100% PBL curriculum: Startup phase complete

In 2010, a new 100% PBL curriculum was started as the result of an economic development initiative and the dissatisfaction with the traditional engineering education model, The program was adapted from the Aalborg University model of PBL. The curriculum attributes include industry sponsored design projects, self-directed learning, emphasis on continuous development of professional skills. There are no lectures. Students acquire technical knowledge in the context of the project. This program is now in its 10th semester. It has achieved accreditation through ABET-EAC. Data has been collected on the satisfaction of both the graduates and their supervisors with regard to their abilities to perform across the spectrum of expectations in engineering practice. The paper will address the current structure of the curriculum, the trajectory it followed from startup to present, and evaluate the model using data collected on student development and attitudes. The authors will connect the curriculum design to learning theory and curriculum theory. They will address implementation and evolution with regards to change theory. A complete description of the continuous improvement model will be discussed.

[1]  J. Kotter.  Leading change: why transformation efforts fail , 2009, IEEE Engineering Management Review.

[2]  Thomas A. Litzinger,et al.  A New Model of Project-Based Learning in Engineering Education , 2011 .

[3]  R. Daft.  A Dual-Core Model of Organizational Innovation , 1978 .

[4]  Xiangyun Du,et al.  Gendered practices of constructing an engineering identity in a problem-based learning environment , 2006 .

[5]  Keith Plemmons.  Application of Pedagogy or Andragogy: Understanding the Differences between Student and Adult Learners , 2006 .

[6]  Sheri Sheppard,et al.  Educating Engineers: Designing for the Future of the Field. Book Highlights. , 2008 .

[7]  John Cowan,et al.  On Becoming an Innovative University Teacher , 1998 .

[8]  Pm Jenkinson,et al.  Cognitive , 2020, Definitions.

[9]  P. Kuhl,et al.  The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences: Foundations and Opportunities for an Interdisciplinary Science of Learning , 2005 .

[10]  Ruth Graham,et al.  The One Less Traveled By: The Road to Lasting Systemic Change in Engineering Education , 2012 .

[11]  G. G. Stokes.  "J." , 1890, The New Yale Book of Quotations.

[12]  P. Blackmore,et al.  Strategic curriculum change , 2012 .

[13]  M. Fullan.  Leading in a Culture of Change , 2001 .

[14]  Jennifer Turns,et al.  Constructing Professional Portfolios: Sense‐Making and Professional Identity Development for Engineering Undergraduates , 2011 .

[15]  Anette Kolmos.  Facilitating change to a problem-based model , 2002 .

[16]  J. Bransford.  How people learn , 2000 .

[17]  Wim Jochems,et al.  Development of an engineering identity in the engineering curriculum in Dutch higher education: an exploratory study from the teaching staff perspective , 2013 .

[18]  P. Pintrich,et al.  Reliability and Predictive Validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (Mslq) , 1993 .

[19]  Anette Kolmos,et al.  Management of change : Implementation of problem-based and project-based learning in engineering , 2007 .

[20]  Mark Schumack,et al.  Implementation of service-learning in engineering and its impact on students’ attitudes and identity , 2008 .

[21]  Amanda Hayes.  Teaching Adults , 1967, Nature.

[22]  L. Guglielmino.  Development of the self-directed learning readiness scale , 1977 .

[23]  Toni Kempler Rogat,et al.  Motivation in Collaborative Groups , 2013 .

[24]  Aaas News,et al.  Book Reviews , 1893, Buffalo Medical and Surgical Journal.

[25]  Reed Stevens,et al.  Becoming an Engineer: Toward a Three Dimensional View of Engineering Learning , 2008 .

[26]  Toni M. Kempler,et al.  The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences: Motivation and Cognitive Engagement in Learning Environments , 2005 .

[27]  J. Flavell.  Metacognition and Cognitive Monitoring: A New Area of Cognitive-Developmental Inquiry. , 1979 .

[28]  A T Adams,et al.  Educating the engineers , 1992 .

[29]  N. Augustine.  Rising Above The Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future , 2006 .

[30]  P. Paul Heppner,et al.  The development and implications of a personal problem-solving inventory , 1982 .

[31]  Aditya Johri,et al.  Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research: Engineering Thinking and Knowing , 2013 .

[32]  Daniel S. Isbell,et al.  Learning Theories , 2012, Strategic Training and Development.

[33]  Flemming Kobberøe Fink,et al.  The Aalborg PBL model : progress, diversity and challenges , 2004 .

[34]  Morten Knudsen,et al.  Project-based Collaborative learning in distance education in "The Aalborg PBL Model Progress, Diversity and Challenges" (Eds.: Anette Kolmos, Flemming K. Fink and Lone Krogh) , 2004 .

[35]  N. Rose.  The Cambridge Handbook of The Learning Sciences , 2007, British Journal of Psychiatry.

[36]  Jonathan Stolk,et al.  The Four‐Domain Development Diagram: A Guide for Holistic Design of Effective Learning Experiences for the Twenty‐first Century Engineer , 2009 .

[37]  Karan Watson,et al.  Good educational experiments are not necessarily good change processes , 2000, 30th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference. Building on A Century of Progress in Engineering Education. Conference Proceedings (IEEE Cat. No.00CH37135).

[38]  Susan R. Singer,et al.  Discipline-Based Education Research: Understanding and Improving Learning in Undergraduate Science and Engineering. , 2012 .

[39]  A. Collins,et al.  Cognition and learning. , 1996 .