Touchy feely?…

Whilst trying to get caught up with the ALT module reading, I realised that I’ve missed a small amount of debate via the blackboard forum (I genuinely hate blackboard, it is to VLE’s what Ceefax is to the internet).  Having read through the linked website and associated references such as (Fleming & Mills, 1992) and (Weimer, 2002) I was confident that I was definitely a Kinesthetic learner, primarily because I like working through practical problems, examples, and building models.  However having since taken the test I was classed as a multimodal learner, equally split between Aural and Kinesthetic.   I’m slightly perlplexed by this, because whilst I really do enjoy discussing things with my peers and I love listening about subjects I know nothing about, I can’t think of anything worse than listening to podcasts.  I’ve tried podcasts in the past for news, reviews, funny podcasts, and for learning but I’ve never been able to give them my full undivided attention.  Which usually means I last about 5 minutes before I have to go away and do something more interesting instead.

Reflecting on this, perhaps I am in part an Aural learner although perhaps just the particular technology of podcasts doesn’t fit well with my preferred style.  I like to discuss things and ask questions, if this isn’t available then I like to be shown something and then try it out for myself (Kinaesthetic).  Even if the trying out exercise results in my breaking a piece of software or getting a strange result, the actual ‘fixing’ process is invaluable to how I learn.

So perhaps podcasts are too one directional for my needs and would need to be combined with another technology or exercise for me to complete my preferred method of learning, although ideally I think I’d still prefer a screencast rather than just an auditory commentary.  (Harmeyer & Wetzel, 1996) note that ‘The global hemisphere dominated person prefers interactive activities such as labs or working in groups’ and this is linked to a holistic learning style rather than purely analytical which would use the analytical hemisphere; whilst the practical component would fit well with how I perceive my learning style and whilst I do like working in groups, where group members don’t work at my pace or contribute I find I have very little patience.  Another interesting point raised by (Harmeyer & Wetzel, 1996) is that students may unconsciously sit on different sides of a lecture theatre depending on if they’re learning a creative or mathematical subject.

Thinking a little deeper about how I learn, perhaps I’m forcing my preferences and learning styles onto the students via my intentions for the puzzles.  Adaptive content (Dekson & Suresh, 2011) can be shown to promote interaction with the students and create a greater appetite for playfulness.  Ultimately I think is aligned to a form of exploratory (Freitas & Neumann, 2009) and experiential learning (Kolb, 1984; Moon, 2004), which for an engineer has to be beneficial as it contributes to their pool of existing experiences and with practice they will be able to apply this knowledge to solving puzzles and problems (Badger, Sangwin, Ventura-Medina, & Thomas, 2012).

Should I be concerned about this?  Would there perhaps be an advantage in conducting discussions with the students before creating and trialing the puzzles?  Either way, I need to pull my finger out and get ethics signed off if I’m intending to publish in any shape way or form. Sometimes looking at things in a different way can suddenly unlock its meaning, such as the mosaic in the Chapman building, which you can’t actually see until you take a picture of it and then mystery is revealed… what a puzzle…

References:

Badger, M., Sangwin, C. J., Ventura-Medina, E., & Thomas, C. R. (2012). A guide to puzzle-based learning in STEM subjects. Birmingham: University of Birmingham.

Dekson, D. E., & Suresh, E. S. M. (2011, 14-16 Dec. 2011). Learner centered Adaptive and Intelligent E-Portfolio Architecture for Learning (AIEPAL). Paper presented at the Advanced Computing (ICoAC), 2011 Third International Conference on.

Fleming, N. D., & Mills, C. (1992). Not another inventory, rather a catalyst for reflection To improve the academy (pp. 137-146). Oklahoma: New Forums Press.

Freitas, S. d., & Neumann, T. (2009). The use of ‘exploratory learning’ for supporting immersive learning in virtual environments. Computers & Education, 52(2), 343-352. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.09.010

Harmeyer, K. M., & Wetzel, K. C. (1996, 6-9 Nov 1996). Brain research and implications for engineering education. Paper presented at the Frontiers in Education Conference, 1996. FIE ’96. 26th Annual Conference., Proceedings of.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Moon, J. (2004). A handbook of reflective and experiential learning: Theory and practice. London: Routledge.

Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-Centered Teaching: Five Key Changes to Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Progress…

I have to confess to not making very good progress with the ALT module or even particularly enjoying it very much so far.  I’m certainly nowhere near where I need to be and I’m not sure I possess the motivation to get caught up.  Whilst I’ve been working my way through the reading and starting to collate some ideas relating to the structure and topics of my puzzles,  I’m finding it difficult to comply with the module’s requirements whilst juggling a very busy work schedule, the late start to the module and a hectic month creating over 20,000 words of lecture notes, presentations, and associated information for our degree accreditation have really taken precedence and their toll on my energy levels.

After the freedom afforded from the core module, which I really enjoyed as it made my introduction into reflective learning fun and exciting, I’ve not found the experience of being put into subsets and being given a rigid structure enjoyable at all.  Perhaps this is being borne from the freedom that studying my PhD and the core module have spoiled me with, or perhaps it’s just fatigue setting in after a really hard month, but what I do know is that I’m sorely tempted to kick the ALT module in the head and just progress the puzzles off my own back anyway and come back to a different optional module in a year or so.  I had my doubts at the beginning of the course, and perhaps I should have just followed my gut instinct.

My faith in using Physion models to create puzzles and examples for the students to learn from remains rock solid, and I’ll progress this regardless.  The supporting references that I’ve been given at the beginning of the module and the puzzle based learning session I’ve attended with the HEA will be invaluable in preparing and validating the puzzles and I’m pleased that I was able to access them and I’ve found the reading list that I’ve begun creating really exciting and encouraging.

I hadn’t expected the ALT module structure to take the form that it has with such a large focus on Active Learning Sets or such strict word counts and all of the limitations that I feel they bring.  I’m sure part of it is just my perception of the process, but my choices as I see it is to either bash something out to pull myself over the finish line, or craft something I can be proud of that perhaps doesn’t comply with the limitations.   A year ago, I’d have relished the structure and constraints of munching my way through a box ticking exercise to get my badge at the end, highly procedural and perfect for an engineer to grind through.  Now though I’m finding it demotivating and perhaps I’ve boobed a little in my expectations..

I think I’ll just sleep on it over the next couple of days and see how the presentations go on Tuesday…

What is a puzzle?…

When I attended the puzzle based workshop organised by the HEA, one of the key references that was constantly referenced by the organisers was (Michalewicz & Michalewicz, 2008) and since the workshop I’ve managed to locate myself a copy, which is the 2010 reprint with additional corrections.

With regards puzzle definitions and creation, I think this will be an invaluable text and help to clarify my vocabulary and understanding of puzzle structure.

Essentially (Michalewicz & Michalewicz, 2008) define a good puzzle as having certain key qualities which are listed below.

1.) Generality:

Educational puzzles should explain some universal mathematical problem.

2.) Simplicity:

Education puzzles should be easy to state and remember, if puzzles are easy to remember then this can increase the chance that the solution too will be remembered in the future.

3.) Eureka factor:

Puzzles should by their very nature be puzzling, and consequently frustrating to a degree.  The result should be interesting as sometimes it may feel counter-intuitive but should ultimately end with a Eureka! moment.

4.) Entertainment factor:

For a puzzle to be effective it should be entertaining, students may lose interest if puzzles are not fun!

One of the breakout workshops was to consider the effectiveness of puzzles and to create discipline specific versions.  Our breakout group consisted of a chemist, a physicist, a geography lecturer, a computer scientist, a mathematician, and a structural engineer (myself).  We discussed a few different puzzles from the draft handbook and debated the value of making puzzles subject specific.

The workshop organisers initially held the opinion that puzzles, specifically for STEM subjects, should be discipline specific.  But after a good hour’s debate in our group we all agreed that they don’t have to be discipline specific and that instead; the key to a good puzzle is accessibility, which sits well with Rule 1 from (Michalewicz & Michalewicz, 2008).  This also fits well with (Ausubel, Novak, & Hanesian, 1968) who notes that ‘The most important single factor influencing learning is what the learner already knows. Ascertain this and teach him accordingly’.  It may seem appropriate for a lecturer (with all of their experience) to phrase a structural engineering problem to their students using an oilrig as an example for overturning, but if your student has never seen the sea, let alone an oilrig; how can they be expected to relate to the puzzle?  Instead it may be better to use a more common example for the puzzle such as a table to establish a principle, and then starting to give discipline specific examples to further expand and illustrate this example afterwards.

Indeed building from a common understanding with linked analogous thinking into discipline specific (if possible from the lecturers or the students own personal experience) can help cement the understanding and is in keeping with UKPFS V3 & V4 (HEA, 2011).  Within structural engineering, the expansion of this understanding is typically woven into the design projects (The Joint Board of Moderators, 2009) so that the students can see the relevance of the supporting theory which will also give the students the opportunity to put into practice their new skills and discuss the issues with their peers (Law, 2011).

Another interesting comment that was raised by one of my peers, was that they were disappointed that the puzzles presented in the workshop were all text based with no physical puzzles being present.  This is a very interesting point, as not everyone can assemble a puzzle in their minds from a written description and whilst this is a valuable skill for a practicing engineer to develop, it may be more beneficial in the early stages of developing problem solving skills to have the puzzles presented in a more visual or tactile setting.  I’m confident that the teaching level I’m aiming at pitching the puzzles too and the fact that the physics will update in real time will all help to make the learning process more accessible.

The puzzles that I’m in the process of creating should be relevant to the students as they are based upon structures, with solutions that are tested in real time.  The added benefit of these puzzles though is that if the students are unable to identify the solution immediately or through using engineering logic, they could solve the puzzles through enquiry based learning learning as the puzzles can be reset when the wrong solutions are entered.  The benefit of seeing your building collapse when you’ve entered the wrong solution cant be underestimated as a form of immediate and physical feedback, it also should fail in a realistic manner so by getting the solution wrong, this still presents a valuable learning experience with regards how structures fail and the associated mechanisms of failure which further extend the puzzles originally presented by (Brohn, 2005).

I’m confident that by physically seeing the consequences of their decisions on the puzzles set unfold before their eyes, this will increase their understanding of the behaviour of structures, which is identified by industry as currently lacking  (Owens, 2010, 2011) and consequently has become the aim of the project, this is anchored in pedagogic theory too as described by  (Ramsden, 2003) ‘focus on key concepts and students’ misunderstandings of them, rather than covering the ground’ which is what I aim to achieve through the puzzles.

References:

Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D., & Hanesian, H. (1968). Educational Psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Brohn, D. M. (2005). Understanding Structural Analysis (Third ed.). Kingsbridge: New Paradigm Solutions.

HEA. (2011). The UK Professional Standards Framework for teaching and supporting learning in higher education   Retrieved from http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/ukpsf/ukpsf.pdf

Law, S. (2011). Recognising excellence in teaching and learning   Retrieved from http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/ukpsf/recognising-excellence.pdf

Michalewicz, Z., & Michalewicz, M. (2008). Puzzle-based learning: An introduction to critical thinking, mathematics, and problem solving. Melbourne: Hybrid Publishers.

Owens, G. (2010). Structural enginering education in the 21st century: the way forward. [Viewpoint]. The Structural Engineer, 88(1), 15.

Owens, G. (2011). Transforming undergraduate structural engineering education in the 21st Century. The Structural Engineer, 89(2), 18-20.

Ramsden, P. (2003). The nature of good teaching in higher education Learning to Teach in Higher Education (Third ed., pp. 84-105). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

The Joint Board of Moderators. (2009). Annex B – Design in Degree Programmes. London: JBM.

Workshop…

This week I was fortunate enough to be able to attend a HEA STEM specific workshop for puzzle based learning at the University of Birmingham.  There was a broad range of STEM disciplines there with the team at Birmingham presenting their work so far in using puzzles in teaching Maths and Engineering.

On the whole I found the workshop really valuable, giving me an insight into how other STEM based disciplines present their subjects to their students; hearing how and when the puzzles were most effective.  Interestingly if the puzzles were tacked on to the back of the lecture notes then they were never attempted by the students, but by integrating them and making them a primary gateway into the next component of the subject the puzzles were actively engaged with.

Another interesting component was that the puzzles were pitched as a group and as a sole activity, initially I hadn’t considered that the puzzles would work well as a group as I presumed the brighter students would keep solving them and take away that ‘Aha!’ moment from the other students.  The Birmingham team teach one of the optional Maths modules purely as a puzzle based session for an entire semester, and have done so for 5 years.  For each year they’ve managed to get through 40 puzzles (±2).  This is even more interesting given that only the students are allowed to solve the puzzles, with each group having to agree that the solution is complete before they can move onto the next puzzle.  The moods moving through the semester were described by the lecturer responsible for the module and he noted that for a large portion of the semester the students feel very uncomfortable, but by the last 2 weeks, their enthusiasm and optimism goes through the roof.  The only regret is that just as the students are becoming productive puzzle solvers, the module ends and they move back into mainstream teaching methods.

I have to say that the workshop was really valuable, it’s helped me understand and locate some of the key qualities that a puzzle must possess and also to see how my peers would construct and dissect puzzles for STEM related subjects.

I even managed to obtain a draft of the puzzle based handbook that is currently being prepared which will be useful for measuring back to my puzzles, plus a few good references were identified that I’m in the process of locating…

Addendum to plan…

Following the feedback from my draft plan I’ve decided to update a few elements.  I’m still convinced I’m answering the right questions, there are countless articles over a period of about 20 years that bemoan that the modern graduate cannot describe and understanding basic structures.  Some of the work that I do outside of the University with the Institution of Structural Engineers and my experience with recent graduates whilst working in industry also support my topic.  I’ve drafted out an indicative timeline which I’ve photographed to include within this blog which shows just how tight my project is going to be with regards accomplishing the work I need to do.  Clearly obtaining ethical approval is going to be the most critical item in my schedule… fingers crossed that the process is much quicker than the old system, I’ve yet to see anything happen quickly at the University so it does make me nervous.

Having signed up for a HEA STEM Puzzle Based workshop next Wednesday in Birmingham, I’m frantically working through various game based and puzzle based references and journal articles to help expand and develop my understanding of the terminology that is associated with this element of research.  It’s starting to come together, but one pattern I’ve spotted is that quite a few of the articles focus on puzzles in isolation.  I’m wanting to include puzzles as a complimentary tool fitting around a traditional system.  The puzzles are intended to aid with formative feedback, after the student has used the same environment to develop their understanding using traditional exercises and tutorials.  This is something that I feel I need to map out on more detail as the project develops… so much to learn and develop in such a compressed amount of time.

One area that I hadn’t considered is that of actually scoring the puzzles, which can be a motivating factor in game based learning (Ebner & Holzinger, 2007) but is a mechanism that I’m currently unsure about progressing in my puzzles.  I’d intended to treat each ‘level’ as a milestone to allow progression through a route, with each stage increasing in complexity.  Ultimately, although not part of this sub-project I would like to see some of the students developing their own puzzles and scenarios similar to the study of final year graduates undertaken by (Cullingford, Mawdesley, & Davies, 1979).  My intended logic for measuring the students understanding pre and post-puzzle appears to be sound from an intuitive stance, but is also supported by the work undertaken by (Mawdesley, Long, Al-jibouri, & Scott, 2011) which is based on the exposure of students to a construction related game.

I’m finding the references provided by Pete to his wife’s PhD incredibly invaluable, in addition to the draft HEA STEM puzzle handbook for the workshop next week.  Having completed the PGCAP core module and having a general grounding in pedagogic theory that I’m becoming more comfortable in relating my understanding into this new area of teaching theory, but I’ll expand on this in more detail once I’ve finished hacking my way through (Kebritchi & Hirumi, 2008).

I’m also really excited to have received an email from the developer of Physion who has asked if there’s anything that he can do to help me with creating the puzzles, and it’s this open type of sharing that is key to the success of this project and why I intend on making my puzzles and supporting material openly available once completed.

References:

Cullingford, G., Mawdesley, M. J., & Davies, P. (1979). Some experiences with computer based games in civil engineering teaching. Computers & Education, 3(3), 159-164. doi: 10.1016/0360-1315(79)90041-1

Ebner, M., & Holzinger, A. (2007). Successful implementation of user-centered game based learning in higher education: An example from civil engineering. Computers & Education, 49(3), 873-890. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2005.11.026

Kebritchi, M., & Hirumi, A. (2008). Examining the pedagogical foundations of modern educational computer games. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1729-1743. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.05.004

Mawdesley, M., Long, G., Al-jibouri, S., & Scott, D. (2011). The enhancement of simulation based learning exercises through formalised reflection, focus groups and group presentation. Computers & Education, 56(1), 44-52. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.005

Puzzling plan…

Problem Description.

The Institution of Structural Engineers, Institution of Civil Engineers, Joint Board of Moderators and various industrial bodies have noted that UK graduate engineers’ ability to assess and describe structural behaviour has been on a steady decline for the last 20 years (Curtin, 1991).  One alarming component of research found that “At worst, when tested on a qualitative understanding of structural behaviour, many students with good degrees from universities with strong reputation score zero!” (Owens, 2010).

Two key factors in increasing the development of understanding structural behavior have been identified by (Morreau, 1990), these being:

1. the qualitative understanding of structural behaviour
2. ways of identifying and formulating problems.

Having attended recent meetings for the Institution of Structural Engineers, I think that these two problems still hold true and are as relevant today, as they were when (Brohn & Cowan, 1977) published his then innovative paper .

Project Rationale.

The aim of this project is to establish and develop an innovative programme of teaching structural behaviour using puzzle based learning to promote deeper understanding of structural behaviour and associated failure mechanisms.  Innovative ways of teaching have been identified as a key success factor by (Owens, 2011) with regards the understanding of structural behaviour.

One of the key elements to determine is to identify which elements of structural behaviour do the students most struggle with and why.  By  converting these problems to puzzle based learning this should help the students visualise the behaviour and failure mechanism and give a broad sense of overall and global structural behaviour.  This is valuable to students, as fortunately the majority of real world structures constructed are safe and very limited amounts of video footage of failures are available for students to learn from.

Puzzle based learning is traditionally an under utilised technique but enables the student’s learning by developing their general problem-solving and independent learning skills.  Similarly it offers the opportunity for student centred learning and the initial feedback with the students have shown that they enjoy creating puzzles themselves and it is hoped a peer centred puzzle group may evolve with time.  It is important that the puzzles are varied in their design and help develop not only expand their understanding of structural behaviour, but also the student’s conventional and lateral problem solving skills.

Project/Intervention Description.

As a lecturer that has recently joined academia after 15 years in industry, I have witnessed this decline in a fundamental skill first hand and have spent many hours mentoring and re-training graduates from several UK universities.

This decline has lead to calls for Universities to teach structural behaviour using innovative and creative methods.  There is a need for these solutions to be developed urgently to protect the stream of engineers required to maintain the UK’s lead in engineering disciplines, but without the underpinning knowledge of structural behaviour many of these graduates will struggle in industry and may find it takes longer before they are comfortable in attempting to achieve chartered status, and so this project integrates the professional requirements under UKPSF.

The aim of this project is to create a series of innovative real time physics puzzles and experimental models using a piece of freeware called ‘Physion’ to teach students how structural frames behave, specifically: Disproportionate collapse, determinate structures, indeterminate structures, and when structures become dangerously unstable and form a mechanism.  The focus of the models is for the students to test and interact with a broad portfolio of structural models to see how they behave in real time and how they are affected by the student’s decisions.  Then for them to experiment as to which structural members can be removed whilst maintaining the structural integrity of the frame, until the structure eventually becomes unstable and will collapse in a real time environment.   This reflects well against the UKPSF (HEA, 2011) and in my opinion covers the entire of the ‘Areas of Activity’ (A series) of objectives, plus the majority of Core Knowledge (K series) and Professional Values (V series).

Initial trials with students using VLE based automated tests have shown positive results with regards motivation and student engagement, with students enjoying doing the tests in their own time whilst at home, typically at highly unsociable hours.  By expanding the puzzles into a piece of software which is freely available, with a structured theme, and a set of pre-prepared puzzles this enthusiasm is hoped to be capitalised upon.

Through the creation of a series of real time puzzles that can be delivered on any windows based PC, the students will be able to interact with a variety of structures and mechanisms to assess and understand the behaviour through the solving of a series of puzzles, some of which are based around the seminal text, ‘Understanding Structural Analysis’ by Brohn (Brohn, 2005) who was creating game based learning puzzles in the early 1970’s to promote better understanding with undergraduates (Brohn & Cowan, 1977).

The intention is that the puzzles will start simply, introducing the student to the environment upon which the puzzles are based, how to enable the physics, how to remove, and add elements to achieve overall stability in the structures presented.  The students will then progress through the puzzles in a prescribed order to determine if the frames are indeterminate, determinate, or form a mechanism.  Where a frame is shown to have redundant members, the students will initially be told to delete specific members to reduce the frame to a pure frame to develop their understanding. The puzzles will become steadily more complex as the student progresses, with the failure mechanism becoming more spectacular as the course progresses to maintain motivation.

A description of the puzzle and associated instructions can be provided either in written form, or embedded as a custom graphic into the puzzle itself so the student is able to zoom in to read the text in more detail.  Similarly, the models can be zoomed in and edited in great detail whilst the physics component is disabled, with the model zoomed out to show the whole structure just before the physics is re-enabled.

As Physion does not produce bending moment diagrams, shear force diagrams, or indeed any mathematical output, which can sometimes can be distracting for the student, it is ideal as a visualisation tool for the students to understand purely the structural behaviour.  The effects of the deflection of the frame and overall movement due to the application of the loadings will visually demonstrate the overall stability of the puzzles.  As the test structures will fail in a realistic manner due to the real time physics environment, this develops the students feeling of intuition as to how structural failures occur and what this may mean when analysing and design structures.  It will also be used to show that whilst certain structures may have three redundant elements, that the selection of the correct three elements is essential, as complete structural failure may occur after just the removal of two elements.

Ethical approval for capturing and using data from current students is in the process of being secured from the University for students on Civil Engineering and Masters related degrees.

Development Needs.

Whilst I have considerable experience in the mentoring and development of graduate engineers and first hand experience of some of the shortcomings experienced by modern graduates in structural behaviour, there are certain skills that I will need to develop in order for this project to be a success.

Some of these skills will be needed immediately for the completion of the pilot ALT study, others will be needed for a longer term strategy.

Short term:

• Deeper understanding of game theory, this is a key weakness and needs expanding as a priority.
• Deeper understanding of qualititave analysis.
• Expand understanding of the puzzle structure and relation to gaming theory.

Specifically the following questions need to be answered of the students’ learning…

• Will they learn by making a game?
• Will they learn by playing a game?
• Will they learn by abiding by the rules of the game?
• Will they learn by completing the puzzle?

Long term.

• Development of Java Script programming abilities.
• Development of remote delivery strategy.
• Development of  material to be delivered to any student wishing to try the puzzles.
• Faculty independent delivery mechanism.

Timescale.

This is an ambitious project, that is based on a long term strategy which is largely incompatible with the ALT module timescale.  Clearly only sub components can be delivered and evaluated as part of this module.  The intention would be to test and evaluate concepts within the ALT module, as a series of pilot studies to build and further expand these into the overall aims and objectives of the main project.

Short term:

• Obtain ethical approval.
• Identify key theme.
• Develop first bank of puzzles to reflect the key theme.
• Identify 1^st and 3^rd year students, evaluate current understanding using Blackboard and/or Survey Monkey.
• Deliver puzzle based session.
• Measure 1^st and 3^rd year students understanding post course using Blackboard and/or Survey Monkey.
• Critically evaluate and dissect programmes success.
• Reference back to UKPFS and pedagogic literature for correlation.
• Identify next steps.

Evaluation Strategy.

Several small focus groups of students at undergraduate and postgraduate level have been established and the students already exposed to some of the Physion models when teaching disproportionate collapse and seismic behaviour.  The engagement and playfulness of the models has sparked the students’ imagination with initial positive feedback, and the programme has begun for creating the puzzles and measuring their success through pre and post-course evaluation of both qualitative and quantitative data.

The first year students’ will use the puzzles as a complete new approach to how they are taught structural behaviour and they will complete a qualitative questionnaire afterwards to reflect on their experience solving the puzzles, with the feedback used to improve the user experience.  Also they will be required to sit a VLE based test which will take a small number of random questions drawn from a large pool of questions to test their understanding.

Second, Third and Final year students will be required to complete the same test and questionnaire, but will also be required to complete a random series of test questions to determine their understanding prior to the puzzle based learning sessions.  All tests will take place in controlled conditions, with restricted time slots and instant feedback given to the students as part of the evaluation process.  However, once the test has been sat, the questions will be opened up to allow further student centred learning, where the students can build their own test puzzles to confirm the answers if needed.

Risks.

There are several risks to the success of this project, specifically linked to the ability to deliver in the compact timescale associated with the ALT module.

One of the key risks, will be maintaining a narrow focus on one specific component, rather than expanding all of the topics identified for the long term project.

Another risks include the delay in obtaining ethical approval; no evaluation or delivery of teaching will be started until ethical approval has been confirmed.

A final risk will be securing adequate numbers of computers with Physion loaded on to enable the delivery of the puzzle based sessions.

I would also like to attend the STEM based puzzle conference at the University of Birmingham in March, although securing funds for the travel costs is proving challenging.

Another risk is that because of the nature of the project and the potential for it to be expanded widely I know that there is absolutely no chance of me staying anywhere even remotely close to the maximum word counts for the ALT course.  I’ve probably exceeded it purely within this single post, but I’ve made the decision that I find the blogging process quite cathartic and helps me structure my thoughts, so I’ll just have to accept whatever penalties my verboseness cost me.  Hopefully the tutors will find it an interesting read either way and I’ll still muster a pass grade.

Future Extension.

Connections have been made with the Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester where the intention would be to use some of the puzzles as outreach and educational tools for the public, with physical models also present to demonstrate some of the failure and behavioural patterns evident in the digital models and relating these to local structures and industrial machinery, ideally located within MOSI.  This has been discussed as potentially being included within Science Week and/or a “Meet the Structural Engineer” event currently organised via my involvement with the IStructE and the educational lead Nicola Frost at MOSI.  It would be the intention of encouraging the students to demonstrate some of the puzzles and models to the public at this event and perhaps helping the public to create suitable puzzles.

Opportunities.

I have applied for a Teaching Development Grant from the HEA with the aim of developing this series of puzzles and then openly sharing them with other institutions.

References.

Brohn, D. M. (2005). Understanding Structural Analysis (Third ed.). Kingsbridge: New Paradigm Solutions.

Brohn, D. M., & Cowan, J. (1977). Teaching towards an improved understanding of structural behaviour. The Structural Engineer, 55(1), 9-17.

Curtin, W. G. (1991). Qualitative analysis of structures. The Structural Engineer, 69(7), 157.

HEA. (2011). The UK Professional Standards Framework for teaching and supporting learning in higher education   Retrieved from http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/ukpsf/ukpsf.pdf

Morreau, P. M. (1990). Understanding Structural Behaviour. The Structural Engineer, 68(15), 299-300.

Owens, G. (2010). Structural enginering education in the 21st century: the way forward. [Viewpoint]. The Structural Engineer, 88(1), 15.

Owens, G. (2011). Transforming undergraduate structural engineering education in the 21st Century. The Structural Engineer, 89(2), 18-20.

End of the module summary…

At the beginning of the module I was concerned that I may not ‘get’ the course and struggle with some of the softer topics.  In particular I could see that a large proportion of the course centred around personal reflection and reflecting on our learning and teaching practice.  This was quite a strange and scary thought for me as I had no experience or exposure to reflective practices.  Having seen the core module to the end I can’t pretend to be an expert of reflective practice, but I have managed to assemble the process into an order that makes sense to me now and I can see the benefits in applying it to teaching and learning in an engineering environment.  Having been made aware of reflection, I’ve started to notice its inclusion in texts and articles as I’ve expanded my reading circle in alignment with the PGCAP core objectives.  One interesting quote that I feel fits well with my experience is: “Contrary to the cliché, I do not learn from my experience; that is, not unless I reflect on what I have done.” (Mason, Burton, & Stacey, 2010).

Having completed the core module, I’ve also decided to change my optional module.  Originally I had planned on exploiting my inherent nerdiness by selecting the digital learning module, but having been exposed to various pedagogic strategies I’m keen to see them implemented and I’ve changed my selection to help me create and refine existing course modules to give me an opportunity to embed some of the new concepts I’ve learned, particularly Problem Based Learning which I intend to build around a full day workshop.  If I’m careful and focused I’m hoping that I can align this with various Threshold Concepts that engineering students commonly find difficult to help encourage a deeper learning experience.

On the whole I’ve found the course interesting, although I’ve found myself frustrated occasionally given the structure of the course as it’s very different to an engineering degree.  I’ve found the easiest way to deal with my frustration is throw myself in headfirst and just go with the course and taking this approach has opened up quite a few new opportunities for me.  This has happened at a cost though, with it being the first year that I’ve been teaching all of my material has been written from scratch, combined with a PGCAP, a PhD, my volunteering with the British Red Cross, and a young family I’m mentally and physically exhausted, even after a Christmas Break.

As a result of the course I’ve found the confidence to submit a paper to a journal and a proposal for a HEA conference presentation in April.  I’m looking forward to the optional module and I’m looking forward to getting my PGCAP qualification under my belt and seeing some of the good tools put into action.  Once I’ve got a solid set of basic notes under my belt for all of the modules, then I can start to add some more experimental techniques into the mix…  Fred Garnett believes it takes 3 years to get to this stage, I’ve no reason to doubt him, but I feel I’ve been throwing a few things into the mix already like embedding my experience and research into my teaching which aligns well with the professional standards (HEA, 2011).

I’ve also met some lovely people along the way too who I really intend to stay in touch with throughout my professional career.

References.

HEA. (2011). The UK Professional Standards Framework for teaching and supporting learning in higher education   Retrieved from http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/ukpsf/ukpsf.pdf

Mason, J., Burton, L., & Stacey, K. (2010). Thinking Mathematically (Second ed.). Harlow: Pearson.