This paper presents an evaluation of a problem-based learning methodology versus a more traditional laboratory-based approach to teaching tutorials for electronics modules in undergraduate engineering classes at the University of Limerick, Ireland. First-hand qualitative and quantitative comparative feedback from students is assessed for the same module across successive cohorts using both learning pedagogies. The analysis suggests that a problem-based learning methodology offers significant benefits in an electronic engineering setting when compared with a more traditional didactic method.
PawsonEFournierEHaighM. Problem-based learning in geography: towards a critical assessment of its purposes, benefits and risks. J Geogr High Educ2006; 30: 103–116.
2.
BarrowsHS. Problem-based learning: an approach to medical education, New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company, 1980.
3.
FelderRMSilvermanLK. Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Eng Educ1988; 78: 674–681.
4.
SvinickiMMcKeachieWJ. McKeachie’s teaching tips: strategies, research, and theory for college and university teachers, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub Co, 2010.
5.
JordanACarlileOStackA. Approaches to learning: a guide for teachers: a guide for educators, Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill, 2008.
6.
CrossKP. Learning is about making connections. The cross papers number 3, CA, USA: League for Innovation & Educational Testing Service, 1999.
7.
EwellPT. Organizing for learning: a new imperative. AAHE Bull1997; 50: 3–6.
8.
SawyerRK. The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
9.
ThomasJW. A review of research on project-based learning, San Rafael, CA: Autodesk Foundation, 2000.
10.
JonesBFRasmussenCMMoffittMC. Real-life problem solving: a collaborative approach to interdisciplinary learning, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 1997.
11.
MergendollerJRMaxwellNLBellisimoY. The effectiveness of problem-based instruction: a comparative study of instructional methods and student characteristics. IJPBL2006; 1: 5.
12.
Fowler L, McGillD, Armarego J and Allen M. Quantitative learning conversations: constructivism and its application to learning in an engineering environment. In: 2002 Annual international conference of the higher education research and development society of Australasia (HERDSA), Perth, Western Australia, 7–10 July 2002.
13.
NepalKP. Comparative evaluation of PBL and traditional lecturebased teaching in undergraduate engineering courses: evidence from controlled learning environment. Int J Eng Educ2013; 29: 17–22.
14.
AlbaneseMAMitchellS. Problem-based learning: a review of literature on its outcomes and implementation issues. Acad Med1993; 68: 52–81.
15.
SherwoodRDPetrosinoAJProblem based macro contexts in science instruction: theoretical basis, design issues, and the development of applications. In: LavoieDR (ed). Toward a cognitive-science perspective for scientific problem solving, Manhattan, KS: NARST, 1995, pp. 191.
16.
LieuxEM. A comparative study of learning in lecture vs. problem-based format. About Teaching1996; 50: 25–27.
17.
BellandBRErtmerPASimonsKD. Perceptions of the value of problem-based learning among students with special needs and their teachers. IJPBL2006; 1: 1.
18.
BrushTSayeJ. The effects of multimedia-supported problem-based inquiry on student engagement, empathy, and assumptions about history. IJPBL2008; 2: 4.
19.
BlumenfeldPCSolowayEMarxRW. Motivating project-based learning: sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educ Psychol1991; 26: 369–398.
Shepherd NG. The probe method: a problem-based learning model’s effect on critical thinking skills of fourth and fifth grade social studies students. PhD Thesis, North Carolina State University, 1998.
22.
TrettenRZachariouP. Learning about project-based learning: assessment of project-based learning in Tinkertech schools, San Rafael, CA: The Autodesk Foundation, 1997.
23.
SchmidtHGDauphineeWDPatelVL. Comparing the effects of problem-based and conventional curricula in an international sample. Acad Med1987; 62: 305–315.
24.
ColesCR. Differences between conventional and problem-based curricula in their students’ approaches to studying. Med Educ1985; 19: 308–309.
25.
NewbleDIClarkeRM. The approaches to learning of students in a traditional and in an innovative problem-based medical school. Med Educ1986; 20: 267–273.
26.
BlumbergPMichaelJA. Development of self-directed learning behaviors in a partially teacher-directed problem-based learning curriculum. Teach Learn Med1992; 4: 3–8.
27.
CockrellKSCaplowJAHDonaldsonJF. A context for learning: collaborative groups in the problem-based learning environment. Rev High Educ2000; 23: 347–363.
28.
MajorCH. Connecting what we know and what we do through problem-based learning. AAHE Bull1999; 51: 7–9.
29.
ErtmerPASimonsKD. Jumping the PBL implementation hurdle: supporting the efforts of k–12 teachers. IJPBL2006; 1: 5.
30.
Marx RW, Blumenfeld P, Krajcik JS, et al. Enacting project-based science. Elem School J 1997; 97: 341–358.
31.
MantriADuttSGuptaJP. Design and evaluation of a PBL-based course in analog electronics. Educ IEEE Trans2008; 51: 432–438.
32.
Fitzpatrick C. A problem based learning (PBL) module on electronics & the environment. In: IEEE Int Symp on Electronics and the environment, San Francisco, CA, USA, 19--21 May 2008, pp. 1–6. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
33.
KrishnanSGabbRValeC. Learning cultures of problem-based learning teams. Aust J Eng Educ2011; 17: 67.
34.
LouS-JShihR-CDiezCR. The impact of problem-based learning strategies on STEM knowledge integration and attitudes: an exploratory study among female Taiwanese senior high school students. Int J Technol Des Educ2011; 21: 195–215.
35.
Verma AK. Engaging students in STEM careers with project based learning–MarineTech project. In: Proceedings of the conference, Washington, DC, September 2011, volume 672, p. 206. Washington, DC: Technology & Engineering Teacher.
36.
EskrootchiROskrochiGR. A study of the efficacy of project-based learning integrated with computer-based simulation-STELLA. Educ Technol Soc2010; 13: 236–245.
37.
StrobelJvan BarneveldA. When is PBL more effective? A meta-synthesis of meta-analyses comparing PBL to conventional classrooms. IJPBL2009; 3: 4.
38.
AwangHRamlyI. Creative thinking skill approach through problem-based learning: pedagogy and practice in the engineering classroom. Int J Human Soc Sci2008; 3: 18–23.
39.
Diefes-Dux HA, Moore T, Zawojewski J, et al. A framework for posing open-ended engineering problems: model-eliciting activities. In: Frontiers in education, 2004. 34th Annual FIE, Savannah, GA, USA, 20--23 October 2004, pp. F1A–3. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
40.
van MerrienboerJJGSwellerJ. Cognitive load theory and complex learning: recent developments and future directions. Educ Psychol Rev2005; 17: 147–177.
41.
Johnson M. The design and validation of a low-cost mobile robotic testbed supporting path planning, team building and string stability research. PhD Thesis, University of Limerick, 2012.
42.
JohnsonMHayesM. Development and validation of a low-cost mobile robotics testbed. Central Eur J Eng2012; 2: 50–65. DOI: 10.2478/s13531-011-0048-z.
43.
Das AK, Fierro R, Kumar V, et al. Real-time vision-based control of a nonholonomic mobile robot. In: IEEE international conference on Robotics and automation, 2001. Proceedings 2001 ICRA, Seoul, South Korea, 21--26 May 2001, volume 2, pp. 1714–1719. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
44.
Dempwolf K, Holters M and Zölzer U. Discretization of parametric analog circuits for real-time simulations. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on digital audio effects (DAFx’10), Graz, Austria, 6--10 September 2010.
