International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 2, Issue 12, December-2011 1

ISSN 2229-5518

Problem-based Learning: An Approach to pro- duce “System Thinking-New Kind of Engineer” Priyanka Mahendru, Prof. D.V.Mahindru

Abstract— This paper describes an investigation of the impact of problem-based learning (PBL) on undergraduate Electronics & Communication engi-

neering students’ conceptual understanding and their perceptions of learning using PBL as compared to lecture. Fifty students enrolled in an Electronics

& Communication course at a SRMGPC, Lucknow, participated in this research. The study utilized a within-subjects A-B-A-B research design with tradi- tional lecture as the baseline phase and problem-based learning as the experimental phase of the study. Participants completed pre- and post-tests surrounding the four topics covered in the study and also completed a Student Assessment of Learning Gains (SALG) survey. Results suggested partici-

pants’ learning gains from PBL were twice their gains from traditional lecture. Even though students learned more from PBL, students thought they

learned more from traditional lecture. We discuss these findings and offer implications for faculty interested in implementing PBL. Given the limited re- search on the beneficial effects of PBL on student learning, this study provides empirical support for PBL. We discuss f indings from this study and pro- vide specific implications for faculty and researchers interested in problem-based learning in engineering.

The engineering profession requires engineers to deal with uncertainty and solve complex problems of the field, sometimes with incomplete data (Mills & Treagust, 2003; NAE, 2004). In addition, engineers need to be able to function as effective members of teams and have strong communication and prob- lem-solving skills (NAE, 2004). However, today’s engineering graduates lack these skills and have difficulty applying their fundamental knowledge to problems of practice (Mills & Treagust, 2003; NAE, 2005; Nguyen, 1998; Vergara, et al., 2009).

In addition, while science and engineering jobs experienced annual average growth rate of 6.7% (compared to 1.6% for total employment) be- tween1950-2000, the attrition rate for students has steadily increased and the annual graduation rate decreased by 20%, (Felder, Felder, & Dietz, 1998; NSB, 2008). One of the complaints from engineering students is that the current teaching pedagogies (such as, traditional lecture format) emphasize explicit instruction, working individually, and norm-reference grading, which can make learning extrinsically motivating rather than intrinsically motivat- ing(Felder, et al., 1998). The main problem within engineering education is the gap between the active field and the passive classroom experience (Palmquist, 2007).

In general, the traditional lecture method within engineering education is deductive, “beginning with theories and progressing towards application of those theories” and the instructor presents information without a discussion of why the mathematical models are being developed and what practical problems they will solve (Prince & Felder, 2006). and not specific to the situation in which the task needs to take place. This pedagogical approach falls short because the knowledge is not grounded. Dewey suggested that educators needed to encourage inquiry and that education should be grounded on experience and linked to real-life activities in order to motivate and develop students into upstanding citizens. This paper describes one such approach; problem-based learning (PBL) has the potential to help students to cope with the demands of complexities of the field and problems they will face in their future careers.

Index Terms - Innovation, Ill- structured, Learning, Mentor, Problem, Process, System Thinking, and Understanding

——————————  ——————————

1. INTRODUCTION

Problem-based learning is “Problem”......”based”

......”learning”. Let us look at each of these words. A problem

is something that is problematic to the student; something that cannot be resolved with the current level of knowledge and/or way of thinking about the issues. The nature of effective prob- lems in problem-based learning is that they are ill-structured
as opposed to well structured. The characteristics of PBL ill-
structured problems are that they are real-life and authentic
not teacher’s exercises, messy not tidy, incomplete in the sense of lacking information needed for their resolution and iterative in the way that they produce further ideas,/hypotheses and learning issues (Barrows 1989 ; Stephen and
Pyke 1977 ; Margeston 2001). It is vital that the problems are
engaging, that they ―smell real‖, are interesting and challeng- ing to students. This engagement stimulates further learning and requires research, elaboration, further analysis and syn- thesis together with decisions and action plans.
The word ―problem‖ in problem based learning needs to
be interrogated. Problems are not always about something that
is in difficulty that needs to be sorted out. An ill-structured design brief for an artist or an architect can be a
problem. A dilemma for a doctor or a challenge for an engi- neer can be a problem. Problems are not always how to do something immediately practical in professional practice. Problems can also be about how to understand something. Problems can be presented to students in a variety of formats including: scenarios, puzzles, diagrams, dialogues, quotations, cartoons, e-mails, posters, poems, physical objects, and video- clips
One of the most important points about problems in problem- based learning is that it is not a question that first the students receive inputs of knowledge e.g.
lectures, practical’s, handouts etc. and then ―apply‖ this know- ledge to a problem they are presented with later in the learning process. This type of a situation is nor problem-based learning it is problem solving (Savin-Baden 2000). It is like making a cake when you have already been given the recipe and all the ingredients.

http://www.ijser.org

International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 2, Issue 12, December-2011 2

ISSN 2229-5518

One of the defining characteristics of the use of problems in problem-based learning is is that students are deliberately pre- sented with the problem at the start of the learning process. This is like getting the challenge of preparing a celebratory meal for a special occasion where no recipes or ingredients are given.
Author : Priyanka Mahendru, Sr. Lecturer (E&C) E.I.Department, SRMGPC,Tewari Ganj,Lucknow- 227105
U.P.(India)
Author : Prof. D.V.Mahindru, Deptt of Mech. Engg. SRMGPC,Tewari Ganj,Lucknow-227105 U.P.(India)

2.Description:

PBL, or Problem Based Learning, is an instructional method of group-based learning centered on utilizing each member of the group's own information, resources, and personal experiences. The group must then compile their knowledge in an effort to solve the open-ended problems. What makes this method of teaching interesting is that there is no one, real "right" answer.

Figure 1: Problem Based Learning Process

The following diagram gives you a visual overview of the structure of the PBL
The learning that results from the process of working towards
i) First students are presented with a problem .
ii) Students discuss the problem in a small group PBL tutorial. They clarify the facts of the case. They define what the prob- lem is. They brainstorm ideas based on the prior knowledge. They identify what they need to learn to work on the problem, what they do not know (learning issues). They reason through the problem. They specify an action plan for working on the problem.
iii) Students engage in independent study on their learning

the understanding of a resolution of a problem. The problem is eni-ssues outside the tutorial. The information sources they draw

countered first in the learning process (Barrows and Tamblyn
1980:1 my emphasis) .
An operational definition of problem-based learning is as fol- lows:
on include: library, databases, the web and resource people iv) They come back to the PBL tutorial (s) sharing informa tion, peer teaching and working together on the problem
v) They present and discuss their solution to the problem
vi) They review what they have learnt from working on the
problem. All who participated in the process engage in self,
peer and tutor review of the PBL process and each person’s
contribution to that process.

http://www.ijser.org

International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 2, Issue 12, December-2011 3

ISSN 2229-5518

2. REVIEW OF PREVIOUS WORK

The engineering profession requires engineers to deal with uncertainty and solve complex problems of the field, some- times with incomplete data (Mills & Treagust, 2003;NAE,
2004). In addition, engineers need to be able to function as ef- fective members of teams and have strong communication and problem-solving skills (NAE, 2004). However, today’s engi- neering graduates lack these skills and have difficulty apply- ing their fundamental knowledge to problems of practice (Mills & Treagust, 2003; NAE, 2005; Nguyen, 1998; Vergara, et al., 2009). In addition, while science and engineering jobs expe- rienced annual average growth rate of 6.7% (compared to 1.6% for total employment) between1950-2000, the attrition rate for students has steadily increased and the annual graduation rate decreased by 20%, (Felder, Felder, & Dietz, 1998; NSB, 2008). One of the complaints from engineering students is that the current teaching pedagogies (such as, traditional lecture for- mat) emphasize explicit instruction,working individually, and norm-reference grading, which can make learning extrinsically motivating rather than intrinsically motivating(Felder, et al.,
1998).
The main problem within engineering education is the gap between the active field and the passive classroom experience (Palmquist, 2007).
In general, the traditional lecture method within engineering education is deductive, ―beginning with theories and pro- gressing towards application of those theories” And the in- structor presents information without a discussion of why the mathematical models are being developed and what practical problems they will solve (Prince & Felder, 2006). and not spe- cific to the situation in which the task needs to take place. Dewey (1938) argued. This pedagogical approach falls short because the knowledge is not grounded in context that such a traditional learning environment is too abstract and dull, leav- ing students with a sense of boredom and lack of motivation because they are presented with random information with no unifying factor. Instead, Dewey suggested that educators needed to encourage inquiry and that education should be grounded on experience and linked to real-life activities in order to motivate and develop students into upstanding citi- zens. Dewey also equated learning with doing and viewed learning as an activity, a process of discovery, where students need to be actively engaged in all aspects of the learning process (Savin-Baden, 2000).
Brown, Collins, and Duguid (1989) further emphasized that unless knowledge is developed in the context in which it is to be used, students will gain an
understanding of abstract concepts, algorithms, and proce- dures; thus, the knowledge remains inert and students are un-
able to use it. Brown and colleagues stated, ―the activity in which knowledge is developed and deployed, is not separable from or ancillary to learning and cognition. Rather it is an integral part of what is learned‖ (p. 32). This is even more so the case for a complex enterprise such as engineering, which involves making decisions with real-world implications that
carry risks and uncertain outcomes.
Recently, there has been a shift from using lecture-based teach- ing methods in the undergraduate courses in the STEM discip- lines to using a more learner-centered teaching, such as prob- lem-based learning (Lattuca, Terenzini, Volkwein, & Peterson,
2006). This shift is fueled by the need for future engineers to demonstrate the use of higher order thinking, problem solving, and more interpersonal aspects of a career, such as communi- cation, social, and team-work skills (NAE, 2005). Specifically, the engineering field is seeing shifts in the types of engineers needed to emerge from college who are ready to participate as active and effective members of a global society. The National Academy of Engineers(NAE, 2004) developed a set of attributes future engineers will have to possess to be a compet- itive force within the field. Hence, it is important for engineer- ing education to reexamine the use of typical lecture-based teaching methodology and consider incorporating learner- centered teaching.
One such approach, problem-based learning (PBL) has the po- tential to help students to cope with the demands of complexi- ties of the field and problems they will face in their future ca- reers.

3. CHALLENGES–AHEAD:

i) ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE IN INDIA (IIT BOMBAY STUDY)

To get a better handle on the problem, IIT Bombay undertook a study on the engineering landscape in India.

The study aimed to answer questions such as:
Has the engineering education system been able to provide,
quantitatively and qualitatively, the engineers required for the

growth of the Indian economy?
Has it provided the research and development leadership

required for our industry?
In the context of globalization, is there a need to modify the
higher engineering education system in India?
The study shows that against the sanctioned seats of 6.57 lakh
for Under Graduate Engineering education in India, only 2.37
Lac engineering degrees were awarded in 2007-08. This very
clearly highlights the shortfall. In2006, India awarded about
2.37 lakh engineering degrees, 20,000 engineering Masters
degrees and 1000 engineering PhDs, which means a total of
2.58 lakh engineering degrees of all types. This is clearly not
enough! The awarding of degrees is also not evenly distributed
across India. Five states – Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Ma-
harashtra, Karnataka and Kerala are said to account for almost
69% of the country's engineers. It is estimated that about 30%
of the fresh engineering graduates are unemployed even one
year after graduation; and this is even as many sectors com-

plain of lack of talent. This clearly points that there is definite

scope to improve quality of engineering education. Let us also
look at the gender factor. At IIT Bombay, the percentage of women graduates to the total is about 8% at the B.Tech. level,
9% at the M.Tech level and about 17% at the Doctoral level including Science, Humanities and among the faculty – only about 10% of the IIT Bombay faculty comprises women.

http://www.ijser.org

International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 2, Issue 12, December-2011 4

ISSN 2229-5518

Gender disparity in the engineering stream exists around the world, not just in India, and special efforts are being made by institutions, Governments and professional organizations to rectify these. Some Indian states have provided incentives like free tuition for women studying engineering. Overall, the study rightly points out that India has the potential to be a leading research and design hub in the world. For this, we need to have a mechanism to identify important areas and develop policies and institutions accordingly. Situations and problems we confront today demand composite responses and solutions.

4. THE TYPE OF ENGINEERS WE NEED:

i). NEW KIND OF ENGINEER

Globalization has resulted in highly dynamic and complex market leading to the requirement of a new kind of Engineer.

ii) SYSTEMS THINKING

This complexity demands a new way of thinking – it requires a Systems Thinking approach to macro level challenges and re- quires Engineers to keep one eye on the big picture even as they tackle specific tasks. Systems thinking provides a concep- tual framework that helps make full patterns clearer and helps one to see how to modify these patterns more effectively.
This type of thinking is tricky to most of us because As Peter
Senge says, it is a ―discipline for seeing the whole‖. We are
taught to break problems apart, to fragment the world! This appears initially to make
complex tasks more manageable; but we pay a hidden
Price: we can no longer see the consequences of our actions,
and we lose our intrinsic sense of connection to a larger whole.

When we want to see the big picture, we try to reassemble

the fragments and organize all the pieces. The task is futile– similar to trying to reassemble the fragments of a broken mirror!

iii) MULTI-DISCIPLINARY APPROACH

Today's Engineers must also be able to view management ac- tivities through different lenses and work with people from different disciplines and diverse fields such as business, bank- ing services and medicine.
We also have great minds, great thinkers. We just have to
look for ways to bring them together. It is this fraternity of En-
gineers that will determine

“INDIA OF TOMORROW‖.

We have travelled a very long journey and our ―Intellect‖ is second to none. What we need is to mould young profession- als to the needs of our Industry. The eyes of the world are on us. We have the opportunity to become a superpower. We all owe it to ourselves to shoulder the responsibility.
― Yesterday’s collaborators are today’s Competitors”.
We will decide our role on the global stage . To meet this chal- lenge We need engineers with “MULTI-DISCIPLINARY AP- PROACH”

5. THE LOSE END: (HOLE TO BE PLUGGED)

i) INOVATION-LED GROWTH

India's future growth will be driven not by cost but by innova- tion in terms of product offerings, process efficiency, value engi-

neering and cost reduction.

ii) DEVELOPMENTAL CHALLENGES

Even as we reach for the moon, there are millions here on earth
for whom basic needs are elusive. No country can afford a
skewed growth. If India has to achieve a 7% to 8% sustained

growth, it needs not just “ Cor por a te I ndia ” but the rural sec- tor, the agricultural sector to grow as well. It is these areas that badly need the above cited engineering talent. The govern- ment, we and all of us together have to find ways to produce the above brand of Engineers motivated enough to make it an attractive option for them to take up these challenges.

However, today’s engineering graduates lack these skills and have difficulty applying their fundamental knowledge to problems of practice (Mills & Treagust, 2003; NAE, 2005; Nguyen, 1998; Vergara, et al., 2009).

In addition, while science and engineering jobs experienced annual average growth rate of 6.7% (compared to 1.6% for to- tal employment) between1950-2000, the attrition rate for stu- dents has steadily increased and the annual graduation rate decreased by 20%, (Felder, Felder, & Dietz, 1998; NSB, 2008). One of the complaints from engineering students is that the current teaching pedagogies (such as, traditional lecture for- mat) emphasize explicit instruction, working individually, and norm-reference grading, which can make learning extrinsically motivating rather than intrinsically motivating(Felder, et al.,
1998). The main problem within engineering education is the gap between the active field and the passive classroom expe-

rience (Palmquist, 2007).

In general, the traditional lecture method within engineering education is deductive, ―beginning with theories and progress- ing towards application of those theories‖ and the instructor presents information without a discussion of why the mathe- matical models are being developed and what practical prob- lems they will solve (Prince & Felder, 2006). and not specific to the situation in which the task needs to take place. This peda- gogical approach falls short because the knowledge is not grounded. Dewey suggested that educators needed to encour- age inquiry and that education should be grounded on expe- rience and linked to real-life activities in order to motivate and develop students into upstanding citizens. The problem- based learning (PBL) has the potential to help students to cope with the demands of complexities of the field and problems they will face in their future careers.

6. PBL-A Break through

Problem based learning helps the student to:

 Develop Skill of discovering different facts and devel- op habit of collecting latest information and updates

in all fields

 Freedom to express the problem and solution in one’s

own way

http://www.ijser.org

International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 2, Issue 12, December-2011 5

ISSN 2229-5518

 It helps in developing team spirit

 Help in improving communication skill

 Makes the student flexible in processing information and handling different problems

 The teacher acts as facilitator and mentor rather than a source of solutions.

6.1Problem-based Learning: PBL is any learning environ- ment in which the problem drives the learning. That is, before students learn some knowledge they are given a problem. The problem is posed so that the students discover that they need to learn some new knowledge before they can solve the problem. Some example problem-based learning environ- ments include:

 research projects

 engineering design projects that are more than a syn- thesis of previously learned knowledge

 The traditional and well-known "Case approach", popular with business schools, may or may not be problem-based learning. Often the case is used to in- tegrate previously-learned knowledge and hence would not be, according to this definition, problem- based learning.
 What's the big deal about PBL? Posing the problem before learning tends to motivate students. They know why they are learning the new knowledge.
Learning in the context of the need-to-solve-a-problem
also tends to store the knowledge in memory patterns
that facilitate later recall for solving problems.

 What skills should a student have before entering a PBL program? They should be skilled at problem solv- ing because that skill in needed as the students try to solve the problem.

 Does using PBL develop problem solving skills? Not without explicit interventions on the part of the teacher. PBL offers an opportunity to develop the skills

 Is PBL an example of cooperative learning? It de- pends. If the PBL is an individual project, then it does not require cooperation with others.

 Why does there seem to be so much confusion about what is and what is not PBL? Problem-based learning, learning because you need to solve a problem, has been around for centuries. Indeed, in the stone age, people learned skills and approaches to solve prob- lems to survive. They just didn't say to each other "Hey, you are using PBL." In the 1960s McMaster Medical School introduced a learning environment that was a combination of small group, cooperative, self-directed, interdependent, self-assessed PBL. Since

then this approach has been called "PBL". But PBL, can be in any form where a problem is posed to drive the learning. To overcome the confusion, It is sug- gested that we use the awkward terminology of small group, self-directed, self-assessed PBL when referring to learning environments similar to the McMaster Medical school approach.

6.2 Small group, self-directed, self-assessed PBL is a use of problem-based learning which embodies most of the principles known to improve learning. This learning environment is active, cooperative, self-assessed, pro- vides prompt feedback, allows a better opportunity to account for personal learning preferences and is high- ly effective.

 If small group, self-directed, self-assessed PBL is so great for learning, why isn't everyone doing it? Proba- bly, because of fear of the unknown and resources. Using this approach requires that teachers change. Change is not easy. This change, in particular, expects teachers to change their role from being the center of attention and the source of all knowledge to being the coach and facilitator of the acquisition of that knowledge. The learning becomes student-centered, not teacher-centered. For resources, the McMaster medical school model includes a tutor/teacher with each group. The groups are tutored. Hence, there is one teacher for every group of five or six students.

 This is resource intensive if you do this for only one course. This approach is not so resource intensive if the whole program is changed to this format. But

what if you want to try small group, self-directed, self-
assessed PBL as part of your course? or for only one
course in your departmental program? Now, one is faced with classes of 30 to 200 with only one instruc- tor.

 How can we use this medical school model with only one instructor with large classes of 30 to 300? One an- swer is to use tutor less groups. Here we provide the students with the training we give to tutors; we em- power the student groups to be autonomous and ac- countable, with the tutor's role being to monitor and hold the individuals and groups accountable for their learning.

6.3 PBL and Problem Solving (Thinking Skill)

 Problem solving is the process used to solve a prob- lem. Since problem-based learning starts with a prob- lem so be solved, students working in a PBL environ- ment should be skilled in problem solving or critical thinking or "thinking on your feet" (as opposed to rote recall). How is this handled? In research programs, we usually have qualifying examinations in which we test the problem solving (thinking skills) of the candi- dates before they are admitted. In the McMaster Med- ical school, one of five criteria for admission is a test of

http://www.ijser.org

International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 2, Issue 12, December-2011 6

ISSN 2229-5518

the candidates problem solving skills. Regrettably, some teachers embark on PBL without either pre- screening or developing their students skill in prob- lem solving.

 Doesn't putting students in a PBL environment devel- op their problem solving skills? Regrettably no. Giv- ing students an opportunity to solve problems rarely develops their skill in problem solving.

 Can you have problem solving skill development without using PBL? Sure. We have lots of examples. Conventionally, students learn the material in Chapter

5 of a text, and then use problem solving to solve the homework problems. Here students are using prob- lem solving skills in a "subject-based" learning envi- ronment compared with a problem-based learning environment.
6.4 PBL and cooperative learning (Learning Environment)
 Cooperative learning is a learning environment where students work together to learn, as opposed to competing with each other for marks.

 Can you have cooperative learning without PBL?

Sure. Cooperative learning can be used for subject- based learning. Here, you ask students to work to- gether to solve problems, discuss ideas, compare ideas about a concept, or do any task. You do use coopera- tive learning when you use small group, interdepen- dent, self-directed PBL. Can you have PBL without cooperative learning? Sure. Individual research or tasks in the .PBL mode do not require cooperative learning.

6.5 Use of small group, self-directed PBL

 Our experience has been with small group, self- directed, self-assessed PBL in tutor less groups. In the chemical engineering program, we use PBL as part of two courses: one topic or problem in a junior level course; and five topics in a senior level course
(Woods, 1991). The students concurrently are taking five to seven required courses presented in the con-
ventional format. Both PBL courses have about 30 to
50 students with one instructor. Hence, we use five to
ten tutor less groups with five students per group. Be-
fore the students they have received about 50 hours of workshop style training in the processing skills. The outcomes for the PBL activity are the Chemical Engi- neering subject knowledge (process safety and engi- neering economics), lifetime learning skills and chair- person skills. Each problem is studied for about one week. Before the first PBL activity, the students have workshops introducing them to this PBL approach to learning and workshops on managing change. The students are required to submit journal reports fre- quently that make explicit their progress and activities

within the PBL tutor less groups. The elaboration is done by having three meetings: a goals meeting, a teach meeting and an elaboration/feedback meeting. Student-generated learning issues are validated by the instructor during the goals meeting. The students' as- sessment of the partial PBL learning environment, as measured by the Course Perceptions Questionnaire (Knapper, 1994 and Ramsden, 1983), is d= +1 more positive than the responses from a control group of engineering students in a conventional program (N=47).
 At McMaster University, the theme school program was created. This is a program for interdisciplinary learning that students from all disciplines may elect to take on overload. Based on the research expertise at McMaster, one of the theme schools is on new mate- rials and their impact on society. This school has five
3-credit courses, three 2-credit seminar courses and
two 6-credit research internships. Enrolment is limited
and by application. About 35 students were admitted in both the first and second year since it was started. Students are from English, biology, physical educa- tion, nursing chemistry, mathematics and engineer- ing. The 3-credit courses use the small group self- directed problem-based format. For each course has two instructors and 1 teaching assistant. The first course is sophomore level. In each 13-week course the tutor less student groups handle 2 to 3 cases or prob- lems.

 Concurrently they are taking 5 to 7 required courses

in their major area. Except for the nursing program, all the other courses the students take are presented in
the conventional lecture format. The students have re-
ceived no formal training in the processing skills be-
fore they enrolled in the theme school. The approach has been to develop these skills concurrently. They have five explicit, 1½ h workshops that are given dur- ing the second semester of their sophomore year.
 The topics are understanding PBL and its expecta- tions, managing change, problem solving, group skills and self-directed-interdependent small group learn- ing. The student evaluations of the program have identified the importance of these explicit workshops and have recommended that these be given before the students encounter their first case problem. Currently, this program does not explicitly include the develop- ment of processing skills as valued outcomes nor are these skills formally assessed.

 The program got strengthened. The students are not required to do extensive journal writing. However, their written reports must demonstrate that they have synthesized information and material learned from other members of their group. Student's assessment of the PBL learning environment in the Theme school, as

http://www.ijser.org

International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 2, Issue 12, December-2011 7

ISSN 2229-5518

measured by the Course Perceptions Questionnaire is d = +2 more positive than their assessment of their "home" departments. Their responses for their home department were consistent with the responses from a control group of students in a conventional program that has enrolment limited and is by application.

 In Civil Engineering, Fred Hall uses small group, self- directed, self-assessed PBL in a junior level course; in Geography, Caroline Eyles and Fred Hall use this ap- proach for a senior level project course.

7. THE METHODOLOGY:

a. Understand the problem:

The teacher introduces an "ill-structured" problem to a grou- pofstudents. The group discusses the problem statement and lists its significant parts. The problem may appear as very tough for the group to solve but that is the real inspiration source to work hard on it. The group has to gather information and learn new concepts, prin- ciples, or skills that can help the process of finding the solu- tion.

b. List the information already known to the group which can help the solution.

This includes both what each member of the group actually knows and what strengths and capabilities each team member has.
Each information and idea of every group member is impor- tant, no matter how strange it may appear: it can prove useful.

c. Develop, and write out, the problem statement in your own words.

Every person can understand the thing better in his own way expressions. Thus, a problem statement should come from the group's analysis of what the group knows, and what the group will need to know to solve it.

d. List all possible solutions.

The problem is discussed in group. Various possible solutions may appear together, now to search which solution is best, the group can list them all, then order them from strongest to weakest
Now, they can choose the one which appear them the best, or most likely to succeed.

e. Prepare list of actions to be taken with a “time bound”

Solution.

Now, when the possible solution is decided, the group should prepare a list of necessary actions to be taken to reach to the solution. All these actions must have a time limit to avoid any kind of delay and all team members should work together or the work can be divided also depending on the kind of actions needed.

f. List information necessary to know.

Research the knowledge and data that will support your solu- tion. Any information can be useful to fill in the missing gaps. Discuss possible sources like experts, books, web sites, etc.

g. Write your solution with its supporting documentation, and submit it.

Usually the group has to present their findings and/or rec- ommendations to their classmates. This should include the problem statement, questions, data gathered, analysis of data, and support for solutions or rec- ommendations based on the data analysis: In short, the‖ process‖ and the ―outcome‖.

h. Presenting and defending your conclusions.

The group has found a good solution but to present it confi- dently and convincingly is more important than any other thing. Otherwise all labor will go waste. The goal is to present not only your conclusions, but the foundation upon which they rest. The group should be preparing to state both the problem and the conclusion clearly as well as summarize the process and difficulties encountered.

8.CONCLUSIONS

In short, these are examples of the use of small group self- directed PBL where tutor less groups of five to six students function effectively. The class sizes are in the range 30 to 50 with one or two instructors. The students concurrently take conventional courses. The study has come to the conclusion that PBL will be able to address the problems listed below ef- fectively, if the same is implemented in letter and spirit:
 The engineering education system will be able to pro-
vide, quantitatively and qualitatively, the engineers required for the growth of the Indian economy?
 It will provide the research and development leader- ship required for our industry?
 In the context of globalization, there is a need to modi-
fy the higher engineering education system in India?
 The PBL in engineering education should be able to
produce the “New Kind of , System Thinking, Inno- vation Led and multidisciplinary” type of Engineer.
 This is the possible solution to the problem faced by Engineering Education. The Policy makers must give a serious thought while framing the future policies of technical education.

9. REFERENCES:

1. Taylor, D., Miflin, B. Problem-based learning: Where are we now? Medical Teacher (2008), 30(8), 742 - 763.
2. Colliver, J.A. (2000), "Effectiveness of
Problem-based Learning Curricula: Research and Theory", Academic Medicine
Philadelphia-, vol. 75, no. 3, pp.259-266.

http://www.ijser.org

International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 2, Issue 12, December-2011 8

ISSN 2229-5518

3. Kember, D. (2001), "Long-term Outcomes of Educational
Action Research
Projects", Educational Action Research, vol.10, no. 1, pp.83-104.
4. Knapper, C. (1994) Instructional Development Center, Queen's University, personal communication of the short CPQ version used in the paper D. Bertrand and C. Knapper (1993) "Contextual Influences on Student's Approaches to Learning in Three Academic Departments", Queens University, Kingston ON.
5. Ramsden, P. (1983) "The Lancaster Approaches to Studying and Course Perceptions Questionnaires: Lecturer's Handbook," Educational Methods Unit, Oxford Polytechnic, Oxford, OX3
0BP
6. Woods, D.R. (1991) "Issues in Implementation in an Other- wise Conventional Programme", Chapter 12 in "The Chal- lenges of Problem-based Learning" D. Boud and G. Feletti,ed., Kogan Page, London, 122-129.
7.Brian R. Belland is an assistant professor of instructional technology and learning sciences at Utah State University. His research interests center on the use of technology to support problem-solving and argumentation among middle school and university students, specifically during problem-based units He also is interested in strategies to promote technology inte- gration and the impact of measurement quality on research findings.
8.Brian F. French is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Leadership and Counseling Psychology in the area of Research, Evaluation, and Measurement at Washington State University. Dr. French’s research focuses on applied edu- cational and psychological measurement issues. Specifically, he is interested in test validity. He enjoys applying various psychometric methods to solve applied measurement prob- lems
9.Peggy A. Ertmer is a professor of educational technology at Purdue University. Her research interests relate to helping students become expert instructional designers, specifically through the use of case and problem-based learning methods. She currently serves as the editor of IJPBL.
10. S.Ramadorai, CEO & MD,TCS: ICT and Innovation : enab- lers for Economic Transformation; 30th Sir Rajendra Nath Mookerjee Memorial Lecture delivered at 23rd Indian Engi- neering Congress.

http://www.ijser.org