-
Anderson (Ed.), The incorporated self: Interdisciplinary perspectives on embodiment.
Lanham, Maryland: Rowan and Littlefield.
van Manen, M. (1977). Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical. Curriculum Inquiry,
6(3), 205-228.
Whitelaw, C., Sears, M., & Campbell, K. (2004). Transformative Learning in a faculty Professional
development Context. Journal of Transformative Education, 2(1), 9-27.

34
Wildemeersch, D., & Leirman, W. (1988). The facilitation of the lifeworld transformation. Adult
Education Quarterly, 39(1), 19-30.
Yeong, P. K. (2013). Fostering Transformative Learning: A phenomenological study into the lived
experience of reflection and transformation in adventure education. (Doctor of Philosophy
PhD), Monash University. Retrieved from http://arrow.monash.edu.au/vital/access/manager/
Repository/monash:110923?sort=ss_dateNormalized%5C
Yeong, P. K. (2015). Story pedagogy: Story and its wonder in sculpting lives. Reflections on PBL,
March 2015(15), 16-23.
Yorks, L., & Kasl, E. (2006). I know more than I can say: A taxonomy for using expressive ways of
knowing to foster transformative learning. Journal of Transformative Education, 4, 43-64.

35
Institutionalisation of PBL:
Principles, Standards, and Practical Considerations
Download a free PBL paper
Following the success of the 4th
PBL Symposium, we are sharing a paper “Institutionalisation of PBL:
Principles, Standards, and Practical Considerations” which articulates and documents the types
of institutional framework, support, and resources that should be in place in order to successfully
implement PBL in an evolving and sustainable manner.
You can download a copy from http://www.rp.edu.sg/11_PBL_Institute/PBL_Institute.aspx.
Problem-Based Learning Institute
The Problem-Based Learning Institute (PBLI) provides differentiated, PBL oriented training
programmes and consultancy services in the growing education market. Backed by rigorous research
in PBL and practical knowledge gleaned from actual implementation of the pedagogy across multiple
domains, the Institute is advantageously positioned to assist others who are interested in studying
and practising PBL.
PBLI Training Programmes
ThePBLItrainingprogrammesaimtointroduceparticipantsfromboththeeducationandthecorporate
sector to the principles of PBL, its philosophy as well as its practical applications. Participants can
look forward to a dynamic team-based learning environment to explore and infuse PBL in their
teaching or training endeavours.
Who should attend the training programmes?
Teachers, Trainers, Instructors, Facilitators, Academic Leaders, Head of Departments, Human
Resource Managers and Learning Design Managers.
Find us on:
http://www.rp.edu.sg/PBLI
https://twitter.com/PBLI_RP
pbli_enquiries@rp.edu.sg
http://instagram.com/pbli_rp
https://www.facebook.com/pblinstitute
Problem-Based Learning Institute

9 Woodlands Ave 9, Singapore 738964 Tel 6510 3000 www.rp.edu.sg
All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
Information is correct at time of print.
CED DEC/2015
ISSN: ISSN 2315-4942

FA_ReflectionsOnPBL_Dec2015_NoBleed

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (18)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to FA_ReflectionsOnPBL_Dec2015_NoBleed

Similar to FA_ReflectionsOnPBL_Dec2015_NoBleed (20)

FA_ReflectionsOnPBL_Dec2015_NoBleed