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 1Introduction

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 2Introduction

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 3Introduction

Background

29/11/2011 4Introduction

Integrated Project (IP) for 210 final year students

Civil engineering

Structural engineering

Architectural technology

Building surveying

Construction management

3 phases

18 weekly sessions

Multi-disciplinary

groups

6 meeting rooms

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 5Intent

Intent: Learning outcomesPersonal 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 6Intent

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

29/11/2011 7Intent

• 30% part-time students(with full-time jobs in the industry)

• Industrial experience(placement or a year out)

• Mature students with work experience

• 17% overseas students (English as a 2nd language)

• <5% female students

Intent: Assessment methods

3 phases, each comprising:

29/11/2011 8Intent

Technical tasks

Presentations

• Audio-visual

• Exhibition

Peer and self assessment

• 10% 50%

Experience

29/11/2011 9Experience

Experience

29/11/2011 10Experience

Challenges for students

Challenges for staff

Student feedback

Responses

Experience: Challenges for students

• Lack of time

• Over-working

• Group marks

• Description of tasks not clear

• Multi-disciplinary groups

• Group management

• Peer assessment ‘unfair’

29/11/2011 Experience

•Non-contributing members•Late work•Lack of knowledge•Poor English (written/spoken)•Domineering leaders•Insufficient collaboration•Unequal workloads•Misunderstandings•Personality clashes

Experience: Challenges for staff

• Consistency of advice

• Rotating staff

• Over-reliance on module leaders

• Marking burden

• Timely feedback

29/11/2011 12Experience

Experience: Student feedbackStatement Week 5 end

Staff teaching on this module are good at explaining things clearly

68% 73%

Staff teaching on this module make the subject interesting 52% 69%

Staff teaching on this module are enthusiastic about what they are teaching

68% 78%

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 understanding of the module content

69% 75%

Staff teaching on this module are available when they say they will be

69% 87%

Overall the quality of this module is satisfactory 64% 80%

29/11/2011 13Experience

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 14Experience

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

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

Large-scale integrated project for built environment undergraduate students: a case study

Any questions?

29/11/2011 17Conclusions

Steve Austin

Ursula Rutherford

John W Davies