[ieee 2013 ieee international conference on teaching, assessment and learning for engineering (tale)...

Monitoring of Laboratory Work Problem Based Project Implementation

Roszilah Hamid Centre for Engineering Education Research

Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia

[email protected]

Shahrizan Baharom Dept. of Civil and Structural Engineering

Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia

[email protected]

Abstract— Prior to the implementation of problem based project laboratory work for “Material Technology” course, we had identified free riders and lack of understanding on the relationship between individual lab works with the problem to be solved. The students’ performances in problem solving and lack of understanding on the relationship between individual lab works with the problem to be solved is monitored on each cohort based on the relationship between the laboratory report marks and the final exam questions marks related to the lab work. It is found that free riders are reduced based on the monitoring of the relationship mentioned above.

Keywords—problem based learning project; laboratory work; free riders; implementation; monitoring.

I. INTRODUCTION

Experienced educators had proposed student-centered method instead of traditional teacher-centered method [1, 2] as the traditional teacher-centered delivery methods are not in line with the spirit of Outcome-Based Education (OBE), as described by ABET 2000 [3]. Thus we had made a vast revamping on the delivery method of some of the courses thought in our program as described in [4]. The teaching of the subject “Materials Technology” had resorted to problem-based learning method to achieve the outcomes attributed to this course [4]. “Materials Technology” course is offered to second year Civil Engineering students. The delivery on the course includes lectures and laboratory work. In the traditional delivery method, the content of the lab work required the student to conduct individual experiments and based on the experiments, the students submit individual report, even though the experiments are carried out by students in groups. We had identified that this way of handing laboratory work for this course had drawbacks, that is, there are students who copied their group member’s report without actually involve in carrying out the lab work even though they registered themselves as attending the lab session. These students are called free riders [4]. Another drawback is, as each individual lab work are done separately, the connection between each lab experiment with the actual practical problem that lead to the individual experiments is lost. Thus we had resorted to problem based laboratory work project as we had discussed elaborately in [4] and [5]. The handling of lab work using Project/Problem Based Learning (PBL) method is hoped to reduce the problem encountered in traditional way such as free riders and lack of

understanding on the relationship between individual lab works with the problem to be solved.

Since then, we had reported progress on the implementation of the PBL in laboratory work for this course [5]. We encountered difficulties and challenges. In the beginning, PBL sessions were impossible to implement throughout “Material Technology” course due to large class size and limited human resources [5]. Thus, gradual changes from the traditional method to the problem based project method for the laboratory work are practiced. Later, when we had some experiences in handling the PBL project for the lab work for a few years, we had tried to improve not only on the delivery, but also on the assessment methods and tools [6]. This paper reports on the monitoring of the implementation of the PBL project in terms of improvement in the problems we identified in the traditional way, that is, free riders and lack of understanding on the relationship between individual lab works with the problem to be solved. Free riders can also be defined as weak students who gain good marks in laboratory works just because they happened to be in good students group. Some students may actually involve in carrying out the experiments but they simply do not understand the relationship between individual lab works with the problem to be solved.

II. IMPLEMENTATION OF PBL IN LAB WORK

The experiments included in the “Materials Technology” are designed to help students understand the relationship between each experiment with the theory of concrete mix design method discussed in lecture sessions. The experiments include determination on the physical and mechanical properties of concrete components such as the specific gravity and percent absorption of fine and coarse aggregate [5]. These values are needed in the design of the mix. Then, students carry out the actual mixing and test the fresh and hardened properties of the concrete to determine whether the results are up to the design values. The list of individual experiment is given in Table 1[5].

A. Conventional Method in Conducting Lab Work The layout of the traditional laboratory work is described in

detail in [5] and here we present some of it again to make clear

978-1-4673-6355-6/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE 26-29 August 2013, Bali Dynasty Resort, Kuta, Indonesia2013 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment and Learning for Engineering (TALE)

Page 585

of how the layout of the traditional and PBL method contribute in helping students understand the relationship between each individual experiment with the actual practical problem in designing concrete. In conventional method of handling laboratory work for this course, students are divided into groups. The lists of each experiment amounting to five numbers are given to the students together with the laboratory manual. For each individual experiment, the objective, procedure and expected results to be determined are explained in the manual [5]. The students follow the procedures included in the manual directly under the instruction and supervision of laboratory demonstrators[5]. Later, the students report the data and results of the experiments and submit the group reports for each individual experiment. There is no specific problem given to the students to be solved. The list of individual experiment is given in Table 1 [5].

TABLE I. LIST OF INDIVIDUAL EXPERIMENT

Experiment No. Title

Lab1 Sieve analysis, determination of specific gravity and moisture content of fine aggregate

Lab 2 Determination of specific gravity and moisture content of the coarse aggregate

Lab 3 Wet concrete test

Lab 4 Hardened Concrete test for 7 days

Lab 5 Hardened Concrete test for 28 days

Source: [5]

B. Problem Based Learning Project Lab Work The descriptions on how the laboratory work was handled

through PBL method are described in detail in [5]. Here, the details are presented again as to make clear how the PBL method has been implemented. Concrete technology laboratory work was handled in the traditional way where students are given the laboratory manual, without knowing why each experiment is run and what is the relationship between the experiments with real engineering problems [5]. In 2007 the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, National University of Malaysia (UKM) has taken initiative to introduce problem based learning in concrete technology laboratory [5]. In Problem Based Learning Project Laboratory Work, each group is given a problem to design a concrete mix for a specific structural element in certain construction project as shown in Table 2[5]. The solutions require the students to determine the suitable grade of concrete, water cement ratio, slump and wet density of concrete. They have to prepare their own mix. After that, they have to test whether the concrete grade is equal to the grade designed. In order to carry out experiments, students need to follow certain standard procedure such as British (BSI) and American (ACI) [5].

TABLE II. LIST OF PROBLEMS FOR EACH GROUP

Problem No. Title

Prob1You are appointed as a site engineer for a bridge project. The sub structure will be exposed to high water saturation of sea water. As a site engineer you

Problem No. Title

need to give information for the mix design.

Prob 2

You are appointed as a site engineer for underground project. The structure will be permanently submerged in non-aggressive water. As a site engineer you need to give information for the mix design.

Prob 3

You are appointed as a site engineer for a project in coastal area. You need to prepare information for the mix design for the structure, which will be exposed to airborne salt but not in direct contact with seawater.

Prob 4

You are appointed as site engineer to construct a car park slab structure. The slab will be affected directlyby de-icing salts. You need to prepare information for mix design for the structure.

Prob 5

You are appointed as site engineer for project in coastal area. You need to prepare information for mix design for the structure, which will be permanently submerged in seawater.

Source [5]

Here we can see that the students are given a problem to be solved. They need to do the experiments to find the parameters needed to solve the problem. Here they can see the relationship of the laboratory experiments with the actual problem in designing the concrete mix proportion. This method is implemented and improved year after year since 2005 and the problems and challenges arise in implementing the PBL method had been discussed elsewhere [4, 5, 6].

The implementation of the PBL method is presented in detail in [5]. Another important issue is the assessment method. The final objective of the lab work is to obtain concrete strength as required in the problem given [5]. They have to test whether the concrete grade is equal to the grade designed. The objective is achieved if the difference of the design and actual concrete strength is within 5% [5]. However, there is high possibility where the result is outside the acceptable value. Problem based learning is an instructional method where students "learn to learn," working cooperatively in groups to seek solutions to real world problems. Due to this reason the students should not be panelized due to their final result. In order to consider the assessment of PBL lab, the whole process of this exercise was assessed using written reports from three stages, which were initial, interim and final [5]. Rubric was use in assessing all students’ reports [5. 6]. This approach enablesfacilitator to assess students’ performance constructively and reliably in problem-Based Learning (PBL). It should be noticed that the use of rubric would reflect authenticity in assessment.

III. MONITORING OF THE PBL IMPLEMENTATION

This paper is to observe and monitor the implementation of PBL in “Materials Technology” course as to whether the method had improved the problems in terms of students not understanding the relationship between the laboratory works with theories learned in lectures and to eliminate free riders. Two cohorts of students are compared in term of their marks for laboratory reports and the final examination questions (theories) related to the lab work. The first cohort refers to the students where they follow the conventional method of handling laboratory work and the second cohort refers to students following the PBL project lab work.


Page 586

A. Conventional Method in Conducting Lab Work The traditional way of handling the laboratory work is a

passive learning [4]. The problems encountered in traditional way of handling laboratory work had been discussed elsewhere [5].

Figure 1 shows the mark of each individual student’s laboratory report during a session where conventional method were practiced in conducting the laboratory work. It can be seen that the weak students could not be differentiated from the good students as the lab report marks varies only from 89% to 95% and the trend is similar for all five experiments. Figure 2 shows the total mark (average) of each student for all five lab reports.

Table 3 shows the laboratory report marks of 6 groups of students (latest session where PBL is implemented), who had the highest and lowest marks in the Laboratory work. It can be seen that the students scoring high for Lab had high marks as well in the final exam in a question related to the Lab Work (footnote a)(understand the relationship between individual lab works with the problem to be solved) are minimal whereas most of this good students scored low in their lab works. Green highlight (footnote b) shows that free riders had escape with good marks in laboratory and had boost their grade to B. Results shows that lab work does not help in students understanding the relationship between individual lab works with the problem to be solved and between lab work with theories.

Fig. 1. Individual student’s mark for Experiment No. 1.

Fig. 2. Individual student’s mark for the total of five experiments

TABLE III. RELATIONSIP BETWEEN LAB WORK MARKS WITH FINAL GRADE (COHORT 1)

Lab Work Marks /100

Q 1 (Final)

/20

Course work

overall marks/100

Final Grade

b93.6 7 69 Bb93.6 10 73 B+

93.6 20 74 B+ a93.6 16 76 A-

93.6 20 72 B+

93.4 19 67 Bb93.4 8 67 B

93.4 20 74 B+ a93.4 20 81 Aa93.4 - 77 A- a93.4 18 79 A-

93.4 20 72 B+

93.4 - 69 B

93.4 20 68 B

93.4 7 76 A-

93.4 18 74 B+

93.4 10 68 BBottom 3

groups 90 - 62 B- b90 20 87 A

90 18 71 B+

90 - 71 B+ b89.8 20 82 Aa89.8 4 65 Bb89.8 20 84 Ab89.8 20 77 A- b89.8 20 81 A

89.8 13 69 B

89.8 - 69 B b89.8 20 74 B+ a89.8 5 52 C

89.8 12 70 B+ a. Good student good lab work mark, vice versab. Weak student good lab work mark, vice versa 87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53

Total lab report marks

Total lab report marks

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52

Marks of each students for Experiment 1

Experiment 1

Students

Mar

ks (%

)

Students

Mar

ks (%

)


Page 587

B. Problem Based Learning Project Lab Work Table 4 shows the laboratory report marks of 6 groups of

students (latest session where PBL is implemented), who had the highest and lowest marks in the Laboratory work. It can be seen that the students scoring high for Lab had high marks as well in the final exam in three questions related to the Lab Work (understand the relationship between individual lab works with the problem to be solved). The maximum score for each question is 20. Green highlight shows that free riders had escape with good marks in laboratory and had boost their grade to B but this number has been reduced in this cohort. Yellow highlight shows that good students had become victim in poor groups, but this number is also reduced for this cohort. The assessment method as discussed in [6] had also improved in differentiating good students from weak students as can be seen from the wider ranges of marks. We concluded that the students’ performances in problem solving and their lack of understanding on the individual lab work with the problem to be solved by this observation only. We are trying to quantify the relationship between the marks of the laboratory report and the marks of the final exam questions related to the lab work in our future paper for each cohort and analyzing them statistically.

TABLE IV. RELATIONSIP BETWEEN LAB WORK MARKS WITH FINAL GRADE (COHORT 2)

Lab Work Marks

/100

Q 1 (Final)

/20

Q 2 (Final)

/20

Q 3 (Final)

/20

Average (Q1, 2 &

3)

Final Grade

95.2 8 19 7 11.3 B+ b95.2 0 11 4 5 B

95.2 12 2 9 7.7 B

95.2 2 15 12 9.7 A-

92.9 10.5 13 7 10.2 A-a92.9 17.5 15 11 14.5 A

92.9 13.5 4 12 9.8 B+

92.9 12 16 5 11 B+ a92.9 12 11 13 12 A-b92.9 2 13 7 7.3 B

92.9 8 15 4 9 B+

92.9 17 8 3 9.3 B+

92.9 9 14 13 12 A-Bottom 3 groups a66.7 0 2 4 2 Cc66.7 12 20 11 14 A-

66.7 15.5 5 6 8.8 B-

66.7 12 6 3 7 B-

66.7 15 8 7 10 B

64.3 5 15 10 10 B+

Lab Work Marks

/100

Q 1 (Final)

/20

Q 2 (Final)

/20

Q 3 (Final)

/20

Average (Q1, 2 &

3)

Final Grade

64.3 11 15 9 11 B

64.3 2.5 0 12 4.8 C+ a64.3 0 0 5 1.7 C-

61.9 1 12 3 5.3 C+

61.9 2 0 6.5 2.8 Cc61.9 19 17 5.5 13.8 B+

61.9 5 17 10 10.7 B-

61.9 10 4 6.5 6.8 C-c. Good students become victim of grouping method

IV. CONCLUSION

The students’ performances in problem solving and lack of understanding on the relationship between individual lab works with the problem to be solved is monitored on each cohort based on the relationship between the laboratory report and the final exam questions related to the lab work. It is found that the problems encountered in traditional way of handling laboratory work such as free riders and lack of understanding on the relationship between individual lab works with the problem to be solved is reduced. Year after year, we are trying to improve the situation where zero free riders can be achieved and students understand the relationship between individual lab works with the problem to be solved.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors acknowledge the financial support from Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia through grant PTS-2012-005.

REFERENCES

[1] Bower, K. C., Mays, T. W. and Miller, C. M., Small Group, Self-Directed Problem Based Learning Development in a Traditional Engineering Program, 34th. ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Oct. 20-23, 2004, pp. S 1B 16-21.

[2] Vandebona, U. and Attard, M. M. A Problem-based Learning Approach in a Civil Engineering curriculum. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education, Vol.1, No.1, 2002, pp. 99-102.

[3] ABET. Criteria for accrediting Engineering Program. www.abet.org (23 Dec. 2008).

[4] R. Hamid, K. M. Yusof, S. A. Osman, R. A. O. K. Rahmat, “Improvement of Delivery Methods in Teaching Materials Technology,”WSEAS Transactions on Advances in Engineering Education, Issue 3, Volume 6, pp.77-86. March 2009.

[5] S. Baharom, R. Hamid, N. Hamzah, Development of a Problem Based Learning in Concrete Technology Laboratory Work, UKM Teaching and Learning Congress 2011, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 60 (2012 ) pp.8 – 13.

[6] R. Hamid, S. Baharom, N. Hamzah, W. H. W. Badaruzzamana, R. A. O.K. Rahmat, M. R. Taha, Assessment of Psychomotor Domain in Materials Technology Laboratory Work, International Conference on Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (ICTLHE 2012) in conjunction with RCEE & RHED 2012, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol 56 ( 2012 ), pp.718 – 723.


Page 588

[ieee 2013 ieee international conference on teaching, assessment and learning for engineering (tale)...

Documents