2009 International Conference on Engineering Education (lCEED 2009), December 7-8, 2009, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

A Preliminary Study on the Learning Style of

Civil Engineering Students in Malaysia

K.M.Ismail & M. Puteh

International Campus, UTM

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

kamsiah@citvcampus.utm.my, marlia@citvcampus.utm.my

Abstract - There is a need to address the issues of curriculum structure and course innovation in order to meet the expectation of stake holders. Engineering education has to take into account the emerging trend and rising challenges demand graduate engi­neers to be well-prepared to provide an innovative solution which is long term and sustaining to foster and support life-long learn­ing. The quality of human resource is among the important fac­tors which will determine the pace and success of a country's transition towards the knowledge-based economy. This is in re­sponse to the government's call towards developing competent engineers to support the Malaysian recent human resource policy and in view of the emergence of a multi-disciplinary and multi­mode education confronting the Malaysian education practice. This creates a challenge for engineering education to promote a broad-based undergraduate program to secure easy mobility and flexibility for the graduates to adapt to these new and revolutio­nary technologies. Ultimately, engineering education has to re­flect on the emerging trend and rising challenges which demand graduate engineers to be equipped with long-term innovative so­lutions and ready to embark on life-long learning. It is therefore crucial that institutions of higher learning address this issue of engineering education curriculum in order to meet the expecta­tions of the stakeholders. This paper seeks to examine the current status of a design course embedded in an engineering curriculum for the undergraduate civil engineering course in Malaysian uni­versities. It will give an account on the implementation of the cur­rent curriculum for a design course and how it is consistent with the government's policy. This paper will also investigate the strategies of enhancing the teaching and learning approaches of a design subject and propose several pedagogical measures in im­proving the existing civil engineering curriculum.

Keywords-component ; design; learning styles; engineering education.

I INTRODUCTION

With the complexity of surrounding every project design need the creativity and innovation to address the big issues facing civilization. Design is a complex and intellectual activi­ty. It recognizes design both as a practice and a way of think­ing. Design education would be expected to give learners an opportunity to engage in design as an activity. Design is both theory and practice.

The Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) defmes the engineering design as the process of

978-1-4244-4844-9/09/$25.00 ©2009 IEEE 87

S. Mohamed

Civil Engineering Faculty, UTM

Skudai, 10hor Bahru, Malaysia

shahrin@fka.utm.my

devising a system, component or process to meet desired needs[1]. It is a decision-making process (often iterative), in which the basic sciences, mathematics, and engineering sciences are applied to convert resources optimally to meet a stated objective. Among the fundamental elements of the design process are the establishment of objectives and criteria, synthesis, analysis, construction, testing, and evaluation".

While Dym [2] defined an engineering design as a syste­matic, intelligent process in which designers generate, eva­luate, and specify concepts for devices, system, or processes whose form and function achieve clients' objectives or users needs while satisfying a specified set of constraints.

Neeley's [3] defmition of an engineering design is a syste­matic, intelligent process in which designers generate, eva­luate, and specify concepts for devices, systems, or processes whose form and function achieve clients' objective or users' needs while satisfying a specified set of constraints shows that engineers are not commonly perceived as creative profession­als. Indeed, engineering is a creative profession, yet few courses in the standard engineering curriculum require or even encourage creativity [4].

At UTM, design courses are lecture-based and it is inte­grated with a project-based problems that amounted to 20% of the total course. Of the total 134 credits for undergraduate civ­il engineering curriculum, 9 credits are allocated for engineer­ing design courses [5].

II STATUS OF DESIGN COURSE AND CHALLENGES

Design is one of the most fundamental, identifiable and en­joyable aspects of engineering practice, whether in industry or the academy. Nevertheless, while the importance of design is widely acknowledged, there is discord associated with efforts to define it. The challenge is not that we lack a definition of design but that we have them in abundance.

The ABET design checkmark designation says nothing about the proportion of a class' content that is design. The as­sumption that classes designated as design represented sub­stantial design exposure for the students and it is difficult to identify exactly what portion of the content was actually de­sign. An even greater concern is the degree to which some

2009 International Conference on Engineering Education (lCEED 2009), December 7-8, 2009, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

'bits' of design taught by educators serve to create a complete design educational experience over the course of a students' academic undergraduate career. The sum of design courses may actually be less than the whole [3].

Design has been an important part of an engineer's train­ing. Industry wants technically competent students who can work as part of teams, manage projects, understand the eco­nomic, social and political context of their professional activi­ties. It also requires graduates to have an understanding of pro­fessional practice issues. Design cannot be learned simply through class instruction in a few subject courses. In other words, engineering design integrates all aspects of engineering education. Criticisms have been thrown to engineering educa­tors such as too few "practical" and "hand-on" courses and there is too much "compartmentalization" of engineering dis­ciplines [7]. Students fmd it difficult to understand the rela­tionship among concepts covered in different courses. For ex­ample analysis is often covered first with design being covered in later courses. As a result students often do not see clearly the relationship between analysis and design. Students usually see analysis as being theoritical while design is seen as dealing with practical issues, whereas in fact analysis and design are closely interwined[6]. We teach primarily mechanics, and not reasoning methods; memorization and routine application, and not analysis, synthesis and evaluation [7]. Often than not crea­tivity and independence of thought is still be the one least un­derstood, and in fact often do our best to discourage them.

Integrated design with the status of cumulative knowledge practiced in many local universities [5] is a limited approach to design knowledge teaching. Students are only required to have a motivational and experiential and discipline-specific design course by attending the industrial training for duration of two months. During the industrial training students may not be able to be trained in design as there is no specific require­ment of the attachment to be in the design.

Design education comprises 6.72% of the required engi­neering undergraduate curriculum as in the case of UTM [5]. Some limitations of the design course is the ''too little" and ''too late" as it is carried out in the final year of the students. In other institution and for some students, another experiential design course may be taken as an elective.

Even though a variety of innovative teaching techniques are available to engineering courses, the education of engi­neers in many colleges and universities still follows the tradi­tional lecture format. Preliminary studies showed graduates of­ten grumbled and said that design is hard to learn but for lecturers design is even harder to teach.

As a component of engineering education, design has been the subject serving as a bridge of relation and communication between the theory and practical aspect of it. This relation is vital in producing future engineers whose level is at par or bet­ter with industry needs. On the contrary, the engineering gra­duates were perceived by industry and academia as being una­ble to practice because of the change of focus from the practical to the theoretical or vise-versa.

88

III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Preliminary data was collected using Felder Learning Styles [8]. A total of 48 senior students of civil engineering programme in the Steel and Timber Design Course too part in the survey.

Observations and random interviews were carried out to the same group of students regarding their perceptions of criti­cal and creativity in their design class.

Questionnaires were also distributed to industries to see what they needed and expected from engineering graduates and other requirement that is necessary in design. Design lec­turers at two different local institutions were interviewed to identify elements of creativity and innovations in their teach­ing of design. The data were collected and analyzed. These preliminary surveys were carried out to determine areas for potential enhancement and modification in the teaching and learning of design courses.

IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

Learning is a continuous process [9]. Students preferential­ly take in and process information in different ways. As in Figure I (a), (b), (c) and (d) shows the preliminary study on the students' learning styles for a Steel and Timber design course carried out for a senior year of civil engineering at the local institution. Design students are inclined towards action, sensor, visual and sequential type of learning styles.

Teaching methods also vary. The interviews carried out on two design lecturers show that lecturers lecture and focus on principles and applications. However, they sometimes demon­strate or lead students to self-discovery and emphasize memo­ry and understanding.

It can be seen that there exist mismatches between learning styles of students and the teaching style of lecturers. These re­sults students to become bored and inattentive, do poorly on tests, get discouraged about the courses, the curriculum, and themselves, and in some cases change to other curricula or drop out of institution as mentioned by Felder [10]. Lecturers can become confronted by low test grades, unresponsive or hostile classes, poor attendance and dropouts, know something is not working. They may become overly critical of their stu­dents or begin to wonder if students are in the right profession [10].

Industry agrees soft skills are required of graduate engi­neers. With the current scenario of internationalization, new ideas, creativity and innovative approaches besides analytical ability is expected of graduate engineers.

Preference of learning styles for one category or the other may be strong, moderate, or mild. A balance of the two is de­sirable for all types of learning styles. To overcome these problems, suggestions by Felder [10] for the different learning styles as follows:

A. For active and reflective learners

• Active learners tend to retain and understand informa­tion best by doing something active with it--discussing

2009 International Conference on Engineering Education (ICEED 2009), December 7-8, 2009, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

or applying it or explaining it to others. Reflective learners prefer to think about it quietly first.

• "Let's try it out and see how it works" is an active leam­er's phrase; "Let's think it through first" is the reflective leamer's response.

• Active learners tend to like group work more than ref­lective learners, who prefer working alone.

• Sitting through lectures without getting to do anything physical but take notes is hard for both learning types, but particularly hard for active learners.

B. For sensing and intuitive learners

Sensors remember and understand information best if they can see how it connects to the real world. Students of this type may not be attracted to abstract and theoretical materials. They should be encouraged to ask lecturers for examples of con­cepts and procedures and relate how the concept applies in practice. Textbooks or other references or even brainstorming with friends can help sensing students.

However, many college lecture classes are aimed at intui­tors. These students are good with memorization and rote substitution in formulas, but they may have trouble with bore­dom. Interpretations or theories that link the facts must be dis­cussed, or tfmding their connections. Students tend to make careless mistakes on test because of their impatient and don't like repetition.

To be effective as a learner and problem solver, students need to be able to function both ways [10]:

• Sensing learners tend to like learning facts, intuitive learners often prefer discovering possibilities and rela­tionships.

• Sensors often like solving problems by well-established methods and dislike complications and surprises; intui­tors like innovation and dislike repetition. Sensors are more likely than intuitors to resent being tested on ma­terial that has not been explicitly covered in class.

• Sensors tend to be patient with details and good at me­morizing facts and doing hands-on (laboratory) work; intuitors may be better at grasping new concepts and are often more comfortable than sensors with abstractions and mathematical formulations.

• Sensors tend to be more practical and careful than intui­tors; intuitors tend to work faster and to be more inno­vative than sensors.

• Sensors don't like courses that have no apparent con­nection to the real world; intuitors don't like "plug-and­chug" courses that involve a lot of memorization and routine.

89

45

40

35

30

2S

I 20

15

10

5

0

ACTION REFl[CTIVE

(a)

40

3S

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

SENSOR INTITUTIVC

(b)

45

40

35

30

25

20

IS

10

0

VISUAL V(R8Al

(c)

• 35

30

25

20

15

10

0

S QUEN IAL GL BAL

(d)

Fig. 1 Students learning styles

C. For visual and verbal learners Good learners are capable of processing information pre­

sented either visually or verbally [10]. Visual learners remem­ber best what they see, whereas verbal learners get more out of their communication. A visual learner fmds diagrams, sketches, schematics, photographs, flow charts, or any other

2009 International Conference on Engineering Education (lCEED 2009), December 7-8, 2009, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

visual representation of course material that is predominantly verbal.

It is suggested students ask lecturer, consult reference books, and see if any videotapes or CD-ROM displays of the course material are available for visual learners. Students can prepare a concept map by listing key points, enclosing them in boxes or circles, and drawing lines with arrows between con­cepts to show connections to help them remember better.

Verbal learners help themselves by writing summaries or outlines of course material in their own words. Groups can be particularly effective as students can gain understanding of material by hearing classmates' explanations and learn to ex­plain.

D. Sequential and global learners Design courses are taught in sequential manner. Sequen­

tial learners may not fully understand the material. On the oth­er hand, global learners lack good sequential thinking abilities and have serious difficulties until they have the big picture. They may be in the cloud about the details of the subject for global learners, while sequential learners may know a lot about specific aspects of a subject but may have trouble relating them to different aspects of the same subject or to different subjects.

• Sequential learners tend to gain understanding in linear steps, with each step following logically from the pre­vious one. Global learners tend to learn in large jumps, absorbing material almost randomly without seeing connections, and then suddenly "getting it."

• Sequential learners tend to follow logical stepwise paths in finding solutions; global learners may be able to solve complex problems quickly or put things together in novel ways once they have grasped the big picture, but they may have difficulty explaining how they did it.

A sequential learner may have difficulties to follow and remember especially with lecturer who jumps around from topic to topic or skips steps. To overcome this handicapped, students need to ask the lecturer to fill in the skipped steps, or fill them themselves by consulting references. For global stu­dents, they can outline the lecture material in logical order and strengthen their global thinking skills by relating each new topic. On the other hand, global learners can be helped by hav­ing a big picture of a subject before they can master the details of their topics.

V PEDAGOGICAL APPROACHES

The increased emphasis has been placed on design on en­gineering curricula [11]. How the design is taught, encom­passes the relationship between the students, the overall class­room environment and atmosphere, whether homework assignments are a collective or individual responsibility, whether work is assessed on an individual or group basis, and the extent that classroom time is used for lecturing or group work. This dimension reflects whether a student sees him or her-self as an individual learning a body of knowledge and/or gaining competency, or as part of a team that is collectively re-

90

sponsible for learning, sharing and utilizing knowledge. There are persuasive arguments that can be made for both approach­es; individual assignments allow for greater assurance of indi­vidual accountability and competency, while team-based learn­ing may better reflect the work world, allows students to feel less isolated in their learning, and presents multiple representa­tions of knowledge. Based on Busetti's study on the acquisi­tion and restructuring of knowledge in project-based/problem based learning would work through the following cognitive ef­fects [12]:

• Initial analysis of the problem and activation of prior knowledge through small group discussion.

• Elaboration on prior knowledge and active processing of new information.

• Restructuring of the knowledge with the construction of a semantic networks.

• Learning in context.

• Stimulation of curiosity related to the presentation of a relevant problem

His fmdings indicate that students, through project and team-based learning, gain some important knowledge and skills that are demanded in real design environments [12].

IV CONCLUSIONS

Engineering design courses undermine the idea that there is no one right answer to every problem, therefore we must help students to broaden their perspectives. Academicians need to be receptive to new ideas and exposed to many, varied influ­ences.

Mismatches between learning styles of students and teach­ing style of the lecturer can be strived for a balance of instruc­tional methods. According to Felder, if the balance is achieved, all students will be taught partly in a manner they prefer, which leads to an increased comfort level and willing­ness to learn, and partly in a less preferred manner, which pro­vides practice and feedback in ways of thinking and solving problems which they may not initially be comfortable with but which they will have to use to be fully effective professionals [to].

Lecturers must make students aware of the nature of and conditions for creativity in design. They can enhance creativity in students by helping them understand the social and phycho­logical processes involved such as discussing both the theory and practice of creativity [3]. Students should be made aware to realize their creative potential and developing attitudes, be­haviours and habits, as well as certain domain knowledge and thinking skills [4]. They should study what is known about de­sign, invention, innovation and creativity. By understanding these conditions which foster innovation and the patterns of creative thought, they are better equipped to realize for their future in carrier and life.

To enhance learning, tools for creativity must be provided physically so that students should be able to capture and mani-

2009 International Conference on Engineering Education (lCEED 2009), December 7-8, 2009, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

pulate ideas. This can be done by capturing and manipulating their ideas into design notebook, reflective journal, or sket­chbook or computer programming for modeling, analysis, si­mulation and visualization [4]. Students are encouraged cogni­tively in ways of thinking, perceiving and evaluating which supports creativity and innovation in design.

Concern over the ability to satisfy the national demand for engineers educated to a level of professionalism required, ef­forts must be looked into. This is due to declining attraction of engineering courses, enrolled students' disenchantment with their courses and the increasing complexity of technological subjects. Therefore, higher institution needs to seek effective counter measures to address this issues. One of the strategies is to enhance design courses in engineering. Preparing future en­gineers who understand the global and societal implications of the products and systems they design and implement is clearly a priority for the engineering community of the twenty-fIrst century.

Many studies have shown that educational experiences are essential in formulating a students' design process [3]. Through the design process a designer learns to compliment rational knowledge with creative insights. The students will be invigorated by the course and enjoy the "hands-on" experi­mentation the mentioned by the study by Richards [4]. Stu­dents dislike oral presentations, dislike the lengthy lab reports and dislike the analysis of data and calculations without ade­quate background. Students felt their experience was very en­joyable, the reaction to the course is very highly instructor re­lated [4].

The industrial felt that the "hands on" experience enhances the students' technical skills and the goal to emphasize written and oral communication has been realized [11].

This is an early stage of a developmental study on engi­neering design of undergraduate in civil engineering.

REFERENCES

[I] ABET. (2000). Engineering Criteria 2000. Retrieved August 2008, from http://www.abet.orglEAC.

[2] Dym, C. 1., Agogino, A. M., Eris, 0., Frey, D., & and Leifer, 1. (2005). Engineering Design Thinking, Teaching, and Learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 103-120.

91

[3] Neeley, W. S. (2006). Design Is Design Is Design (Or Is It?): What We Say Vs. What We Do In Engineering Design Education. American Soceity For Engineering Education.

[4] Richards, 1. (1998). Stimulating Creativity: Teaching Engineers To Be Innovators. Proceedings of 1998 IEEE Frontiers in Education , 3, pp. pp 1034-1039.

[5] Academic Guidelines: Undergraduate Degree Programme 200812009. (2009). Johor Bahru: Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.

[6] Schokker, A. S. (2001). Integration of Analysis and Design in the Structural Engineering Curriculum. American Society for Engineering Education.

[7] Felder, R. (2008). Retrieved October 27, 2008, from www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felderlPaperslRJR­Monograph.pdf.

[8] Felder, R. Index of Learning Styles Questionnaire, www.engr.ncsu.edullearningstyleslilsweb.html. Retrieved September 2009.

[9] Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the source of learning and Development. Eagiewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

[10] Felder, R (2003). Designing and Teaching Courses To Satisfy The ABET Engineering Criteria. Journal of Engineering Education, 92(1), pp 7-25.

[ll]Sobek, D. a. (2005). Retrieved January 2009, from www.coe.montana.edU/ie/faculty/sobek/CAREERlDQR_VDOEjor_J MD.pdf

[12] Busetti, E. D. (2005). A Pedagogical Approach To The Design Of Learning Objects. FORMATEX 2005.

[13] Dym, C. a. (2003). Engineering Design: A Project Based Introduction. New York, John Wiley.

[14] Dym, C. (1994). Engineering Design : A Synthesis of Views. New York: Cambridge University Press.

[15] Dym, C. (1999). Learning engineering design, languages and experiences. J. Eng. Educ, 8 8, pp.145-147.

[16] Dym, C. (1994, October). Teaching Design to Freshman:Style and Content. pp. pp 303-310.

[17] Engineering, National Academy of. (2005). Educating The Engineer Of 2020. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

[18] Kartam, N. (1998). Integrating Design Into Civil Engineering Education. International Journal Engineering Education, 14 (2), pp 130-135.

[19] Khandani, S. (2005, August). Engineering Design Process. IISME .

[20] Richards, L (1997). Faculty reactions to teaching engineering design to first-year students. Journal of Engineering Education, 86 (3), 79-85.

[21] Sener, E. (1998). Design Of Learning Environment: Professional­Project-Based Learning in Construction Education. Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Coriference and Exposition, (p. Session 1221). Seattle.