Paper ID #8590

Implementing PBL in a Concrete Construction Course

Dr. Jiong Hu, Texas State University, San Marcos

Dr. Jiong Hu an Assistant Professor in the Concrete Industry Management (CIM) program at Texas State
University, United States. Dr. Hu received his BS and MS in 1996 and 1999 from Southeast University,
China, respectively, and his PhD from Iowa State University in 2005. He is teaching construction and
concrete related courses including Construction Materials and Processes, Concrete Construction Meth-
ods, Management of Concrete Products and Concrete Problems: Diagnosis, Prevention, and Dispute Res-
olution. His research interests include concrete materials and construction, engineering and technology
education and problem-based learning.

Dr. Araceli Martinez Ortiz, Texas State University, San Marcos

Araceli Martinez Ortiz, Ph.D, is Assistant Professor of Engineering Education in the College of Education
at Texas State University. She teachers graduate courses in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction
and collaborates on various state and national STEM teacher professional development programs and
pre-engineering student outreach programs.
Araceli holds a B.S. in Industrial Engineering from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor and a M.S.
degree in Manufacturing Management from Kettering University. After a career in engineering working
with companies such as General Motors, Ford Motor Company and Microsoft, she pursued a Master’s
degree in Education from Michigan State University. Later, Araceli completed a PhD in Engineering
Education from Tufts University. She is also experienced in education policy and prior to joining the
Professoriate, she was Director of Educator Preparation - focusing on STEM education projects at the
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board.
In 2013, she was named Director of the Texas State University LBJ Institute for STEM Education and Re-
search. Her research interests include studying the role of engineering as a curricular context and problem-
based learning as an instructional strategy to facilitate students’ mathematics and science learning. She
works with teachers and students from traditionally under-served populations and seeks to understand
challenges and solutions to support student academic readiness for college and career success.
Contact: [email protected]

Dr. Vedaraman Sriraman, Texas State University, San Marcos

Dr. Vedaraman Sriraman is a University Distinguished Professor of Engineering Technology at Texas

State University. Dr. Sriraman’s degrees are in Mechanical and Industrial Engineering. He is a faculty
associate of the LBJ Institute for STEM Education and Research at Texas State University. His research
interests are in engineering education, sustainability and applied statistics. In the past, he has implemented
several grants from the NSF and SME-EF. He has also received several teaching awards at Texas State.

American
c Society for Engineering Education, 2014
 Implementing PBL in a Concrete Construction Course

Abstract

An action-research case study is presented detailing the evolutionary changes in the

implementation of the problem-based learning (PBL) method in an undergraduate concrete
construction course. The case study incorporates the perspective of the course instructor as
action-researcher and reviews the quantitative and qualitative student impact data. PBL was
first implemented in this course in 2011 as a student centered active learning pedagogy. The
first implementation adopted a minimalist approach owing to the issues typically associated
with PBL adoption such as increased instructor effort and student resistance to a new
learning paradigm. Through 2012 and 2013, the action researcher continued to adopt and
increase the scope of the PBL application. In 2013, the course moved from a summer
offering to a spring offering. This change proved to be very positive for both instructor and
students alike. Most significantly, the change in schedule permitted a longer time span in
which the PBL activities were more effectively implemented compared to the short, fast
paced summer offering. The evolution in the adaptation of PBL pedagogy and the key
components for success in the implementation of PBL in the engineering and engineering
technology classroom will be presented. In addition, a discussion of the assessment methods
that also underwent an evolution in scope and detail will be presented. The paper concludes
with recommendations for further research.

Introduction to PBL

Problem Based Learning (PBL) was introduced in the then newly founded School of Medicine at
McMaster University in 1969. The impetus for the educators at McMaster’s was to “stay away
from the standard building - block structure, where a lot of content is shoved down the throats of
students, which they do not retain anyway, and adopt a system where students are actively
involved in the learning process” [1]. This new system was PBL. In the wake of this early success
in implementing PBL at McMaster, several other newly founded medical schools such as those in
Maastricht in the Netherlands and Newcastle in Australia developed curricula based on PBL in
the early 1970s [2].

PBL has enormous popularity all over the world today [3]. It has been applied in many
disciplines besides medicine. In particular, in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math
(STEM), this pedagogical approach has been applied in nearly all disciplines. Bowe [4] and
Kelly and Finlayson [5] describe the application of PBL in first year Physics and Chemistry
courses respectively. Nuutila et al. [6] describe the application of PBL in computer
programming. Allen and Tanner [7] describe the use of PBL in teaching Cell Biology and
Cazolla [8] describes the use of PBL in teaching Mathematics. In the world of Engineering
and Technology PBL enjoys considerable popularity. The following provide some examples
of application and the impacted areas: Engineering Design [9], Chemical Engineering [10],
Biomedical Engineering [11], Civil Engineering [12], Circuit Analysis [13], Construction [14]
and Microelectronics [15].

What does the PBL instructional approach entail? To answer this question it would be
worthwhile to examine why medical educators gravitated to this approach. Findings suggest that
teaching content in anatomy, psychology, and pharmacology in a separate teacher driven
classroom did little to improve the practical application or diagnosis skills required by
medical doctors [16]. Accordingly, Savery [16] defines “PBL as an instructional learner-
centered approach that empowers learners to conduct research, integrate theory and practice,
and apply knowledge and skills to develop a viable solution to a defined problem. Critical to
the success of the approach is the selection of ill-structured problems (often interdisciplinary)
and a tutor who guides the learning process and conducts a through debriefing at the
conclusion of the learning experience”.

Evolution of the course

At Texas State University, a course in Concrete Problems, Diagnosis and Repair has been
taught since 2011. This course exposes upper division undergraduate engineering technology
students to various kinds of concrete structure and product failure, the mechanisms that
underlie such failure, and the repair or restorative processes that would “fix” these problems.
Such ill structured problems require diagnostic skills based on theoretical knowledge, similar
to the medical students’ education challenges that gave rise to the PBL approach in the first
place. Thus, in addition to mastering theoretical technical content knowledge, it is important
for students to develop problem solving skills. The importance of problem solving skills for
future engineers and technologists (engineers hereafter) can hardly be overstated. Solving
open-ended problems is arguably the corner stone of the engineering endeavor and employers
look for engineers who are effective at solving open-ended problems faced in real workplaces
[17]. However, the practice of teaching students technical content while providing
opportunities for the learning of field specific problem solving is challenging. In addition, an
effort to strategically improve engineering education and university teaching practice in a
scholarly manner requires thoughtfulness and use of carefully selected methodology. Case
and Light [18] argue for this very need and present various emerging methodologies in
engineering education research.

In the first offering, the course material was delivered nearly completely through the medium
of traditional classroom based lecture. The instructor included PBL only within one project
wherein students were required to “hunt” for concrete problems in and around the campus,
identify the failure mechanism and finally recommend the subsequent corrective procedures.
This first PBL implementation adopted a minimalist approach that included problem solving
in a team based-environment

In the second offering of the course in 2012, the application of PBL pedagogy was
cautiously increased so as not to overburden the instructor with significant course redesign
and the fact that the course was being offered in a fast paced 4.5 weeks long summer session.
The key reason for adopting PBL was the same as that which motivated medical schools. In
the case of medical schools, the academic community felt that medical knowledge was
growing at an explosive rate. This implied that professional education should prepare
medical students to learn throughout their professional lives rather than to simply master
current information and techniques. This demands that the pedagogical model include active,
independent, self-directed learning. Thus, students need to be able to not only solve
problems, but also be able to identify and formulate them, develop deep understanding of
basic concepts and have the ability to obtain and analyze data critically. PBL addresses these
requirements squarely.

In the third offering of the course, the instructor was able to expansively apply PBL. In
addition, action based research (to be described below) was included. This occurred in
Spring 2013. The course had moved from a summer session offering to a long semester.
Thus, both students and instructor had the luxury of 3.5 months as opposed to little over a
month. Additionally, as the use of PBL had been increased in 2012, the continued expansion
of PBL use in 2013 was not contrived and seemed natural. The details of the expanded
version of PBL are presented in the next section.

Details of Current Implementation

Due to its unique nature (i.e. including significant theoretical technical content and problem
solving aspects), the Concrete Problems, Diagnosis and Repair course was taught with a
combination of lecture-based and PBL approaches. Most of the theoretical content was
delivered through traditional lecture-based approach in order to provide students with
sufficient basic technical knowledge. The PBL activities including the Field Hunting of
Concrete Distresses project and Concrete Distresses and Repair Case Studies term project
were used to reinforce content knowledge and develop critical thinking and problem-solving
skills.

In order to better organize the multitude of topics covered in this course, the class material
was thematically arranged into three major segments, which included a) typical concrete
problem and deterioration mechanisms; b) diagnosis and evaluation of concrete problems;
and c) concrete protection and distress prevention. This special arrangement of course
content helped students to distinguish the roles of the different components covered in the
course and the logical progression in which problems are resolved. Due to the uniqueness
and complex nature of concrete distresses that result from variation in concrete mixtures,
and differences in environmental and physical exposure, there is no ”standard” procedure
to identify, evaluate or repair concrete distresses. This class therefore used the PBL
approach in addition to lectures so as to enable students to confront open-ended workplace
problems, develop deep understanding of conceptual knowledge, and become adept in self-
learning.

In order to help students gain a fundamental understanding of PBL and appreciation for the
new pedagogical approach, a lecture on PBL entitled “How to be Successful as an
Engineering Student By Developing Content Knowledge & Cross-Cutting Knowledge and
Skills” was given at the beginning of the semester in the Spring 2013 offering. The PBL
approach was then used throughout the class with case-based examples, in class
discussions, as well as in the form of special class projects. Following the section on the
mechanism of concrete problems and deteriorations, an activity called “Field Hunting of
Concrete Distresses” was assigned to the class. The words “concrete distress” here means
instances of concrete structures that were damaged or had their integrity compromised.
Students were broken into groups and required to perform a “field hunt”, the object of
which was to identify instances of concrete problems within and outside of the campus.
Figure 1 illustrates examples of concrete problems students identified during this activity.
The photos on the left and on the right are associated with deteriorations from an
underwater structure and a recreation facility respectively. All results, including digital
pictures of the concrete problems and extent of concrete distresses (through onsite
measurements of, for example, patterns, lengths, width of cracks) were to be documented.
Based upon results obtained from the field hunting activity, students were to present their
work in front of judges (served by the instructor and faculty members), and their peers.
During the presentation, students not only presented their findings of different kinds of
concrete distresses, but also provided their analysis of potential causes of these distresses.
Thus, the “problem” to be solved was open-ended and defined by the student. While
students’ analyses of potential causes of these distresses were not necessarily accurate, the
process of brainstorming the causes for failure and the determination of appropriate relief
measures exercises problem solving and critical thinking skills because unlike academic
problems, no one “correct” solution may be found by reading a textbook on the topic.
During the field hunting, students encountered a variety of concrete problems, including
delamination, cracking, plastic shrinkage, honeycomb, efflorescence, spalling, corrosion
and poor repairing. The activity was intentionally designed to be conducted in the early part
of the semester, while students still lacked specific technical background on related topics.
While the approach was challenging for students, the presentations led to good discussions
and cultivated their interest in a gamut of technical topics. This in turn promoted students’
enthusiasm in the remaining topics of the course that followed this activity.

Figure 1. Examples of photos students took during field hunting

As there were a significant number of special concrete problems to be covered in the course,
it was not practically possible to cover all of these in depth due to limited availability of time.
In order to provide students with the opportunity for a comprehensive study of particular
concrete distress, from mechanism, identification, to potential methods for repairing, another
PBL activity entitled “Concrete Distresses and Repair Case Studies” was included toward
the end of the semester. Students in the class were asked to choose specific concrete problems
and perform a comprehensive study based on fundamental knowledge obtained through the
class, together with literature review, and case studies. The project was announced mid-
semester, which allowed students to have approximately six weeks to complete the
assignment. Besides regular updates from students, the instructor also provided one-on-one
consultation weekly either in class or during office hours. These consultations facilitated the
PBL pedagogy by enabling the instructor to provide knowledge on demand. Students were
required to prepare a poster based on the topic they selected and provide information
including mechanism of concrete distresses, measures to identify and evaluate the distresses,
possible causes of the distresses, measurements and measures to minimize/mitigate the
distresses. During this project, students were encouraged to use advanced equipment to
examine actual structures and use the information thus gained to provide better evaluation of
structural integrity and rational analysis of potential causes of distresses. In contrast to the
conventional lecture and laboratory environment, in which students were told to use specific
equipment or tools for specific specimens, student in this exercise were asked to identify the
equipment or tools that they might require and then consult with the instructor on the
procedural details of equipment usage. Specifically, students were required to include a case
study in each of their posters. Students were to present their poster in front of the judge panel
composed of industrial experts and faculty members from related programs within the
department. Two examples of student posters may be found in Figure 2. All posters were set
up in a room with enough space for judges to walk past individual posters and ask questions
related to those posters. The setup allowed students to have a one-on-one opportunity to
present their poster to individual judges.

Figure 2. Examples of posters presented in the poster competition

One other noteworthy change in the spring 2013 offering was the evaluation method, i.e., the
format of exam questions. As the class is highly PBL orientated, in order to evaluate the
effectiveness of PBL, instead of employing regular types of exam questions, such as multiple
choices, fill-in-the-blank, and short answers, specific PBL related questions were included in
all three exams. The questions were constructed in the manner of a case study. Thus, the
exam was also cast in the model of real world problem solving, requiring the application of
knowledge rather than simply regurgitating facts and data. The final exam was completely
PBL-based and included three specific cases. The exam comprised a written section and an
oral section, which accounted for 70% and 30% of the grade respectively. Information
provided in the cases included an explanation of the structure (location, age, environmental
condition, etc.) and a description of the visual appearance of concrete distresses. This
information was provided to the students one week before the final exam, which allowed
them to have enough time to review related documents and search for potential solutions.
During the written portion of the exam, the students were required to propose in-situ test
methods and procedures to evaluate structural integrity and explain the reason for their
selection. As multiple methods can be used for similar purposes and as dynamic adjustments
of test methods and procedures are often called for during the course of testing, answers to
these questions were generally open-ended. Since problem solving approaches and thought
processes that underlie them are often difficult to describe or capture in a written exam, the
oral portion mentioned earlier was incorporated. The oral portion facilitated a dialogue
between the instructor and the individual student on a one-on-one basis. The dialogue also
included follow up questions to students based on their responses to the written portion of
the exam. The oral evaluations were therefore focused more so on the students’ problem
solving approaches, rather than on technical content.

The method outlined in this paper regarding PBL implementation may be applied in other
courses. For instance, in a materials course, students could be presented with various
failed products such as a failed reinforced concrete beam, or in a soil mechanics course,
students could be presented with various foundation failures at the beginning of the
semester. These would then serve as the semester long problem that students would strive
to solve. The instructor would progressively provide technical instruction (on a demand
basis) such as would enable students to tackle specific aspects of a larger problem. The
following section describes action research methodology which was incorporated in the
third offering.

Action Research Methodology

Action research is a theoretically based research methodology that shows promise in

expanding the study and improvement of engineering education. In action research, as
opposed to traditional research, the researcher is a part of what is being studied, most times
as the instructor, examining his or her own problems or new practices. Thus, action research
is carried out in the natural classroom setting (in-situ) and with a spirit of continuous
improvement [19]. The four- step cycle of action research described by Kemmis &
McTaggart [20] was utilized to guide implementation of the research presented in this case
study: 1) [carry] out a plan of action to improve what is already happening, 2) [take] action
to implement the plan, 3) observe the effects of action in the context in which it occurs, and
4) reflect on these effects as a basis for further planning, and subsequent action.

Research Questions

One of the goals of this research project was to investigate the effects of new formative
and summative assessment instruments upon student learning in the PBL-infused course.
These instruments were designed and incorporated in the third offering of the course.
The research questions that were explored are listed below:

1) How effective are the new assessment instruments at quantifying the impact of a PBL-
enhanced curriculum upon student learning as measured by students’
improvement in use of critical thinking and achievement of academic
course learning objectives?
2) To what extent do the authentic problem-solving experiences of the PBL-
enhanced curriculum impact student problem solving skill development
and career motivation as measured by task-specific, criterion-referenced
analytic rubrics and clinical interviews?

Research Methods

A mixed methods research design was utilized and data was collected with pre-
assessment of content knowledge inventory, a survey of expectations and
perceptions of learning, and a formative problem solving assessment for 10 students
during the Fall 2013 offering of the aforementioned course. A quasi-experimental
methodology was used to determine whether the PBL intervention had the intended
effect upon the students. Theoretically based and field-tested instruments for
measuring student cognitive changes, problem solving skill development, and
changes in motivation, were selected as a basis for the development of course
specific assessment tools.

Project Plan

The project plan for this action research project involved course curriculum planning,
development of problem based learning activities, and fine-tuning of assessment
instruments. This was followed by course implementation, data collection, and data
analysis.

Data Collection and Analysis

This experiment was a pre-post design and was analyzed using frequency statistics and
basic descriptive statistics. Given the small sample size (n=9), no other statistical
analyses were conducted with the data at this time. A student self-administered survey
was designed and given to the students in the course prior to the beginning of the course
and at the end of the course.

The first section of the instrument was designed to collect demographic information
and student course expectations and self-reported academic preferences, while the
second section was designed to collect data to evaluate students’ own perceptions on
the degree of accomplishment regarding various expected learning outcomes from the
class. A total of six outcomes were evaluated:

1. Develop an understanding of the role of concrete maintenance, concrete

problem prevention and repairing in sustainable practices in the concrete
construction industry.
2. Demonstrate a strong understanding of the root causes of concrete problems.
3. Develop basic technical knowledge related to common methods for analyzing
concrete problems.
4. Demonstrate a basic understanding of concrete related problem prevention
and resolution methods.
5. Develop basic technical knowledge related to concrete repairing and protection
6. Develop problem-solving skills and self-learning abilities

A Likert scale of 0-4 was used and coded as follows: 0-no understanding, 1- minimal
understanding, 2- moderate understanding, 3- proficient understanding, and 4- expert
understanding.

Results

As can be seen in Figure 3 below from the 2013 class of students, students rated
themselves at a level ranging between 2.0 (moderate understanding) to 2.44 before the
course on each of the six elements of understanding defined for the course. These are
indicated as the average rating scores as shown in the pre-survey bar above. Students
rated themselves at a level ranging between 2.71 to 2.86 (approaching proficient
understanding) after the course on each of the six elements of understanding defined for
the course. There was a clear improvement in students’ assessment of their increased
understanding of course specific content after the course intervention.
 Student Assessment of Understanding of Concrete Concepts
Pre & Post Course
Understanding Scale [ 0-4]

3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
U1Concrete U2Concrete U3Concrete U4Concrete U5Concrete U6Concrete
Pre 2.29 2.33 2.11 2.00 2.11 2.44
Post 2.71 2.71 2.86 2.71 2.71 2.86

Figure 3. Course outcomes from the 2013 student self-assessment

Changes from 2012 to 2013 with two separate groups

Figure 4 below illustrates a comparison of the degree of accomplishment of learning

outcomes between 2012 and 2013 as the course evolved. Students evaluated each
outcome using a scale of 1 to 8, with a score of 1 indicating very strong disagreement
and a score of 8 indicating very strong agreement in regard to the accomplishment of
the particular outcome. While the highest possible summary score of 100% indicates all
students chose “very strongly agree” on that specific outcome, the lowest possible
score of 12.5% indicates all students chose “very strongly disagree”. As shown in the
figure, while all outcomes received higher scores in spring 2013 in comparison to
2012, outcome 6 (develop problem-solving skills and self-learning abilities) received
significantly higher student endorsement in comparison to results from summer 2012.
This significant improvement in outcome 6 is due to the fact that students were
provided explanations about the nature of PBL pedagogy at the commencement of the
long semester, they experienced the more systematic PBL implementation and they
had the benefit of the improved course structure redesign. However, data was not
collected in the very limited PBL version of the course that occurred in 2011.
 95% Summer 2012

90% Spring 2013

85%

80%

75%
Average

70%

65%

60%

55%

50%
1 2 3 4 5 6
Course outcomes

Figure 4. Course outcomes from student self-evaluation 2012 to 2013

The authors also evaluated the effectiveness and preference ranking of different
delivery methods used in the class. Toward the end of the semester, students were asked
to rank the delivery method they considered the most effective and the preferred method
for learning (with 1 being the highest and 14 the lowest) based on their experiences in
the course. Results of the analysis based on the 2012 and 2013 offerings are
summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Effectiveness and preference ranking from different teaching methods

Effectiveness Preference
Delivery Method Rank Rank
2012 2013 2012 2013
Lecturers (Instructor) 1 4 1 3
Lecturers (Guests) 6 9 5 8
In Class Discussion 2 2 2 1
Term Project 5 3 3 7
Field Hunting 3 6 4 1
Labs 3 5 7 10
Working in Teams 8 13 14 14
Weekly Updates 11 11 11 7
Weekly Meeting with the Instructor 10 7 13 11
Peer Review 13 13 12 13
Self-Evaluation and Assessment 12 14 9 13
Homework and Reading Assignments 9 10 10 9
Exams 14 8 6 5
One-on-One Consultation with the
1 3
Instructor 7 8
Count 10 4 8 5
As shown in Table 1, while “Lecturers (Instructor)” was ranked first in both effectiveness
and preference in 2012, the rank dropped to fourth and third respectively in 2013. The
most improved delivery method was found to be “One-on-One Consultation with the
Instructor”, raised from the seventh and eighth to first and third respectively in
effectiveness and preference ranking. Meanwhile, PBL-based activities including in-class
discussion, term project, and field hunting remained very highly ranked. Results indicated
that students highly valued the PBL approach.

The survey designed to collect information in 2013 was a very complete compilation of
student self-perception questions and knowledge competencies. The first section included
a short section with four questions on student demographic information. The second
section included six questions regarding student motivation general study preferences.
The third section included six questions asking students to rate their current understanding
of the concrete course learning objectives as well as included six problem- solving
questions. The fourth section included twelve questions from the ABET defined
competencies. The fifth section included six questions regarding college and career
readiness standards. The survey was effective because it was defined with the end
objectives in mind using high quality questions. The format for the responses of most
sections utilized a 5-point Likert scale and some open-ended responses.

Conclusions and recommendations for future work

Evolution in the adaptation of PBL pedagogy

According to survey results as well as observations from the instructor, most of the PBL-related
pedagogies applied in this course were effective and improved the quality of the student learning
experience. After teaching the course over three semesters, the most-desired and effective
practices that fit this class were lectures, in-class (guided) discussions, field concrete distress
hunting, and a final term project. While traditional lectures are still deemed necessary for
imparting basic technical background, a lecture at the beginning of the semester describing the
PBL approach to students is believed to be helpful to provide students a basic understanding of
PBL and to promote an appreciation for the approach. These PBL approaches, especially the
field concrete distress hunting, were found to be very helpful in promoting students’ enthusiasm
about the class subjects. Other practices that were also found to be effective were the Concrete
Distresses and Repair Case Studies (Term Project), as well as in-class discussions, and one-on-
one consultation associated with the term project.

Evolution in the assessment methods

Recent internationally coordinated research efforts and publications have established engineering
education research (EER) as a connected field of inquiry [21]. This has resulted in a substantial
body of published research guidance involving quantitative, qualitative and mixed research
methods [22,23,24]. This foundation has been used by the researchers of this study as a guide in
the selection of more sophisticated assessment methods over the years. Assessment methods have
evolved over the three years of this study in answer to refined research questions and
supported by additional sources used to design the survey instruments and knowledge inventory.
The original 2011 and 2012 assessment instruments were brief surveys that employed a forced
effectiveness ranking of numbers 1-14, and only addressed students’ opinions regarding their
preference for various instructional methods. In the 2013 course, the assessment instruments
progressed to include metacognitive elements in the form of multi-element surveys and knowledge
inventories, as students considered their own learning of specific concrete technology content
understandings as well as general engineering technology skill development. These
additional assessments are very rich and have the potential for answering the research questions
regarding student learning. The data collected in 2013 is very useful and has definitely
illuminated the opportunities for gaining insight into student learning. Nevertheless, there is
room for further improvement, particularly in the manner in which the surveys were
administered. Students did not appreciate the frequency of assessments, which included weekly
updates, self-evaluations, and end-of-the-class self-assessment surveys. At times, understandably,
students did not effectively complete the assessments. It was more successful when a survey was
integrated as part of a lesson. It is a fine balance to teach and to assess, and when research surveys
are administered as add-ons, it can be overwhelming for students, in particular toward
the end of the semester when students have many additional assignments and projects. The
survey instruments evolved from previous versions and were very effective for this course. The
instruments will need to be further validated to confirm that they are measuring the variables
claimed and will be tested with a larger sample size of students and a control group in order to
assure reliability.

Future Recommendations

In a future offering, in order to further improve the class, the instructor plans on preparing more
case studies associated with homework or in-class quizzes throughout the semester and subsequent
follow up with in-class discussion. Case studies will cover all three major segments, which include
typical concrete problem and deterioration mechanisms; diagnosis and evaluation of concrete
problems; and concrete protection and distress prevention. In addition, efforts will be used to
better organize the weekly update from students regarding the final term project. Specific
questions will be developed for students to respond to week by week, which should better guide
them in the problem solving. Additional assessment instruments as well as ways to encourage
students to participate in assessments and surveys will be developed. In future courses, formative
assessments methods will be utilized to incorporate smaller assessment “chunks” into instruction
in such a way that data can be collected as part of the learning experience. In addition, some of the
instruments can be designed to be more effective and promote greater interest from students
in order to motivate them to complete these evaluations more thoughtfully. In the next course
offering, an experimental design to include a control group will be set up in order to discern if
positive changes in students’ understanding are directly attributable to the use of problem-based
learning instructional approaches.

References

1. Lee, R.M.K.W., and Kwan, C.Y. (1997) “The Use of Problem - Based Learning in Medical
Education”,Journal of Medical Education, 1, 2.
2. Barrows, H. (1996) “Problem – Based Learning in Medicine and Beyond: A Brief Overview”, New
Directions for Teaching and Learning, 68.
3. Graaff, E.D., and Kolmos, A. (2003) “Characteristics of Problem-Based Learning”, International Journal of
Engineering Education, 19, 5.
4. Bowe, B. (2005) Assessing Problem-Based Learning: A Case Study of a Physics Problem-Based Learning
Course, Handbook of Enquiry & Problem Based Learning, Galway: CELT.
5. Kelly, O.C., and Finlayson, O.E. (2007) “Providing Solutions Through Problem-Based Learning for the
Undergraduate 1st Year Chemistry Laboratory”, Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8, 3.
6. Nuutila, E., Torma, S., and Malmi, L. (2005) “PBL and Computer Programming – The Seven Steps Method
with Adaptations”, Computer Science Education, 15, 2.
7. Allen, D., and Tanner, K. (2003) “Approached to Cell Biology Teaching: Learning in Context – Problem
Based Learning”, Cell Biology Education, Summer, 2.
8. Cazzola, M. (2008) “Problem - Based Learning and Mathematics: Possible Synergistic Actions”, ICERI
Proceedings, Valenica, Spain.
9. Hasna, A.B. (2004) Problem-Based Learning in Engineering Design, Proceedings of the SEFI 36th Annual
Conference, European Society for Engineering Education.
10. Gomez-Ruiz, S., Perez-Quintanilla, D., and Sierra, I. (2009) “Problem-Based Learning: An Approach to
Chemical Engineering Education within EHEA” Intechopen, 10, 1.
11. LaPlaca, M.C., Newstetter, W.C., and Yoganathan, A.P. (2001) “Problem-Based Learning in Biomedical
Engineering Curricula”, Proceedings of the 31 st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Reno, NV.
12. de Urena, J.M., Menendez, J.M., and Coronado, J.M. (2003) “Project/Problem Based Learning in Civil
Engineering: the Ciudad Real (Spain) Experience”, Proceedings of the International Conference on
Engineering Education, Valencia, Spain.
13. Costa, L.R.J., Honkala, M., and Lehtovuori, A. (2006) “Applying Problem-Based Learning Approach to
Teach Elementary Circuit Analysis”, IEEE Transactions on Education, 50, 1.
14. McIntyre, C. (2002) “Problem-Based Learning as Applied to the Construction and Engineering
Capstone Course at North Dakota State University”, Proceedings of the 32nd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in
Education Conference,
15. Cirstea, M. (2003) “Problem-Based Learning (PBL) in Microelectronics” International Journal of Engineering
Education, 19, 5.
16. Savery, J.R. (2006) “overview of Problem-Based Learning: Definitions and Distinctions”, Interdisciplinary
Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1, 3.
17. Jonassen, D., Strobel, J., and Lee, C.B. (2006) “Everyday Problem Solving in Engineering: Lessons for
Engineering Educators,” Journal of Engineering Education, 95, 2.
18. Case, J. M., & Light, G. (2011). Emerging Methodologies in Engineering Education Research. Journal Of
Engineering Education, 100(1), 186-210.
19. Cousin, C. (2009) Researching Learning in Higher Education: An Introduction to Contemporary Methods and
Approaches. Routledge.
20. Kemmis, S. and McTaggart, R., eds. (1988) The action research planner, third edition. Victoria: Deakin
University.
21. Borrego, M., & Bernhard, J. (2011) The Emergence of Engineering Education Research as an Internationally
Connected Field of Inquiry. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(1), 14-47.
22. Olds, B.M., B.M. Moskal, and R.L. Miller. (2005) Assessment in engineering education: Evolution,
approaches and future collaborations. Journal of Engineering Education 94 (1): 13–25.
23. Chism, N. van N., E. Douglas, and W.J. Hilson Jr. (2008) Qualitative research basics: A guide for
engineering educators.West Lafayette, IN.
24. Rayne, K., T. Martin, S. Brophy, N.J. Kemp, J.D. Hart, and K.R. Diller. (2006) The development of
adaptive expertise in biomedical engineering ethics. Journal of Engineering Education 95 (2):165–73.