This paper examines the nature of the action learning educational approach and its application to research project work in undergraduate engineering education. In particular, a case study involving the establishment of an action learning environment to improve student learning in the School of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Western Australia is discussed. The action learning environment implemented had a positive effect on students' performance, their ability to cope with the stresses associated with managing an engineering honours research project, the depth of learning and their development as autonomous learners, as well as their perception of the research project experience. It is argued that the deeper approach to student learning encouraged by the action learning approach directly addresses some of the concerns from industry regarding the attributes of engineering graduates.
RevansR., ABC of Action Learning (Chartwell-Bratt, Bromley, 1983).
2.
McGillI.BeatyL., Action Learning: A Guide for Professional, Management and Educational Development, 2nd edn (Kogan Page, London, 2002).
3.
MarquardtM., Action Learning in Action: Transforming Problems and People for World-Class Organisational Learning (Davies-Black Publishing, Palo Alto, 1999).
4.
BeatyL., Action Learning, Continuing Professional Development Series No. 1 (LTSN Generic Centre, York, 2003).
5.
KolbA.KolbD., The Kolb Learning Style Inventory – Version 3.1, Technical Specifications (Experience Based Learning Systems, 2005).
6.
HughesM.BournerT., ‘Action learning set meetings: Getting started by checking in’, Action Learning: Research and Practice, 2(1) (2005), 89–95.
7.
FelderR.BrentR., ‘Understanding student differences’, J. Enging. Educ., 94(1) (2005), 57–72.
8.
National Research Council, How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1999).
9.
DaleE., Audiovisual Methods in Teaching, 3rd edn (Dryden Press, New York, 1969).
10.
O'BrianE.HartS., ‘Action learning: The link between academia and industry’, J. Educational Research, 41(1) (1999), 77–89.
11.
FinkL. D.AmbroseS.WheelerD., ‘Becoming a professional engineering educator: A new role for a new era’, J. Enging. Educ., 95(1) (2005), 185–194.
12.
BemoldL. E.BinghamW. L.McDonaldP. H.AttiaT. M., ‘Influence of learning type oriented teaching on academic success of engineering students’, J. Enging. Educ., 89(1) (2000), 191–199.
13.
DichterA. K., ‘Effective teaching and learning in higher education, with particular reference to the undergraduate education of professional engineers’, Int. J. Enging. Educ., 17(1) (2001), 24–29.
14.
DymC. L.AgoginoA. M.ErisO.FreyD. D.LeiferL. J., ‘Engineering Design thinking, teaching, and learning’, J. Enging. Educ., 94(1) (2005), 103–120.
15.
PedlerM.BurgoyneJ.BrookC., ‘What has action learning learned to become’, Action Learning: Research and Practice, 2(1) (2005), 49–68.
16.
MarquardtM.WaddillD., ‘The power of learning in action learning: A conceptual analysis of how the five schools of adult learning theories are incorporated within the practice of action learning’, Action Learning: Research and Practice, 1(2) (2004), 185–202.
17.
RamsdenP., Learning to Teach in Higher Education, 2nd edn (Routledge Falmer, London, 2003).
18.
WilsonK.FowlerJ., ‘Addressing the impact of learning environments on students' approaches to learning: Comparing conventional and action learning designs’, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(2) (2005), 87–101.
19.
FelderR.SilvermanI., ‘Learning and teaching styles in engineering education’, J. Enging. Educ., 78(7) (1988), 674–681.
20.
LiveseyM.StappenbeltB., ‘Learning style prevalence of engineering students’, HERDSA Rekindled conference, Perth, Australia (2006).
21.
FreireP., Pedagogy of the Oppressed (Penguin, New York, 1972).
22.
BernoldL. E.SpurlinJ. E.AnsonC. M., ‘Understanding our students: A longitudinal study of success and failure in engineering with implications for increased retention’, J. Enging. Educ., 96(3) (2007), 263–274.
23.
HoitM.OhlandM. W., ‘The impact of a discipline-based introduction to engineering course on improving retention’, J. Enging. Educ., 87(1) (1998), 79–85.
24.
WebsterT. J.DeeK. C., Supplemental Instruction Integrated Into an Introductory Engineering Course, J. Enging. Educ., 87/4 (1998), pp. 377–383.
KroghL., ‘Action research as action learning as action research as action learning … at multiple levels in adult education’, in Research to Reality: Putting VET Research to Work (Australian Vocational Education and Training Research Association, Alexandria NSW, 2001).
29.
DavidH., ‘Action learning for police officers in high crack areas’, Action Learning: Research and Practice, 3(2) (2006), 189–196.
30.
SankaranS.HaseS.DickB.DaviesA., ‘Reflections on developing an offshore, action research/learning-based Ph.D. program’, Action Learning: Research and Practice, 3(2) (2006), 197–211.
31.
BiggsJ., Student Approaches to Learning and Studying (Australian Council for Educational Research, Hawthorne, Victoria, 1987).
32.
JonassenD.StrobelJ.LeeC. B., ‘Everyday problem solving in engineering: Lessons for engineering educators’, J. Enging. Educ., 95(2) (2006), 139–151.
