Bhaveshkumar N. Pasi
1*,
Vikas V. Shinde
2,
Mayuri R. Chavan
3
- Mechanical Engineering Department, Vishwaniketan's iMEET, Khalapur � 410 202, India
- Project Based Learning Centre of Excellence, Vishwaniketan's iMEET, Khalapur � 410 202, India
- Cold Chain Logistics Department, Stellar Value Chain Solutions, Mumbai, India
Abstract
This research article focuses on survey of teachers of Vishwaniketan Institute of Management, Entrepreneurship and Engineering Technology (ViMEET), affiliated to Mumbai University, India who are implementing Course Level Project-Based Learning (CLPBL). ViMEET has to follow the curriculum given by Mumbai University, India. To make students industry ready with more practical knowledge, management of ViMEET introduces CLPBL in every semester for specific subjects along with the curriculum defined by Mumbai University, India. As there is no scope of CLPBL in Mumbai University curriculum therefore teachers of ViMEET have to deliver different roles while curriculum delivery along with CLPBL implementation. Therefore, this survey was carried out to understand teacher�s role clearly while implementing CLPBL to make CLPBL successful. In the present survey, quantitative research design method was used to understand teacher's role in CLPBL. The survey was conducted to find out what teachers know about their role while implementing CLPBL and how they are implementing PBL at course level in Vishwaniketan iMEET, India. A total of 16 teachers of Vishwaniketan iMEET, India have implemented CLPBL in the even semester of academic year 2018-19 and participated in question based survey. Quantitative data were collected by sending emails to the teachers. About 54% participants agreed that CLPBL supervisor should have leadership skill. 45% participants believes that CLPBL implementer should have passion to do mentorship, whereas 50% participants felt that CLPBL implementer should use different approach to deal with students of different skill set. 48% of participants believes that the purpose of CLPBL was to make students compulsory to do any project. Frequency analysis of participant responses shows that teachers are not aware about their roles in CLPBL. Almost half of the participants in present study stated that the main motive of CLPBL was to make students compulsory to do any project, which does not match with the definition of PBL. Also, respondents agreed that more training is required to teachers to understand their roles clearly while implementing CLPBL.
References
- Akao, Y. (2012). Quality function deployment: integrating customer requirements into product design. Cambridge: Productivity Press.
- Alves, A. C., Sousa, R. M., Fernandes, S., Cardoso, E., Carvalho, M. A., Figueiredo, J., & Pereira, R. M. S. (2016). Lecturer's experiences in PBL: implications for practice. European Journal of Engineering Education, 41(2), 123-141.
- Bacarin, G., Faria, G., Rinaldi, G., Silva, L. T., & Abreu, Y. G. (2014). Low cost rain gauge: product and process development final report.
- Baytiyeh, H., & Naja, M. K. (2016). Students� perceptions of the flipped classroom model in an engineering course: a case study. European Journal of Engineering Education. In press.
- Carpenter, M. S., Yakymyshyn, C., Micher, L. E., & Locke, A. (2016). Improved student engagement through projectbased learning in freshman engineering design. In Proceedings of the 123rd ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, New Orleans.
- Chau, K. W. (2015). Problem-based learning approach in accomplishing innovation and entrepreneurship of civil engineering undergraduates. International Journal of Engineering Education, 21(2), 228-232. Retrieved in 10 October 2016.
- Chua, K. J. (2014). A comparative study on first-time and experienced project-based learning students in an engineering design module. European Journal of Engineering Education, 39(5), 556-572.
- Chua, K. J., Yang, W. M., & Leo, H. L. (2014). Enhanced and conventional project-based learning in an engineering design module. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 24(4), 437-458.
- Cooper, R. (2013). Winning at new products: accelerating the process from idea to launch. Cambridge: Perseus Books.
- Daun, M., Salmon, A., Weyer, T., Pohl, K., & Tenbergen, B. (2016). Project-based learning with examples from industry in university courses: an experience report from an undergraduate requirements engineering course. In Proceedings of the 29th IEEE Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEET), Dallas, TX. Retrieved in 10 October 2016.
- Du, X., Su, L., & Liu, J. (2013). Developing sustainability curricula using the PBL method in a Chinese context.Journal of Cleaner Production, 61, 80-88.
- Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D., & Leifer, L. J. (2015). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 103-120.
- Edstr�m, K., & Kolmos, A. (2014). PBL and CDIO: complementary models for engineering education development. European Journal of Engineering Education, 39(5), 539-555.
- Fernandes, S., Flores, M. A., & Lima, R. M. (2012). Students� views of assessment in project-led engineering education: findings from a case study in Portugal. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(2), 163-178.
