Ill-structured problem solving in a workplace simulation environment: challenges of the learning experience and skills developed Marija Božić
Dragana Šumarac Pavlović and Jelena Ćertić
Telekom Srbija; PhD Program in Environmental Education Autonomous University of Barcelona Barcelona, Spain
[email protected]
Department of Telecommunications School of Electrical Engineering, University of Belgrade Belgrade, Serbia
M. Teresa Escalas Tramullas
Svetlana Čizmić
Department of Didactics of Mathematics and Experimental Sciences Autonomous University of Barcelona Barcelona, Spain
Department of Psychology Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade Belgrade, Serbia Abstract—Engineering workplace problems are complex and ill-structured. Students should be faced with this kind of problems during their studies in order to be better prepared for the workplace. However, there is still little evidence on the strategies to support students’ learning during workplace problem solving. The general objective of our on-going research is to identify teaching strategies that would best support students in solving ill-structured problems while preparing them to step into the work environment after graduating from the conventional engineering curricula. To this end we designed the professional practice course for final year Information and Communication Technology (ICT) engineering students. Educational principles applied include problem and project based learning, workplace simulation and experiential learning. In this paper we describe the research design that centers on determining the challenges that students perceive during different phases of ill-structured problem solving process, with relationship to their learning styles and skills development. Keywords—ill-structured problems; teaching workplace simulation; engineering practice
I.
strategies;
INTRODUCTION
Engineering practice means solving workplace problems that are complex and ill-structured, and students should be faced with this kind of problem solving during their studies in order to be adequately prepared for the industry [1]. The need for the engineering curricula to comprise training in problem solving and soft skills in order to achieve competencies for engineering practice has been emphasized by professional engineering bodies dedicated to the education and accreditation worldwide (such as ABET, FEANI, IEAust). In Serbia, where the conventional engineering curricula are taught at most universities, this need has been recognized by the academy, industry and students themselves [2].
978-1-4673-5261-1/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE
It has been shown that learning experiences that best support the development of expert professional practice include those where students engage in authentic engineering projects [3]. Providing feedback on the learning processes is crucial for students to understand what they can do well, and what they need to improve. Preparation for future engineering work should also include fostering competencies for problem solving, independent and collaborative learning by using complex ill-structured real world problems in a problem based learning setting [4]. Literature on problem-based and projectbased learning is comprehensive (e.g. [5][6]), with abundant examples of implementation practices (e.g. [7]). However, the research on how to design courses in order to support student engagement and learning during illstructured problem solving in engineering is still limited [8] [9]. One of the few studies conducted with this objective is a longitudinal study conducted with 130 first-year engineering students [10]. This study identified the most salient out of the set of 6 pre-defined challenges that were experienced by students during design problem solving. These challenges appear as overlapping waves during a design task. Another study investigated students’ difficulties in solving ill-structured problems on a smaller scale of 10 students in first-year computer programming course and found that students present difficulties in the interpretation of the problem, formulating questions to enlighten the problem, analyzing the problem constraints and registering effectively the new problem information [11]. Understanding well the issues and challenges during illstructured problem solving and the pedagogical strategies to deal with them is crucial to producing effective instructional designs for teaching and learning in the context of preparing students for the workplace. In order to confirm issues identified in previous studies, and to further explore them in the context of workplace problem solving we designed and implemented
the Project planning and organization in engineering practice course at the School of Electrical Engineering of the University of Belgrade. The general objective of our research is to identify best teaching strategies to prepare students to enter the work environment immediately after graduating from the conventional engineering curricula. For our research we chose the action research approach as an active investigative method which enables its participants to take part in a dynamic educational process, with the aim of strategic improvement of practice [12]. In the iterative process we focus on collecting evidence about the extent to which the practice is consistent with the pedagogical aims, identify inconsistencies between the aims and the practice and reframe both the research and practice for the next research cycle. Action research thus integrates research and practice into one process by generating and testing new forms of action and reflexively guiding the pedagogical enquiry. In the first phase of our research we identified major challenges that students encounter during the problem solving process and opportunities students perceive as a result of this learning experience [13]. The challenges found included: a) where do I start? Defining the ill-structured problem; b) learning to ask questions in requirements gathering; c) connecting theory and practice; d) self-guided study and information gathering; e) facing the reality: site survey; f) dealing with ambiguity; g) dealing with constraints and tradeoffs; h) learning to communicate clearly; i) dealing with failure. The findings of the first phase were based on the qualitative data collected during three ten-week courses with participation of 46 final year telecommunications engineering students. As a result of the first phase of our research some questions were raised that we intend to explore in the next phases of the research. In this article we present the research design for the second phase of our action research that centers on examining main challenges that mark different phases of ill-structured problem solving process, and the corresponding skills development as perceived by students. We also examine any relationship they may have to the students’ learning styles. II.
DESCRIPTION OF THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT
The Project planning and organization in engineering practice course is designed in such a way to resemble the realworld situations that are particularly found in small and medium enterprises (SME) where an engineer is often required to combine the roles of a system designer and project manager in different phases of the product or service development. Course objectives include experiencing and fostering processes of project planning, organization and basic systems engineering design, while developing problem solving, teamwork, communication, presentation and idea generation skills. Educational principles applied include problem-based and project-based learning, with an emphasis on constructivist approach to learning [14] and experiential learning inspired by Kolb [15]. The simplified reality of the workplace and its essential functions are represented through a role-play simulation.
Kolb’s experiential learning theory emphasizes the central role that experience plays in the learning process, claiming that knowledge is created through the transformation of experience [15]. According to this theory, learners need four abilities for effective learning: a) concrete experience, b) reflective observation, c) abstract conceptualization, and d) active experimentation. On this basis Kolb identified four prevalent types of learning styles that can be determined using Kolb Learning Styles Inventory (LSI) and that can determine the ways students respond to different teaching strategies. Role play simulation is an effective technique that facilitates teaching and learning of professional skills supporting the process of preparing engineering students for entering the industry [16]. In our student-centered approach the instructor (the first author) is a facilitator of learning, she works with students on the creation and development of knowledge and skills, guides and stimulates discussion and monitors group processes. The emphasis is not on teaching content, but on guiding students in their experience of “how to work”. The students own the problem; they find solutions by themselves with minimal help but with an always present and supportive instructor. In the role play the instructor takes the roles of client, boss, subcontractors or any other third party that needs to be covered. Real suppliers are contacted throughout the course but in the absence of their feedback the instructor takes their role too. The course is organized in three- and four-hour classes and lasts a total of 80 hours. Students are divided in teams of 35 to work on a project with the task of presenting a wireless system proposal in response to a tender, including preliminary design of the system, detailed project plan and final budget for design, supply, installation and commissioning of the system. III.
RESEARCH DESIGN
Based on the first phase of our research, following research objectives were identified for the second phase of our the study: (1) to explore what are the challenges that students perceive as the most important during different phases of the ill-structured problem solving process; (2) to examine students’ perceptions on the skills that they develop in different phases of the learning experience; (3) to determine if their skills development and challenges perception are related to their learning styles (4) to re-define teaching strategies based on the results (1-3). The participants of the second phase will be15 to 20 final year students in the summer semester 2012/2013. The research is a mixed-method research. It combines qualitative and quantitative research as defined by Creswell and described in [17] where qualitative and quantitative data are collected concurrently or sequentially, are given a priority, and involve the integration of the data at one or more stages in the process of research. We shall use some of the instruments from the first phase of the study: protocols for structured participant observation, open-ended questionnaires, scaled-type surveys for overall skills development and Kolb LSI for learning styles. Additional instruments that are created for this phase include challenges
and skills lists that were developed based on the results of the first phase of the research and tested in the pilot study [13]. Students will be asked to fill in their perception of the major challenges and levels of skills development in the challenges and skills lists that they will fill in every two classes (corresponding to 7-8 hours of project work). In the challenges list students will select and prioritize (from 1 to 5) five greatest challenges that they faced in the previous period. Skills list is a scaled list where they will select the level (from 1 to 10) of their skills development in the same period. Collected data will be analyzed applying qualitative and quantitative data analysis. Qualitative analysis will include analysis of the open-ended questionnaires and participant observation protocols filled in during field work. Quantitative analysis will include analysis of the scaled type surveys, Kolb LSI and challenges and skills lists. IV.
EXPECTED RESULTS
With this study we hope to contribute to the research on how to support students during ill-structured problem solving process, that has been called for in the literature and on previous FIE Conferences [8][9]. Our goal is to determine major challenges students perceive during ill-structured workplace problem solving and corresponding skills that students develop. We hope to obtain results that could inform future research regarding the relationship between students’ learning styles and challenges students encounter or skills they develop in the problem solving process, with the general objective of defining teaching strategies that would best support students while preparing them for engineering practice.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors would like to acknowledge support of the School of Electrical Engineering and Department of Telecommunications that made this research possible. We owe special thanks to all the students that participated in the research and to Hay Group for the research grant that allowed us the use of Kolb Learning Styles Inventory. This paper forms part of the Interuniversity Doctoral Program in Environmental Education of the Autonomous University of Barcelona and of the “Identification, measurement and development of the cognitive and emotional competences important for a Europeoriented society” project.
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
REFERENCES [1]
[2]
Sheppard, Sheri, Anne Colby, Kelly Macatangay, and William Sullivan. 2006. “What Is Engineering Practice ?.” International Journal of Engineering Education 22 (3): 429–438. Kutlača, Djuro, and Vojin Šenk. 2007. “Re-thinking the Curricula for Electrical Engineering Education in Serbia – Case of the Autonomy
[16]
[17]
Province of Vojvodina.” In Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Education – ICEE 2007. Coimbra, Portugal. Litzinger, Thomas A., Lisa R. Lattuca, Roger G. Hadgraft, and Wendy C. Newstetter. 2011. “Engineering Education and the Develoment of Expertize.” Journal of Engineering Education 100 (1): 123–150. Jonassen, David, Johannes Strobel, and Chwee Beng Lee. 2006. “Everyday Problem Solving in Engineering : Lessons for Engineering Educators.” Journal of Engineering Education 95 (2): 139–151. Perrenet, J. C., P. A. J. Bouhuijs, and J. G. M. M. Smits. 2000. “The Suitability of Problem-based Learning for Engineering Education: Theory and Practice.” Teaching in Higher Education 5 (3) (July): 345– 358.. Graaff, Erik D E, and Anette Kolmos. 2003. “Characteristics of Problem-Based Learning.” International Journal of Engineering Education 19 (5): 657–662. Hadgraft, Roger G. 2005. “Integrating Engineering Education – Key Attributes of a Problem-based Learning Environment.” In 4th ASEE/AAEE Global Colloquium on Engineering Education. Australasian Association of Engineering Education, 2005, ed. David Radcliffe and Josh Humphries. Brisbane, Qld. Daniels, Mats, Angela Carbone, Amie Hauer, and Dan Moore. 2007. “Panel - Ill-Structured Problem Solving in Engineering Education.” In 37th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, October 10 - 13, 2007, Milwaukee, WI. Purzer, Senay, and Jonathan C. Hilpert. 2011. “Special Session Cognitive Processes Critical for Ill-Defined Problem Solving : Linking Theory , Research , and Classroom Implications.” In Proceedings of the 41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Rapid City, SD. Purzer, Senay, Jonathan C. Hilpert, and Ruth E. H. Wertz. 2011. “Cognitive Dissonance During Engineering Design.” In Proceedings of the 41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Rapid City, SD. Mendonca, Andrea, Clara De Oliveira, Dalton Guerrero, and Evandro Costa. 2009. “Difficulties in Solving Ill-Defined Problems: A Case Study with Introductory Computer Programming Students.” In Proceedings of the 39th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. San Antonio, TX. O’Hanlon, Christine. 1996. “Why Is Action Research a Valid Basis for Professional Development?” In Teacher Education Policy: Some Issues Arising from Research and Practice, ed. Rob Mc Bride. London: Falmer press. Božić, Marija, Svetlana Čizmić, Dragana Šumarac-Pavlović, and M. Teresa Escalas-Tramullas. 2013. “Problem-based Learning in Telecommunications: Internship-like Course Bridging the Gap Between the Classroom and the Industry.” (unpublished). Jonassen, David, Dan Cernusca, and Gelu Ionas. 2007. “Constructivism and Instructional Design: The Emergence of the Learning Sciences and Design Research.” In Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology, ed. R.A. Riser and J.V. Dempsey. 2nd Ed. Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice-Hall. Kolb, D.A. 1984. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. NJ: Prentice Hall. Andersson, Niclas, and Pernille Hammar Andersson. 2010. “Teaching Professional Engineeering Skills - Industry Participation in Realistic Role-play Simulation.” In Proceedings of the 6th International CDIO Conference, École Polytechnique. Montréal, June 15-18. Borrego, Maura, Elliot P Douglas, and Catherine T. Amelink. 2009. “Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Research Methods in Engineering Education.” Journal of Engineering Education 98 (1): 53–66
