A presentation at the 3rd International Research Symposium on Problem-Based Learning, 28-29 November 2011, Coventry University, UK

1. Large-scale integrated project for built
environment undergraduate students:
a case study
Steve Austin
Ursula Rutherford
John W Davies
Coventry University, UK
29/11/2011 Introduction 1

2. Introduction
• Aim:
– compare the intent with the experience
• Research methods:
– Observation by an independent researcher
– Interviews with students (n=22) and staff (n=8)
– Anonymous student feedback (full cohort)
29/11/2011 Introduction 2

3. Background
Activity led learning (ALL):
“Engaging students through challenges
requiring them to develop and apply their
technical and scientific knowledge, whilst
simultaneously developing their team
working, leadership, problem solving and
life-long learning skills.”
Wilson-Medhurst and Glendinning (2009)
29/11/2011 Introduction 3

4. Background
18 weekly
sessions 3 phases
Integrated Project (IP) for 210 final year students
Civil engineering
Structural engineering
Architectural technology
Building surveying
6 Multi-
Construction management
meeting disciplinary
rooms groups
29/11/2011 Introduction 4

5. Intent: Learning outcomes
Technical
• Diagnose client requirements
• Produce detailed design solution
• Undertake technical design
• Demonstrate project management strategies
• Monitor costs
• Produce tender documentation
29/11/2011 Intent 5

6. Intent: Learning outcomes
Personal and Professional
• Develop visual and verbal communication skills for
the professional arena
• Develop a critical approach to study skills through
team work and continuous personal improvement
• Demonstrate good professional practice as a
reflective and conscientious student
• Manage and control personal and professional
development
• Review personal and professional development for
future uses
29/11/2011 Intent 6

7. Intent: Teaching methods
• Synthesis of technical knowledge and skills
taught in other technical modules
• Project brief presents a major scenario-based
building design and construction project from
inception through to tender
• Real-world artefacts (site reports, plans, visit)
• Teamwork • 30% part-time students
(with full-time jobs in the industry)
• Industrial experience
• 17% overseas students (placement or a year out)
(English as a 2nd language) • Mature students with work experience
• <5% female students
29/11/2011 Intent 7

8. Intent: Assessment methods
3 phases, each comprising:
Presentations Peer and self
Technical • Audio-visual assessment
tasks • Exhibition • 10%  50%
29/11/2011 Intent 8

9. Experience
29/11/2011 Experience 9

10. Experience
Challenges Challenges
for students for staff
Student
Responses
feedback
29/11/2011 Experience 10

11. Experience: Challenges for students
• Lack of time
• Over-working
• Group marks •Non-contributing members
•Late work
• Description of tasks not clear •Lack of knowledge
•Poor English (written/spoken)
• Multi-disciplinary groups •Domineering leaders
•Insufficient collaboration
• Group management •Unequal workloads
•Misunderstandings
•Personality clashes
• Peer assessment ‘unfair’
29/11/2011 Experience

12. Experience: Challenges for staff
• Consistency of advice
• Rotating staff
• Over-reliance on module leaders
• Marking burden
• Timely feedback
29/11/2011 Experience 12

13. Experience: Student feedback
Statement Week 5 end
Staff teaching on this module are good at explaining things
68% 73%
clearly
Staff teaching on this module make the subject interesting 52% 69%
Staff teaching on this module are enthusiastic about what they
68% 78%
are teaching
The module is intellectually stimulating and engaging 60% 73%
The materials used by the staff have enhanced my learning 47% 67%
Staff teaching on this module are well prepared 65% 76%
The assessment requirements on this module are clear 64% 70%
Feedback on any returned work has been useful to develop my
69% 75%
understanding of the module content
Staff teaching on this module are available when they say they
69% 87%
will be
Overall the quality of this module is satisfactory 64% 80%
29/11/2011 Experience 13

14. Experience: Responses to feedback
• End rotation of teaching assistants
• Teaching assistants briefed earlier
• Staff available by appointment
• Staff available by email
• Pre-submission checks
29/11/2011 Experience 14

15. The future
• Smaller companies and more choice by students in their
allocation to companies
• An extended initial period for company formation
• Involvement of the TAs as (bookable) specialist consultants
to the companies
• Marking load of module leaders shared with TAs
• Review of the work load for students
• Variation of tasks for different companies according to the
spread of disciplines within them
• More individualisation of marks for students within the
companies
• Credit for technical tasks to be attributed to other modules
• More advice on team management
29/11/2011 Conclusions 15

16. Other papers
• Huichun Li and Lars Bo Henriksen How we implement PBL in a
university: two case studies
• Mike Young, Steve Austin and John Davies Peer support in practical
activity-led learning
• Diana Stentoft Bridging disciplines through problem based learning
• Prue Howard and Matt Eliot A strategic framework: assessing
individual student learning in team-based subjects
• Gordon Lindsay Alcock and Henrik Blyt Quantifying reflection –
developing reflective competencies by profiling student reflection
on their learning gains in the initial stages of collaborative PBL
learning
• David Trujillo Peer-assessment and group-composition in PBL: a
case study
29/11/2011 Conclusions 16

17. Large-scale integrated project for built environment
undergraduate students: a case study
Any questions?
Steve Austin
Ursula Rutherford
John W Davies
29/11/2011 Conclusions 17