See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/266021778

Problem-Based Learning in Telecommunications: Internship-Like Course

Bridging the Gap between the Classroom and Industry

Article in International Journal of Electrical Engineering Education · April 2014

DOI: 10.7227/IJEEE.51.2.3

CITATIONS READS

10 472

4 authors, including:

Marija Bozic Svetlana Čizmić

Autonomous University of Barcelona University of Belgrade
14 PUBLICATIONS 37 CITATIONS 53 PUBLICATIONS 208 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Dragana Šumarac Pavlović

University of Belgrade
119 PUBLICATIONS 325 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Marija Bozic on 24 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Problem-based learning in telecommunications: internship-like

course bridging the gap between the classroom and the Industry

Marija Božić1, Svetlana Čizmić2, Dragana Šumarac-Pavlović3, M. Teresa Escalas-Tramullas4

1Interuniversity Doctoral Programme in Environmental Education, Autonomous University of

Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

2 Department of Psychology, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia

3 School of Electrical Engineering, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia

4 Faculty of Education, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

E-mail: marija.bozic@e-campus.uab.cat

Abstract Engineering is about dealing with open-ended and/or ill-structured problems. During their

studies, engineering students are expected to dominate well-defined problem solving but they should be

faced with ill-structured problem solving as well in order to prepare for the workplace. The objective of the

internship-like course that we have designed and implemented is to provide students with a workspace

simulation environment where they will be exposed to ill-structured engineering problems. This scheme

has been found to enhance students’ problem solving and soft skills, and students reported significant

raise in their self-confidence. In this article we describe the experience of three courses conducted in

2010/2011 and 2011/2012 at the School of Electrical Engineering of the University of Belgrade. We report

on the issues and challenges of the learning experiences, students’ perception of the course benefits and

their motivation to attend it.

Keywords:

engineering education; problem-based learning; engineering practice; ill-structured problems

1
Engineering curricula needs to comprise training in problem solving and soft skills in

order to achieve competencies for engineering practice. This has been emphasized in the

last decades by professional engineering bodies dedicated to the education and

1 2
accreditation all over the world (ABET, FEANI, IEAust, JABEE). In Serbia, where

the conventional engineering curricula is taught at most universities, this need has been
3 4
recognized by the academy, industry and students themselves. On the other hand, in

the conventional curricula there is little space for such endeavours, either because the

teaching scheme requires smaller student groups than the actual ones or because of the

mandatory theoretical content covered by the curricula.5

Engineering practice means solving ill-structured problems, and students should

be faced with this kind of problem solving during their studies in order to be prepared

for the workplace.6 They need to develop adequate conceptual frameworks (make

meaning) and apply those frameworks while solving complex ill-structured problems.7

The enhanced learning environments should promote discussion and reflection in the

classroom; they should provide students with the authentic, open and realistically

complex problems as well as with opportunities to deal with professional contexts.8

Problem-based learning (PBL) and project-oriented learning have been suggested as

teaching approaches that could equip students for the workplace, enhance their ability to

make individual enquiries and deal with ambiguity.9 10

Well-established PBL and soft

skills teaching courses at European universities include, for example, the University of

Aalborg in Denmark11, University of Leuven in Belgium12 and University College

London in UK.13

In this context, our objective was to contribute to the on-going research in the

field of problem-based learning in engineering education by exploring students’

2
learning experiences due to the use of ill-structured problem solving in the workspace

simulation environment.

At the School of Electrical Engineering of the University of Belgrade, fourth-

year students of all the departments have obligatory internship of a minimum of two

weeks that brings two ECTS points. However, companies are usually reluctant to offer

internships due to the lack of human and other resources that should be designated to

attend to and help the students during the intended period of internship. Therefore,

though most of the students following the conventional engineering curriculum should

get their first opportunity to face ill-structured engineering problem solving during their

internship, if that is not viable they have no other option but to leave university without

having dealt with this kind of problems.

In order to address the above issues, we created the Project Planning and

Organization in Engineering Practice course. The main objective of this internship-like

course is to develop students’ competencies for ill-structured engineering problem

solving while fostering their teamwork, communication, presentation and idea

generation skills. The course is organized in such a way to resemble the real-world

situations that are particularly found in small and medium enterprises (SME) where an

engineer is often required to combine the roles of a system designer and project

manager in different phases of the product or service development.

The course was initially organized for fourth (final) year students of the

academic studies of the Department of Telecommunications but it has been extended to

master students of the same Department on student’s request. The course lasts 80 hours

over a half semester.

The objective of this article is to describe the course implementation model,

learning experiences and main challenges encountered, as well as to present results and

3
students’ perception of the benefits and pitfalls of the course. We describe the results

that refer to the years 2010/2011 and 2011/2012 where a total of three courses were

held. The results on skills development will be presented in a separate work.

Course Design and Implementation

The design of this course was determined by the initial objective to provide engineering

students with the opportunity to experience the work environment as closely as possible.

The focus is on the use of real, not sufficiently defined project work in order to

experience the processes involved,11 14

stressing the relevance of the techniques and

tools to the professional engineer’s work environment. Ill-structured workplace

problems have vaguely defined goals and possess multiple solutions; they involve

multiple criteria for evaluating solutions and they require learners to make judgments

about the problem and defend them.7 Competencies for ill-structured problem solving

are fostered through hands-on application of crucial processes in project planning and

organization, and in basic wireless systems engineering design.

Educational methodologies that are considered adequate for this kind of course

are problem- and project-based learning, experiential and collaborative learning.15

Project- and problem-based learning enable students to work on solving authentic

problems from real engineering practice on the basis of prior knowledge and synthesis

of knowledge from different disciplines, thus developing problem solving skills.16 17

Experiential learning builds on the process of creating knowledge by assimilation of

new experiences into existing concepts and incorporation of existing concepts in new

experiences.18

Students work independently in small teams where they practice skills of

teamwork, communication, negotiation of ideas and knowledge, information finding,

idea generation, and others.14 19

We adopted the definition of skill as learned or

4
acquired ability, while competency represents a dynamic combination of skills,

knowledge and understanding. Students develop process competencies going through

the experience and process of real project planning and organization according to the

client’s requirements.11

The instructor is just a facilitator of learning, not a transmitter of knowledge –

she works with students on the creation and development of knowledge and skills,

guides and stimulates discussion and monitors group processes. The students’ learning

process consists of finding solutions by themselves with minimal help but with an

always present and supportive instructor.20 The emphasis is not on teaching content, but

on guiding students in their experience of “how to work”.

The course is organized in three- and four-hour classes. Due to the internship-

like character of the course students are not formally assessed but upon completion they

obtain the certificate of successful completion of the internship program and 2 ECTS

points. In order to pass the course students are expected to: attend more than 95% of the

classes; actively participate in teamwork; communicate effectively with team members,

other teams and the instructor; solve problems; work independently; participate in

preparing and giving a final presentation. Though the assessment is informal during the

course we continuously assess the students’ progress in problem solving and project

processes through questionnaires and class observation; at the end of the course each

team’s presentation is assessed.

The structure of the course is divided in three phases. After the PBL

introduction, students begin with project work and finalize the course with the

presentation of their solution. The course structure is shown in Fig. 1.

5
Fig.1. Project Planning and Organization in Engineering Practice: Course structure

In the introductory phase, after being given a brief overview of the course and a

presentation of the objectives and expected outcomes of the course, students are asked

to create their own problem solving model. They are encouraged to participate in the

model creation as this will be their own model, and they will be able to modify it as they

construct knowledge through the course.21 This is the starting point of the problem

solving process and the next step is completing the first exercise: solve the problem,

create basic engineering solution design and organize work on a simple project – from

concept to implementation, with an analysis of the process through which the solution is

obtained. After this exercise, the group’s problem solving model is revised and

modified if needed.

Project work is the central part of the course with the main task being presented

in a form of an ill-structured request for quotation (RFQ). At this stage the teams are

formed, varying from three to five students.

The task is to create a wireless system proposal in response to a tender issued by

an imaginary customer. The proposed system must provide wireless Internet coverage

for two spots of the Belgrade Ada Lake Sports Resort and an ISP Internet connection

via point-to-point link. The proposal must include preliminary design of the system,

6
detailed project plan and final budget for design, supply, installation and commissioning

of the system.

In other courses during their studies, students have already obtained theoretical

knowledge on wireless systems. No theory is exposed by the instructor and the project

planning and organization model is constructed by students themselves in the course of

the project.

Upon understanding clients’ requirements, researching the equipment that can be

used and undertaking the site survey, the preliminary design of the system is created.

Bill of materials is prepared, containing a more detailed specification of the equipment

and installation materials. As the course is focused on project planning and

organization, the systems engineering part of the course is limited to creating a correct

conceptual solution of the system. Licenses and logistics issues (such as transport,

customs, delivery dates) are discussed and determined.

The project plan is prepared according to the works on the project and after the

work breakdown structure (WBS) has been developed. A Gantt chart is introduced in

order to provide the final project plan. Planning of human resources includes details for

the engagement of engineers, technicians and subcontractors.

Project budget elaboration is based on all the above parameters.

Presentation of the final proposal to the customer is held at the end of the course.

The customer is represented by the instructor and two professors from the

telecommunications department. Each team’s proposal presentation is assessed for:

solution accuracy and answer to the client’s request; solution support with sufficient

details and clear drawings; adequate project budget; realistic project plan; professional

position, use of voice and vocabulary.

7
Issues and challenges of the learning experience

This section includes a brief word on the research design followed by the description of

the findings and discussion about the issues and challenges of the learning experience

that students went through during the course.

The research used mixed qualitative and quantitative research methods for data

collection.22 The data was collected during three 10-week courses. The participants in

the study were 46 students (24 male and 22 female). The structured and unstructured

participant observation and discussion groups were used during the course and open-

ended questionnaire and Likert type surveys at the end of each course. All data collected

using field-notes, observation protocols and questionnaires was analysed iteratively23 by

continually refining categories until they accommodated the data for common themes.24

The themes generated during analysis formed the basis of the findings of the study.

The following key challenges were identified: defining the ill-structured

problem; learning to ask questions; connecting theory and practice; self-guided study

and information gathering; facing the reality through site survey; dealing with

ambiguity and trade-offs; learning to communicate clearly.

Where do I start? Define the ill-structured problem. Problem analysis and

definition of client requirements is the crucial starting point of the project work as

students are encouraged to deal with the definition of an ill-structured problem. The task

at hand is not given in sufficient detail, and some of the main inputs are omitted on

purpose. Teams have to struggle to get to the definition of the problem before starting to

solve it. For this purpose, the instructor is the client in question and makes all the

necessary clarifications on the required system that students ask for. Dividing the task

into smaller parts and analyzing each one of them helped. This phase was critical for

learning to ask questions.

8
 Learning to ask questions. Obviously, asking questions is the only way of

finding out what the client really wants. Questioning is clearly an integral part of a

design,18 but it has to be learnt and practiced. The common mistake discovered was that

students, instead of asking questions, made assumptions of their own. Once they started

working with erroneous assumptions, they were lead into undesired directions – because

they never asked questions. This is closely related to defining the ill-structured problem,

where students learn to ask the client about his requirements.

Connecting theory and practice. Students mostly have theoretical knowledge on

different topics such as radio systems, path analysis and wireless access systems, but

have never considered actual forms that equipment takes. At first, students are reluctant

to draw block diagrams though later they realize that it is a necessary part of the

solution. They are also instructed to consult Regulatory constraints and requirements, to

look for Regulatory body’s frequency usage plans and are encouraged to interpret and

use them as criteria for solution building. Finding a conceptual solution for a system

includes connecting the theoretical knowledge obtained through the studies to

correspond to the technical solution developed according to the client’s requirements.

Matching interfaces of different equipment represented the tough task of putting it all

together to fulfil the required purpose.

Self-guided study and information gathering. The client’s requirements were

translated to the technical language but they contained black boxes that had to be filled

with corresponding equipment. Checking the available equipment and possible system

configurations is based on the Internet search. This is the task that most students are not

familiar with and in the beginning they have a hard time interpreting equipment data

sheets and matching them to fit black boxes. The tasks are divided within teams, each

9
member dealing with one part of the problem. This is the second key phase of the

project, crucial for the conceptual design of the system.20

Facing the reality: site survey. A visit to the sites where the system is to be

installed is an obligatory part of the project work. All teams visit the sites with the

instructor. During the site survey, each team modifies its own solution according to the

actual site conditions. This part of the project work is when the students face reality for

the first time during their project work as they are asked to determine installation

conditions. Power supply possibilities are sought for as well as masts or other support

for wireless and point-to-point equipment installation. Sketches and photos of the

terrain and equipment location are made, including relevant power supply distances.

Dealing with ambiguity and tradeoffs. Dealing with ambiguity was found to be

especially hard for some of the students. It seems difficult for them to grasp the idea that

there is not one correct and right solution, but that there are more solutions that fit. They

insisted on knowing the “correct” answer, and not being able to find one brought

disappointment to some of them. Preliminary design and choice of the best conceptual

design solution provide the students with the opportunity to apply different criteria to

the proposed solutions. Feasibility, cost, quality and reliability are all among these

criteria. Comparison of solutions is an iterative process going on during the whole

preliminary design phase. At this stage, students find it difficult at first to work with

feasibility criteria and this is where they need more instructor guidance.

Clear communication. Communicating with suppliers and learning to define

well what one is looking for are skills developed through inquiring about prices and

terms of delivery of the equipment. These are obtained on the Internet, but in case they

were unavailable, a team was required to send an e-mail to the instructor who then had

the role of equipment/material provider. This task teaches students to define well what

10
they are looking for. That is, instead of asking for a quote for “a cable we need for the

radio link”, the student is instructed to define the cable type, connectors, length, etc. if

s/he wants to get the appropriate answer. Communication with the instructor was in

most cases a part of the role play where instructor was a client or a supplier. Otherwise

it implied a direct request for help on different issues. However, the instructor’s answers

always served as guidance – students were at all times left to find answers on their own.

Communication with other teams was found to be surprisingly collaborative – in

general, all queries by other teams were considered and handled friendly and helpfully

which fostered the development of collaborative atmosphere of the course.

Evaluation Results and Discussion

Students evaluate the course through three questionnaires submitted to them at the end

of the course. The first one consists of open-ended questions where students fill in their

perception of the course benefits and pitfalls. The second one includes the student’s

auto-evaluation of his/her own skills enhancement. The results of this questionnaire will

be presented later on in a separate work. The third questionnaire is a Likert-type scale

consisting of questions that evaluate the course on the whole.

The importance for professional and personal development

Students evaluated how important the experience and knowledge gained on this course

were for their professional future. The results are shown in Q1, Table 1, where overall

importance was graded on the scale from 1 to 5 (1 – not important and 5 - very

important). Answers are grouped by categories, taking into account all answers, where

one student may have stated more than one category.

When asked to state why it was important, most of the students stated the

opportunity to work on a real project and solve real engineering problems, connecting

the theory with practice. Actually for the majority this was the first course of this kind

11
 for the whole period of their studies. As one of the students stated: “I got an idea how it

actually looks like in practice, I realized the way to connect it all, and I found out about

some problems that I never thought of.”(S1)

G1: G2: G3: Total

Group/Semester IV year IV year Master
2010/2011 2011/2012 2011/2012
Number of students 15 23 8 46
Q1: The experience gained at this course is
important for my future profession because
Answers by categories
for the first time I experienced the work on a real 9 15 3 27
project
I gained the experience that will help me at work 3 5 3 11
I enhanced my problem solving process 3 6 1 10
I worked in a team 2 7 0 9
I connected the theory studied at the university with 5 2 1 8
practice
Grade of importance for future profession 4,8 4,17 4,63 4,53
Q2: The experience gained at this course is
important for me personally because
Answers by categories
it brought me valuable teamwork experience 5 12 3 20
I feel more self-confident 6 4 3 13
I approach problem solving from the practice point of 4 6 2 12
view
I communicate better with my colleagues 5 6 0 11
it enhanced my organizational skills 0 5 0 5
Grade of importance for personal development 4,53 3,82 4 4,12
Q3: My motivation to attend this course was
Answers by categories
to work on a real project because it is extremely n/a 15 1 16
interesting and appealing
to gain new and practical experience n/a 10 4 14
to foster my skills n/a 5 4 9
to work in a team n/a 3 1 4
to connect theory and practice n/a 2 1 3
TABLE 1. Students’ perception of the importance of the course experience for their professional (Q1)
and personal development (Q2), and their motivation to attend the course (Q3)

The students believed this experience would help them adapt better to the work

environment and their future jobs, and that it helped them enhance their problem

solving process: “It is important because in the future I will know how to approach the

problem I’m facing, where to start, what to be careful about and how to go for the final

solution.”(S2)

Regarding the importance of the experience gained during the course for

personal development, the average scores per course are shown in Q2, Table 1.

12
 When asked to state why it was important, the reason stated by most of the

students was teamwork. (S3: “I realized what my qualities were and I managed to

improve some segments in my teamwork”). One of the important findings of this study

was that the course helped students increase their self-confidence. The students not only

gained better understanding of the engineering practice and its processes (S4: “A very

positive impact on my self-confidence, making me aware of all the knowledge acquired

during our studies.”), but also found comfort in understanding that their peers lacked

practical experience as well (S5: “Because I realized that I was not the only one without

any practical experience, it had a huge positive impact on my self-confidence.”).

Motivation

Students were asked an open-ended question in order to determine why they decided to

pursue the course that is not obligatory and requires substantial effort on their part to

attend the course lasting 80 hours. We introduced this question only for the last two

courses; therefore there are no answers for the 2010/2011 semester. The results are

shown in Q3 (Table 1). As a motivation for attendance, most of the students mentioned

work on a real project because it was extremely interesting and appealing; another

motive was gaining new and practical experience, and fostering skills: “To gain

knowledge on the project processes and problems from practice, get to know real

systems and equipment”(S6) “My main motivation was to do something practical and

work on a real project for the first time.” (S7). Interestingly enough, none of the

students stated that their motivation was to gain two ECTS points.

13
Overall evaluation

The open-ended questionnaire revealed what students liked the most at this course. The

answers are ranked by the number of times stated in all of the courses.

1. Learning environment and process ownership; being able to work and

investigate and reach the solution to the problem on their own: “I liked it all!

The way of learning, without theory, getting the problem and working directly

on a solution.” (S8); “Creativity and stimulation of engineering thinking.” (S9)

“Each one of us was encouraged to perform our work – not even once did we

get a ready answer from the instructor. We had to come up with a solution on

our own.” (S10)

2. Teamwork. “I liked that each team had different ideas, so we could see different

approaches to solving problems.” (S11)

3. Instructor guidance “Instructor’s guidance on how to get on the right

track”(S12)

4. Real project work “Work on ill-defined problems, team work, being able to

manage real problem solutions, conversations about what is actually in store for

us at the workplace.”(S13)

5. Positive atmosphere: “What I liked the most is the atmosphere during the

course, because we learned to work on a serious project in a more relaxed

atmosphere“(S14)

On the whole students had very few complaints about the course. Most of the

complaints and suggestions for improvement were related to the fact that students

would like to work on a real world equipment, to be able to touch the equipment and

install the designed system. However, they also state they understand that this is

14
impossible at the moment due to funding problems and that this issue will be tackled

later on.

Conclusion

The objective of this study was to identify and describe learning experiences due to the

use of ill-structured problems in a PBL internship-like course in the conventional

engineering curriculum context as well as students’ perceptions of such a course. The

reason for introducing this course was to provide engineering graduates with skills and

competencies for successful completion of the work processes required by the industry.

For the majority of the students, this course presented the first opportunity to work

independently in small teams through the development of a real engineering practice

project. Though guided and supervised by an instructor, students reached solutions on

their own, which gave them more self-confidence and helped them develop

competencies that will be useful in the industry environment.

The several identified issues and challenges of the learning experience that

students went through during the course are in part described by Dym et al. as relevant

skills of engineering design that include “the ability to: tolerate ambiguity that shows up

in viewing design as inquiry; maintain sight of the big picture by including systems

thinking and systems design; handle uncertainty; make estimates and decisions; think

as part of a team in a social process; and think and communicate in the several

languages of design.“25 We believe that this internship-like course has the potentials to

prepare students for work environment, supporting the development of professional

practice;20 students’ perception confirms that this course experience is important for

their professional and personal development. Our future research will be directed

towards understanding issues and challenges that students face during different phases

15
of ill-structured problem solving contributing thus to the development of teaching

strategies that prepare students for the workplace.

Improvement of the course for the future requires a closer connection with the

real company environment. We plan to establish cooperation with companies that may

find their interest in providing real equipment for the course, and a step further would

be having professional engineers assess and act as consultants for the teams’

preliminary designs and final proposals.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge support of the School of Electrical Engineering

and Department of Telecommunications that made this research possible. We are

especially grateful to Dr. Jelena Certic for her enlightening ideas and valuable support

in the course organization and to Dr. Magda Medir for revising the article and

suggesting improvements. We owe special thanks to all the students for their

participation and cooperation during the course. This paper forms part of the

Interuniversity Doctoral Program in Environmental Education of the Autonomous

University of Barcelona and of the “Identification, measurement and development of the

cognitive and emotional competences important for a Europe-oriented society” project.

References

1. J. Grimson, 'Re-engineering the curriculum for the 21st century', Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 27(1) (2002),
31-37.
2. S. Goel, 'Competency Focused Engineering Education with Reference to IT Related Disciplines :
Is the Indian System Ready for Transformation?' J. Inf. Tech. Educ. 5 (2006) 27-52.
3. D. Kutlača and V. Šenk, 'Re-thinking the curricula for electrical engineering education in Serbia –
case of the Autonomy Province of Vojvodina', in The Moving Frontiers in Engineering, Proc.
Intl. Conf. on Engineering Education ( ICEE), Coimbra, Portugal, September 3-7, 2007.
4. M. Vukasović, Razvoj kurikuluma u visokom obrazovanju. (Alternativna akademska obrazovna
mreza, Beograd, 2006).
5. D. Woods, Preparing for PBL (McMaster University, Hamilton, 2006).
6. S. Sheppard, A. Colby, K. Macatangay and W. Sullivan, 'What is Engineering Practice ?', Int. J.
Eng. Educ. 22 (3) (2006), 429-438
7. D. Jonassen, J. Strobel and C. B. Lee, 'Everyday Problem Solving in Engineering : Lessons for
Engineering Educators'. J. Eng. Educ. 95(2) (2006), 139-151.

16
 8. N. Entwistle, V. McCune and J. Hounsell, 'Investigating ways of enhancing university teaching–
learning environments: Measuring students’ approaches to studying and perceptions of teaching',
in E. De Corte, L. Verschaffel, N. Entwistle and J. van Merriënboer (ed.) Powerful Learning
Environments: Unravelling Basic Components and Dimensions (Elsevier Science, Oxford, 2003),
pp.89-108
9. M. Savin-Baden, Problem-based Learning in Higher Education: Untold Stories. (SRHE/Open
University Press, Buckingham, 2000)
10. J. C. Perrenet, P. A. J. Bouhuijs and J. G. M. M. Smits, 'The Suitability of Problem-based
Learning for Engineering Education: Theory and practice', Teach.in High. Educ. 5, (2000), 345–
358
11. X. Du and A. Kolmos, 'Process competencies in a problem and project based learning
environment' in Proc. 34th SEFI Annual Conf.: Engineering Education and Active Students,
Uppsala University, Sweden, (2006).
12. C. Heylen, M. Smet, H. Buelens and J. Vander Sloten, 'Problem solving and engineering design,
introducing bachelor students to engineering practice at K. U. Leuven', Eur. J. Eng. Educ.32(4),
(2007), 375-386.
13. J. E. Mitchell and J. Smith, 'Case study of the introduction of problem-based learning in
electronic engineering', Int. J. Elect. Enging. Educ. 45, (2008).
14. C. J. Atman, S. D. Sheppard, J. Turns, R. S. Adams, L. N. Fleming, R. Stevens, R. A. Streveler,
K. A. Smith, R. L. Miller, L. J. Leifer, K. Yasuhara and D. Lund, Enabling Engineering Student
Success: The Final Report for the Center for the Advancement of Engineering Education.(Morgan
& Claypool Publishers, San Rafael, 2010)
15. M. Savin-Baden, 'Problem-based learning in electronic engineering : locating legends or
promising problems?' Int. J. Elect. Enging. Educ. 45(2), (2008), 96-109.
16. M. T. H. Chi and R. Glaser, 'Problem solving ability', in R. Sternberg (ed.) Human abilities: An
information-processing approach (W. H. Freeman & Co, San Francisco, 1985), pp. 227-257
17. E. D. E. Graaff and A. Kolmos 'Characteristics of Problem-Based Learning', Int. J. Eng. Educ.
19(5) (2003), 657-662.
18. D. A. Kolb, Experiential learning : experience as the source of learning and development.
(Prentice Hall, NJ, 1984).
19. H. J. Witt, J. R. Alabart, F. Giralt, J. Herrero, M. Medir and A. Fabregat, 'Development of
coaching competencies in students through a project-based cooperative learning approach' in
Proc. 32nd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Educ. Conf., Boston, MA, November 6-9, 2002.
20. T. A. Litzinger, L. R. Lattuca, R. G. Hadgraft and W. C. Newstetter, 'Engineering Education and
the Development of Expertize', J. Eng. Educ., 100(1) (2011), 123-150.
21. J. R. Savery and T. M. Duffy, Problem Based Learning : An instructional model and its
constructivist framework, Technical Report No. 16-01 (Centre for Research on Learning and
Technology (CRLT), Indiana University, 2001).
22. M. Borrego, E. P. Douglas and C. T. Amelink, 'Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Research
Methods in Engineering Education' J. Eng. Educ. 98(1) (2009) 53–66.
23. M. B. Miles and M. Huberman, Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. (Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, 1994)
24. G. W. Ryan and H. R. Bernard, 'Techniques to Identify Themes' Field Methods 15(1), (2003), 85-
109.
25. C. Dym, A. Agogino, O. Eris, D. Frey and L. Leifer, 'Engineering design thinking, teaching, and
learning', Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1) (2005).

17

View publication stats