MASTERS OF SCIENCE IN TECHNICAL EDUCATION 

(ELECTRICAL AND ELECTONIC ENGINEERING) 

 

Students’ Experience on Project Based Learning in Engineering Education 

in Bangladesh. 

By 

 

IBRAHIM ADAMU 

STUDENT NO: 153607 

MSC.TE (EEE) 

 

 

 

DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL AND VOCATIONAL EDUCATION (TVE) 

ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY (IUT) 

ORGANISATION OF ISLAMIC COOPERATION (OIC) 

DHAKA-BANGLADES 

 

08 NOVEMBER, 2017. 



 

STUDENTS’ EXPERIENCE ON PROJECT BASED LEARNING IN 

ENGINEERING EDUCATION IN BANGLADESH. 

 

 

By 

 

IBRAHIM ADAMU 

STUDENT NO: 153607 

MSC.TE (EEE) 

 

Name of Supervisor: Dr. Md. Shahadat Hossain Khan 
 

 

Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of  

Masters of Science in Technical Education with specialization in  

Electrical and Electronic Engineering  

 

DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL AND VOCATIONAL EDUCATION 

ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY (IUT) 

ORGANISATION OF ISLAMIC COOPERATION (OIC) 

BOARD BAZAR, GAZIPUR-1704, DHAKA-BANGLADESH 

 

 

08 NOVEMBER, 2017.  



 

 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS 
 
The thesis titled “Students’ Experience on Project Based Learning in Engineering 

Education in Bangladesh.” submitted by Ibrahim Adamu, Student No. 153607 of Academic 

Year 2016-2017 has been found as satisfactory and accepted as fulfilling the requirement for 

the degree of Master of Science in Technical Education (M.Sc.TE) with specialization in 

Electrical and Electronics Engineering. 

BOARD OF EXAMINERS 

 
 ---------------------------------------------- 

1. Dr. Md. Shahadat Hossain Khan                                                        Chairman 

          TVE Department.                                                                                     (Supervisor) 

 

 

------------------------------------------------------ 

2. Prof. Dr. Che Kum Clement                                                                  Member 

           Head, TVE Department                                                                            (Ex-officio) 

 

 

------------------------------------------------------- 

3. Dr, Md. Aktaruzzaman                                                                           Member 

          TVE Department. 

 

 

------------------------------------------------------- 

4. Dr. Shafiqul Alam                                                                                     Member 

Director, Bangladesh Open University. 

          Board Bazar, Gazipur. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



i 
 

DECLARATION 

 

 
This is to certify that the work presented in this thesis is the outcome of the investigation carried 

out by Ibrahim Adamu under the supervision of Dr. Md. Shahadat Hossain Khan (Assistant 

professor) in the Department of Technical and Vocational Education (TVE), Islamic University 

of Technology (IUT), Gazipur, Bangladesh. It is hereby declared that this thesis/report or any 

part of it has not been submitted elsewhere for the award of any Degree or Diploma. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-----------------------------------------                       ------------------------------------  

Dr. Md. Shahadat Hossain Khan                                          Ibrahim Adamu        

Supervisor and Assistant Professor                                      Student No: 153607. 

Dept. of Technical and Vocational                                       Academic year 2016/2017 

Education (TVE)                                                       

Islamic University of Technology (IUT)                               

Gazipur, Bangladesh. 

 

                                                                                              Date----------------------------- 

 

 

Date----------------------------- 

 

 

 

 



ii 
 

 

DEDICATION 

 

This research project is dedicated to my dear mother Habiba Ismail Babamele and father Baba 

Adamu Fara-Fara.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



iii 
 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 
 

I am immensely indebted to Almighty Allah (SWA) for granted me the health, protection and 

made it possible for me to start and accomplished this work.  

 

My appreciation goes to my supervisor Dr. Shahadat Hossain Khan for his patience, advice 

and spending his scarce time to read this work and make necessary correction. I am really proud 

to have you as my supervisor. The researcher likes to convey his deep gratitude and appreciation 

to Prof. Dr. Che Kum Clement, Head of Technical and Vocational Education (TVE) 

Department, Islamic University of Technology (IUT) for his guidance and mentoring which 

gave significant contribution to the success of my study.  

 

I equally recognize the effort of my lecturers from Technical and Vocational Education (TVE) 

Department, and Electrical and Electronic Engineering (EEE) department, Islamic University 

of Technology (IUT) for given me the great insight on the task before me. 

 

This work would not have been possible, if not for the sixteen participants from Islamic 

University of Technology, and Daffodil International University all in Dhaka Bangladesh who 

freely provided their valuable time and ideas during the interviewed. I sincerely thanks all of 

them. 

 

My deepest thanks and heartfelt gratitude go to my parents Baba Adamu Fara-Fara and Habiba 

Ismail Baba Mele who are always the source of my inspiration. To my friends Yusuf, Sunusi, 

Basirka, and Ya balah as well as my brother Uthman and my sister Fatima, who have endured 

my absence of contacting them. Many thanks also go to all my classmates’ M.SC.TE class of 

2017 who contributed in one way or the other to the success of my study. 

 

Finally I would like to thank my dear wife Hussaina and loving children Ahmad and Saddiya 

who continually support me and provide me emotional strength to conduct this study successful. 

 



iv 
 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 
DECLARATION .................................................................................................................................... i 

DEDICATION ....................................................................................................................................... ii 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ................................................................................................................... iii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................... iv 

LIST OF ACRONYMS ...................................................................................................................... viii 

ABSTRACT............................................................................................................................................ 1 

CHAPTER I ........................................................................................................................................... 3 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 3 

1.1 Background of the Study ............................................................................................................. 3 

1.2 Statement of Problem .................................................................................................................. 5 

1.3 The Objectives of the Study ........................................................................................................ 6 

1.4 Research Questions ...................................................................................................................... 6 

CHAPTER II .......................................................................................................................................... 9 

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE .......................................................................................... 9 

2.0 Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 9 

2.1 Project-based learning (PBL): Definition and rationale .......................................................... 9 

2.2 PBL as Pedagogical Approach for Teaching Engineering Education .................................. 11 

2.4 Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................................. 17 

CHAPTER THREE ............................................................................................................................. 19 

METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................................. 19 

3.0        Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 19 

3.1 Phenomenography Approach ................................................................................................... 19 

3.2. Participants ............................................................................................................................... 21 

3.3 Data Collection ........................................................................................................................... 23 

3.4 Data Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 24 

3.4 Validity and Reliability of the Instruments ............................................................................. 26 

3.4.1 Validity ................................................................................................................................. 26 

3.4.2 Reliability ............................................................................................................................. 26 

CHAPTER IV ...................................................................................................................................... 28 

INTERPRETATION OF DATA ........................................................................................................ 28 

4.0     Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 28 

4.1 Findings ...................................................................................................................................... 28 



v 
 

4.1.1. Category A: Understanding engineering concept ........................................................... 30 

4.1.2. Category B: Enhancing networked learning ................................................................... 31 

4.1.3. Category C: Changing conceptual development ............................................................. 33 

4.1.4. Category D: Linking knowledge to the real practice. ..................................................... 35 

4.2. Relationship between Categories of Description .................................................................... 38 

4.2.1. Dimension 1:  Purpose of PBL .......................................................................................... 38 

4.2.2 Dimension 2: The Role of Teacher .................................................................................... 41 

4.2.4 Dimension 4: Level of engagement in PBL ....................................................................... 48 

4.3. Summary and Relationships among the Categories. ............................................................. 51 

CHAPTER V ........................................................................................................................................ 53 

DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................... 53 

5.0     Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 53 

5.1 Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 53 

5.2.    Conclusions and implications ............................................................................................... 56 

5.3 Limitation ................................................................................................................................... 57 

5.4 Future research recommendation ............................................................................................ 58 

BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................................ 59 

APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................................... 67 

Appendix A, Participant Information Statement ......................................................................... 67 

Appendix B: Participant Consent Form ........................................................................................ 71 

Appendix C: Interview Schedules .................................................................................................. 74 

Appendix D: Table A: Showing the process of developing the final outcome space.................. 77 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 



vi 
 

LIST OF TABLES 

 
Table 3.2 Summary of demographic features of participants ………………………………. 20 

Table 4.2.1 Variation in the Purpose of PBL in engineering Education ……………………. 36 

Table 4.2.2. Variation of teachers‟ role in PBL process in engineering education …………. 39 

Table 4.2.3. Variation of student’s role in PBL process in engineering education ………….. 42 

Table 4.2.4. Variation in level of engagement in PBL process in engineering education …… 45 

Table 4.3 Relationship among categories of descriptions of PBL in engineering education… 48 

Table A: The process of developing the final outcome space ……………………………… 71 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  



vii 
 

LIST OF FIGURES 

 

Figure 3.1 Relationship between PBL and engineering students…………………………….. 18 

Fig 3.2. Seven steps of phenomenography data analysis…………………………………….. 23 

Fig 4.1. Hierarchical Arrangement of Categories of Description……………………………. 26 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  



viii 
 

LIST OF ACRONYMS 

 

CSE    Computer science and Engineering  

 

EEE    Electrical and Electronic Engineering  

 

MCE   Mechanical and chemical Engineering  

 

CEE    Civil and Environmental Engineering  

 

PBL    Project Based Learning 

 

MIT                       Massachusetts Institute of Technology  

 

CDIO                     Conceive-Design-Implement-Operate 

 

IUT                        Islamic University of Technology  

 

DIU                        Daffodil International University   

 

 

 

 

http://web.mit.edu/


1 
 

ABSTRACT 

 

In this study, a qualitative research approach, phenomenography was used to examine students’ 

experiences on project-based learning (PBL) in engineering education in Bangladesh. Sixteen 

engineering students from two universities in Bangladesh participated in semi-structured in-

depth interviews where they discussed their experiences about PBL, specifically how they 

experienced it in their engineering class setting. The interviews were analyzed using seven steps 

of phenomenographic data analysis. The outcomes revealed that, PBL in engineering education 

is conceived in four qualitatively different ways: understanding engineering concept; enhancing 

networked learning; changing conceptual development; and linking knowledge to the real 

practices. Four dimensions of variation were identified and explored to establish relationships 

that exist among these conception, which include: purpose of PBL; role of the teachers; role of 

the students; and level of engagement in PBL. The findings reveal that, PBL is a pedagogical 

techniques that provides deeper understanding of engineering knowledge and skills. It also 

provides engineering students with the opportunity to developed new knowledge and how to 

apply this newly developed knowledge into real practice. Therefore, this study will provide 

empirical study to understand the present pedagogical application of PBL in engineering 

education of Bangladesh, and the empirical findings of this study also provides useful insights 

about the different ways of seeing PBL in engineering class setting. 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



2 
 

  



3 
 

CHAPTER I 

INTRODUCTION 

 

1.1 Background of the Study 
 

The global requirements for a successful career in the 21st century are extremely different from 

that of 20th century (Morgan, Moon and Barroso, 2013; Gavin, 2011). As a result of the ever 

changing technological advancement and new problems being identified daily, we have to 

prepare students for jobs and challenges that possibly do not even exist today (Morgan, Moon 

and Barroso, 2013). One of the biggest hindrances for the country’s economic and technological 

development is the limited scope for engineering education (Chowdhury & Alam, 2012). While, 

recent reports on engineering education stated that, additional improvements are required upon 

knowledge and skills acquired by engineering   graduates to meet the present challenges in the 

real world of work (Jamieson & Lohmann, 2009; Sheppard, Macatangay, Colby, & Sullivan, 

2009). Realization has also emerged that, engineering and Technology education, aid nation to 

achieve its development goals and economic prosperity (Chowdhury & Alam, 2012). 

Therefore, technology plays a vital role in economic development of both developing and 

developed countries and this has impact on the standard of living of the people of these 

countries. However, the advancement of engineering and technology education is one of the 

major factor that make countries like United State, Germany, England, China, India, Canada 

and Japan considered in the world as developed countries. For the developing countries to 

developed, they have to integrate various technological programs that foster the development 

of engineering education of these developed countries into their educational system. 

      

To ensure quality of engineering education of many countries around the globe, Accreditation 

Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) was established. One of the criteria for ABET 

is to ensure student outcomes that prepare graduates to attained educational objectives, such as 

an ability to: apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering; design and conduct 

experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data; function on multidisciplinary team; 

identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems; communicate effectively; engage in life-



4 
 

long learning; use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for 

engineering practice among others (ABET, 2017). 

 

In the same vein, numerous studies around the world have proposed PBL as the most suitable 

means of achieving effective competence-based education that integrates self-learning, 

knowledge, problem-solving skills, and creativity (ChanLin, 2008; Karaman and Celik, 2008; 

Palmer and Hall 2011; Zhou 2012). The 20-year experience with PBL in Technical University 

of Madrid described it as the most adequate educational methodology for the development of 

competences, connecting teaching with the professional sphere (de Los Rios, Cazorla, Díaz-

Puente, & Yagüe, 2010). Similarly, Research has shown that, students in PBL classrooms 

acquired knowledge and skills better than students in traditional classrooms (ChanLin, 2008; 

Karaman and Celik 2008; Marx et al., 2004; Rivet & Krajcik, 2004; William & Linn, 2003). 

Previous research showed that, PBL allows students to engage in a real world activities which 

enable them to learn by doing and applying ideas similar to the activities that adult professionals 

engage in a real world of work under the directive of a teacher (Erik and Anette; 2006). In the 

same vein, PBL environment focuses on establishing self-learning through practical activities, 

interactive discussions, autonomous operation or team cooperation, students reach the planned 

target and establish their own know-how. In this approach, teachers play the role of facilitator    

(Tseng, Chang, Lou, & Chen, 2013). 

 

Consequently, report on Bangladesh engineering education asserted that, increasing the number 

of students is not the primary concern of engineering institutions, rather the quality of 

knowledge and skills acquired by engineering students  (Chowdhury & Alam, 2012). One of 

the keys to preparing students to meet these challenges is to help them build knowledge and 

skills that they can readily adapt to address the complex problems that they will encounter 

(Litzinger, Lattuca et al. 2011). However, current understanding of expertise, and the learning 

processes that develop engineering education indicates that, it should encompass a set of 

learning experiences that allow students to construct deep conceptual knowledge, to develop 

the ability to apply key technical and professional skills, and to engage in a number of authentic 

engineering projects (Litzinger, Lattuca et al. 2011).  

 



5 
 

Based upon the fore going discussion, the researcher observed that, there is contradiction 

between the outcomes of engineering education of Bangladesh and the objective of ABET. In 

contrast, the engineering education of Bangladesh is not providing adequate knowledge and 

skills, in which PBL was found effective pedagogical approach for teaching engineering 

education as it was suggested by (Albanese & Mitchell, 1993; Blumenfeld et al., 1991; Vernon 

& Blake, 1993; Williams & Williams, 1997; Du et al, 2009). Chua, (2014) found that, When 

engineering students participate in design projects, they get a better appreciation of the purposes 

of the various fundamental topics they have to read as well as the opportunity to see the 

connection and usefulness of their acquired knowledge in tackling interdisciplinary engineering 

problems. Therefore, In order to enhance development of engineering education in Bangladesh, 

there is a need for adopting PBL as a pedagogy for teaching engineering education. These new 

challenges are the reason for integrating PBL in engineering Education. 

 

While numerous studies was conducted on PBL in different discipline, (Lam, Cheng, & Ma, 

2009; Keser, & Karahoca, 2010; Tuncay, & Ekizoğlu, 2010; Carter, 2016; Cömert, 2014; 

Krajcik, et al, 1998; Krajcik, et al, 1994) conducted their study in relation with sciences and 

social sciences while, (Hadgraft, 1992; Hendy, & Hadgraft, 2002; Hadgraft 1997; Mills, 2002; 

Mills, & Treagust, 2003) Conducted their studies on engineering discipline. Most of this study 

try to evaluate the effectiveness or appropriateness of PBL in a particular discipline, degree of 

success associated with implementation of PBL in such discipline or assess the role of student 

on PBL. But none of these study found evaluating qualitative differences of student conception 

or experience on PBL in engineering education. In this connection, the present study tries to 

investigate students’ experiences on PBL in engineering education in Bangladesh. 

 

1.2 Statement of Problem 

Rossini, & Yam, (2010) stated that, “learning takes place through the active behavior of the 

student, it is what he does that he learns, not what the teacher does” (p.63). In PBL situations, 

students are asked to construct their own knowledge. Hence, PBL focuses on learning by doing 

or active learning (Chua, 2014). In this respect, PBL confirms more effective, fruitful and 

generative courses by allowing students to contribute in the learning process actively and to 

create in association with others (Cömert, 2014). PBL is a comprehensive approach to 



6 
 

classroom teaching and learning that is designed to engage students in investigation of authentic 

problems (Blumenfeld et al., 1991). Similarly, its allows students to engage in a real world 

activities which enable them to learn by doing and applying ideas similar to the activities that 

adult professionals engage in a real world of work under the directive of a teacher (Erik and 

Anette; 2006). 

But report on engineering education of Bangladesh stated that, Bangladesh falls into a low 

engineering and technology educated nation (Chowdhury & Alam, 2012). While, Du et al 

(2009) stated that, PBL has proven to be a successful educational strategy in many different 

study domains all over the world. Therefore, the researcher observed that, for improving current 

pedagogical techniques in engineering education of Bangladesh, implementation of PBL as a 

pedagogy of instruction will play a vital role. Therefore, empirical study is needed to understand 

the present pedagogical application of PBL in engineering education of Bangladesh. In order to 

address this issues, this study tries to find out students experience’s on PBL in engineering 

education in Bangladesh. 

 

1.3 The Objectives of the Study 

The main aim of this study was to investigate students experience on PBL in engineering 

education of Bangladesh. In order to achieve this purpose, the following objectives were 

outline: 

1. To identify qualitative different ways of experiencing PBL in engineering education in 

Bangladesh. 

2. To investigate the similarities and differences of students’ understanding on PBL in 

engineering education of Bangladesh. 

 

1.4 Research Questions 

The following are the key research questions that guided the researcher in collecting the 

necessary evidence to achieve the objectives of the study. 

1. How do you experience PBL in your engineering class setting? 



7 
 

2. What are the similarities and differences of students’ understanding on PBL in 

engineering education? 

 

These questions was selected based on Pramling’s (1983) what/how framework as he used in 

studying children's conceptions of learning. The What-aspect here is to investigate what 

students conceptualize or understand with PBL in engineering education and the How-aspect 

also examines how relevant understanding of knowledge and skills acquisition remained to the 

students. 

 

 

  



8 
 

 

  



9 
 

CHAPTER II 

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 

 

2.0 Introduction 

This chapter is based on literature review and the review was conducted based on the previous 

researches on PBL, The essence of reviewing literature was to provide the researcher with an 

opportunity to identify any gaps that may exist in the body of literature and to provide a rationale 

for how the proposed study may contribute to the existing body of knowledge. The literature 

review helps the researcher to refine the research questions and embed them in guiding 

hypotheses that provide possible directions the researcher may follow. The concept reviewed 

include differences upon the conception of people about the PBL, and how it was being used 

as a pedagogical technique in different study domain all over the world. Since the study is on 

engineering student experience on PBL, general overview of student’s conception on learning 

were reviewed and finally, constructivist school of learning were justified as a theoretical frame 

work for the study. 

 

2.1 Project-based learning (PBL): Definition and rationale  

Project is universally used in engineering practice as a “unit of work”, usually defined on the 

basis of the client. Almost every task undertaken in professional practice by an engineer will be 

in relation to a project (Mills, & Treagust, 2003). Projects will have fluctuating time scales and 

difficulty. A project such as the construction of power station may take several years, at the 

same time other engineers may be involved on many small projects for various clients at any 

given time. While, Jurewitsch, (2012) define PBL as an instructional strategy where students 

are presented with a real-life complex problem that they need to solve. Similarly, Prince and 

Felder (2006), define PBL as learning where the context is initiated with ‘an assignment to carry 

out one or more tasks that lead to the production of a final product’.  

 

According to Chau (2005), the main objective of PBL is to ‘provide students with the 

opportunity to develop learning skills and attitudes that would equip students with the abilities 



10 
 

to become more effective students as well as independent lifelong learners. The pedagogic 

concept of PBL is different from that of traditional learning in that it tries to develop students 

into active learners who actively acquire necessary knowledge to resolve problems that appear 

in the project, not as passive learners who always receive second hand knowledge (Thomas, 

2000). It is recommended that PBL incorporate opportunities for feedback and revision as 

student work progressively, as well as marks assessment activities, where students must clear 

the basis of their design solutions including reports and presentations (Helle et al, 2006). PBL 

is being used in higher education institutions throughout the world, particularly in Europe (Du, 

de Graaff, and Kolmos 2009). Some of the main reasons for using PBL have been the desire to 

reduce dropout rates, to stimulate learning and to support the development of new skills among 

students (De Graaff et al, 2007).  

 

Moreover, Thomas (2000) asserted that, "what must a project have in order to be considered an 

instance of PBL? The five criteria are centrality, driving question, constructive investigations, 

autonomy, and realism”.  

PBL projects are central, to the curriculum: In PBL, the project is the central teaching 

strategy; students conceptualize the central concepts of the discipline via the project.  If the 

central activities of the project can be carried out with the application of already-learned 

information or skills, the project is an exercise, not a PBL. The centrality criterion means that 

in PBL, students learn things that are not outside of their curriculum. 

 

PBL focused on driving question: Projects are focused on questions or problems that drive 

students to encounter with the central concepts and principles of a discipline. It may be built 

around the intersection of topics from two or more disciplines, but the questions that students 

pursue, as well as the activities, products, and performances that occupy their time, must be 

arranged in the service of an important intellectual purpose.   

 

PBL engage students in a constructive investigation: For a project to be considered as a PBL 

project, the central activities of the project must involve engaging students in construction of 

knowledge. Student have to engage in investigating new idea or way of doing a task. An 



11 
 

investigation in PBL is a goal directed process that involves inquiry, knowledge building, and 

determination. It may be design, decision making, problem finding, problem solving, discovery, 

or model building processes.  

 

PBL are student driven to some significant degree: PBL are students centered learning. 

Teachers are just a mere facilitators trying to guide the students in actualizing their objective. 

It is more student autonomy. In the process, students pursues solution to open ended problem 

by formulating question for investigation, designing plan or proposal, collecting and analyzing 

of information and creating products of their understanding. Teachers are monitoring the 

students to make sure that they are moving in right tract. 

 

Projects are realistic, not school like: for a project to be considered PBL, it must incorporates 

real life challenges where the focus is on authentic problems or questions and where solutions 

have the potential to be implemented. Therefore, PBL allows students to engage in a real world 

activities which students learn by doing and applying ideas similar to the activities in a real 

world of work under the directive of a teacher.  

 

In this study, PBL has been considered as a pedagogical approach that integrate learning across 

different discipline. Learners are engaged in designing or constructing an engineering project, 

they usually concentrate on independents or group learning as well as presenting various 

outcomes, and it requires both the acquisition as well as the application of new knowledge.  

 

2.2 PBL as Pedagogical Approach for Teaching Engineering Education 

During the 1980s and 1990s, education researchers gradually understand that when students are 

unengaged they feel bored and they are less expected to learn (Blumenfeld et al., 1991). Almost 

all students are bored in school, even the ones who score well on standardized tests as it was 

found in the studies of student experience (Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde, & Whalen, 1993). 

During 1990, it became familiar to education researchers that the problem wasn’t on the side of 

the students, there was something wrong with the structure of school system. If we could find 

an alternative way to involve students in their learning, to restructure the classroom so that 



12 
 

student’s interest and attention would be aroused to learn, that would bring a dramatic change 

(Land and Greene, 2000). Therefore, engineering education developed new types of programs 

and curricula, with the goal of increasing student engagement and helping them develop deeper 

understanding of important ideas. The new accreditation standards called accreditation board 

for engineering technology (ABET) reflected the ideas over engineering education which had 

been put forward in the previous decades (Felder, & Brent, 2003). In 2001 MIT launched the 

CDIO (Conceive-Design-Implement-Operate) Syllabus (Crawley, 2001). The objective of 

developing CDIO is to help in applying the engineering problem solving paradigm: This entails 

first developing and codifying a comprehensive understanding of the skills needed by the 

contemporary engineer; developing new approaches to enable and enhance the learning of these 

skills; exploring new systems to assess technical learning, and to utilize this assessment 

information to improve our educational process. Collectively these activities comprise the 

CDIO program at MIT (Crawley, 2001).  

 

In another development, the education reform program in Hong Kong has been forced by a 

strong demand from society that students learn how to meet the challenges of a knowledge-

based and rapidly changing society. Today’s higher education is required to promote not only 

a knowledge of the subject area but also general skills, such as collaboration, communication, 

and problem solving skills. To empower students with these skills, teachers are encouraged to 

use more student-centered approaches in teaching. While, all this development was generally 

accepted as adoption of Learner’s Centered Approach to teaching (Barcala Montejano et al, 

2011), PBL is one of these student centered approaches that has been highly recommended in 

the reform as part of the instructional strategies (Lam, Cheng, & Ma, 2009; Thomas, 2000; 

Blumenfeld et al., 1991). 

 

Learner centered methods of content delivery involve students in the learning process rather 

than allow the student to passively gather information from a conveyed lecture as usual (Slunt 

& Giancario, 2004). In learner centered approach, students are the center of the educational 

enterprise, and their cognitive and affective learning experiences should guide all decisions as 

to what is to be done and how to do it (Wright, 2011). In the student centered classroom, 

teachers do not see themselves as providers of information, but as facilitators who are 



13 
 

responsible for creating an environment for students’ self-directed learning. Students are 

considered to take an active role and responsibility for managing their learning process and 

developing their understanding (Khan & Markauskaite, 2016). This is in line with PBL class 

setting where Li, (2014) engage students in electronics project to solve challenging problems 

that are authentic, curriculum-based, interdisciplinary and real world problem. It involve 

students in design, problem-solving, decision making, or investigative activities; it give 

opportunity for students to work in group over extended periods of time, and conclude in 

realistic products. Some means of guidance is needed to assure that all groups get satisfactory 

results, because one of the aims of PBL is to get the students well motivated for their advanced 

study (Li, 2014). In particular, students appreciate how the development of PBL motivates them 

to generate deeper learning (Terrón-López, et al, 2016). 

 

Nevertheless, the implementation of project for both learning and task achievement is most 

typically associated with action learning, which assumes that people learn most effectively 

when working on real-time problems that occur in their own work setting (DeFillippi, 2001). 

Raelin, (2006), sees action learning as a self-directed learning. In PBL environment, students 

considerably expanded and enlarged their technological knowledge base; they improved their 

technological skills and acquired teamwork abilities; the technological design process was 

learnt and developed to significantly high levels (Mioduser, & Betzer, 2008). Drawing on this 

reviewed, several papers give the contribution of PBL as an essential pedagogy for students 

learning in different study domain all over the world (Blumenfield et al., 1999; Krajcik et al., 

1994).  

 

2.3 General Overview of Student’s Conception on Learning 

Initially, the study of student learning has its roots in qualitative, phenomenographic research, 

which originated in Marton’s work in the 1970s as found in (Marton 1975, 1976; Marton and 

Sa¨ljo¨ 1976; Lonka et al. 2004, Entwistle, & Peterson, 2004 Heikkilä, Niemivirta, Nieminen, 

& Lonka, 2011). While comprehensive studies of conceptions of learning was carried out by 

Sa¨ ljo¨ (1979), which involved interviews with adults who had different levels of education. In 

his study, five Categories of description was identify which are: 

 



14 
 

1. Learning as the quantitative increase in knowledge. 

2. Learning as memorizing. 

3. Learning as the acquisition of facts, procedures, etc. which can be retained and/or 

utilized in practice. 

4. Learning as the abstraction of meaning.  

5. Learning as an interpretative process aimed at the understanding of reality.  

 

Marton, Dall’Alba, and Beaty (1993), repeated this study where they found these five 

Categories and added a sixth one, which applied more particularly to adult students, namely 

“changing as a person”. 

 

The first two Categories describe the learning which depends on dogmatically recalling factual 

information, usually by memorization. In this Categories, education is seen as the process of 

accumulating the distinct ‘pieces’ of knowledge provided from a teacher or other source. The 

third Category presents a noticeable qualitative change, as information is seen as having a 

purpose beyond recalling, that is it also has to be applied. In fourth category, learning is 

associated with understanding. People begin to see learning as concerning the effort to 

assimilate the ideas for themselves by relating it to their prior knowledge and experience, where 

knowledge are transformed into personal meaning. Fifth Category goes beyond that, in addition, 

learning involves seeing things in an importantly different ways, and so becomes fully 

transformative. Finally, people conceived learning as bringing about fundamental change: 

changing as a person.  

 

In a nut shell, this study has identified two different conceptions of learning:  quantitative, and 

qualitative learning. A quantitative conception of learning sees learning as a process of 

gathering information in order to reproduce or apply it. While, a qualitative conception of 

learning sees learning has to do with comprehension and interpretation of meaning.  

  

Numerous studies have examined students’ conceptions of learning in general; however, some 

researchers have asserted that students’ conceptions of learning may be discipline wise (Buehl 

& Alexander, 2001; Tsai, 2004). For example, Eklund-Myrskog, (1998) found that, student 



15 
 

nurses and car mechanic students, to a certain extent, showed different conceptions of learning, 

and the study concluded that conceptions of learning were to some extent contextually 

dependent. For example, students may have diverse conceptions of learning engineering from 

those of learning other discipline. Therefore, he recommend to review some prior studies on 

conception of learning in other discipline. For example, Tsai, & Kuo (2008), although this study 

conducted on phenomenography perspective and has revealed five Categories about the 

conceptions of learning and learning science, which include:  

 

1. Learning (science) as memorizing.  

2. Learning (science) as preparing for tests.  

3. Learning (science) as calculating and practicing tutorial problems.  

4. Learning as an increase of knowledge.  

5. Learning (science) as understanding.  

 

In another development, general student conception of learning engineering discipline was 

conducted by Marshall, Summer, & Woolnough, (1999) and  were reviewed by the researcher, 

the findings reveals five Categories of description given below: 

Conception (A): Learning as memorizing definitions, equations and procedures 

Conception (B): Learning as applying equations and procedures  

Conception (C): Learning as making sense of physical concepts and procedures 

Conception (D): Learning as seeing phenomena in the world in a new way 

Conception (E): Learning as a change as a person. 

 

From the fore going discussion, it is observed that conception of learning in different discipline 

conducted on phenomenographic perspective have some similarities and differences, 

meanwhile the differences is more diverse than their similarities. In all these studies, conception 

of learning revealed only one common Category of description such as learning as 

memorization. Nevertheless, the study conducted by Sa¨ ljo¨ (1979), which was letter reviewed 

by Marton, Dall’Alba, and Beaty (1993), reveal similar Category with that of Tsai, & Kuo 

(2008), learning as understanding of reality and Learning (science) as understanding 

respectively. But conception of learning in engineering conducted by Marshall, Summer, & 



16 
 

Woolnough, (1999) don’t reveal this Category at all. Therefore, study upon a conception of 

learning may have some few similarity with domain specific, but a wider differences may exist 

when there is a differences in culture, educational contexts, and knowledge domains as reported 

by (Tsai, & Kuo, 2008).  

 

Moreover, recent research on conceptions of learning has observed additional conceptions, 

perhaps partly due to cultural variations. Several studies point out that students, especially in 

Asian cultures, might represent learning as a combination of memorization and understanding 

(Duarte, 2007). There is a possibility that the differences in Asian and western conceptions of 

learning surrounded in their cultures are the main contribution to the learning outcomes (Tsai, 

& Kuo, 2008). Li (2003, 2004) has undertaken several studies to reveal Chinese 

conceptualization of learning and compare it with that of Americans. From her cross-cultural 

studies, Li concluded that Chinese cultural beliefs about learning, different from the United 

States, mostly deal with “seeking knowledge” with emphases on achievement standards of 

breadth and depth of knowledge, and contributions to society (Li, 2003). In addition, Chinese 

students, even as early as in preschool stage, have some thoughts toward learning and the 

purposes of learning (Li, 2004). 

 

Furthermore, this study is upon student conception on PBL in engineering context. Even though 

there are some study found investigating engineering students conception on learning, this study 

is different since it specifically concerned with students experience on PBL. However, previous 

study shows some similarity about student’s conception on learning from different discipline, 

and a wider differences exist in cultural wise. This study was conducted in Bangladesh which 

has different cultural setting with the existing study. However, despite the enormous 

contribution of PBL in engineering education as reviewed in this study, it is surprising that, 

none of the previous studies have been conducted focusing on student conception on PBL in 

engineering education in Bangladesh. In order to fill this gap, the objective of this study is to 

investigate qualitative similarities and differences of engineering student’s experience’s or 

conception on PBL in Bangladesh. 

   



17 
 

2.4 Theoretical Framework  

This study was guided by constructivist school of learning, The constructivism is generally 

focus on individual ability to create their own new understandings on the basis of an interaction 

between what they have already known, believe, ideas and knowledge with which they come 

into contact (Resnick, 1989). According to them, knowledge is not received from the outside 

or from someone else; rather, it is the individual learner’s interpretation and processing of what 

is received through the senses that creates knowledge (Ally, 2004, Resnick, 1989). 

Constructivists viewed learners as being active rather than passive (Duffy & Cunningham, 

1996). Similarly, this approach suggests that, individual learners actively construct the meaning 

around phenomena, and that these construction are peculiar to a specific individual, depending 

on the learner’s background knowledge (Richardson, 2003). Constructivist claims that, reality 

is more in the mind of the knower, that knower constructs a reality, or at least interprets it, based 

upon his or her appreciations (Nilsen, & Purao, 2005). The learner is the center of the learning, 

with the instructor playing an advising and facilitating role. Learners should be allowed to 

construct knowledge rather than being given knowledge through instruction (Duffy & 

Cunningham, 1996).  

 

While PBL is dwelt on the belief that humans construct new knowledge over a bases of what 

we already know and of what we have experienced, which we make available through active 

participation and interaction with others (Gijselaers, 1996). PBL is considered as a promising 

pedagogical approach with strong roots in constructivist theories (Savery & Duffy, 1995), in 

the learning process of PBL, students are considered as an active agents (de Los Rios, et al, 

2010, Mioduser, & Betzer, 2008, Resnik & Ocko, 1990, Blumenfeld et al., 1991). PBL is a 

form of situated based on the constructivist finding that students gained a deeper 

conceptualization of material when they actively construct their own knowledge by working 

with and using ideas (Marx et al., 2004; Rivet & Krajcik, 2004; William & Linn, 2003). 

 

Up on this background, constructivist school of learning is considered essential for this study 

since it took in to account active student involvement in learning process and allowing students 

to construct there on knowledge based on their interaction with the environment. This is in line 

with the objective of this study as the study is trying to find out engineering students experience 



18 
 

on a pedagogical approach (PBL) which believe an active involvement of student in learning 

process, a pedagogy that allowed students to construct their own knowledge. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  



19 
 

CHAPTER THREE 

 

METHODOLOGY 
 

 3.0        Introduction 

This chapter is based on the Methodological background used in this study. Phenomenography, 

participants, Data collection, Data analysis, Validity and Reliability of the study were described. 

In this section, the method used and the rationale behind using such methodology were justified. 

Extensive explanation on phenomenography and why it is suitable for this study were also 

described, the suitability of the instrument used, Sampling, Data collection and Data analysis 

were also justified, and finally how to ensure the Validity and Reliability of the instruments 

used in the study were also explained. 

 

3.1 Phenomenography Approach 

This study was conducted on the basis of phenomenography approach as its methodology since 

it belongs to qualitative research paradigm. The main purpose of selecting phenomenography 

approach in this study was because of its major focus on identifying qualitatively different ways 

in which people understand, experience and conceptualize object of the study (phenomenon) 

around them (Marton, 1981, 1986). The word “experience” comprising of ways of seeing, 

understanding, comprehending, conceptualizing and apprehending a particular phenomenon 

(Marton & Pong, 2005).  Phenomenography research is specialized in searching for a 

comprehensive record of the variation in the experiences of people in such contexts (Case and 

Light, 2011; Jennifer and Gregory, 2011). Within the phenomenography research approach, 

conceptions are the central unit of description about people’s experiences (Marton, 1996). 

Phenomenography is a research approach based on a second-order perspective which means 

how subjects (the population of the research i.e. engineering student of Bangladesh) 

experienced an object (PBL) in a given situation. It is the engineering students conceptions 

derived from their understanding and experience towards the PBL. This is different from the 



20 
 

first-order perspective in which the researchers are interested in how the PBL actually is 

(Marton, 1981; Sjöström & Dahlgren, 2002). 

The range of qualitatively different ways of understanding a particular phenomenon is captured 

in what are known as “Categories of description” (Stamouli & Huggard, 2007). The 

relationships between these Categories of description are then analyses in terms of 

comprehensive hierarchical understanding of the participants (Berglund, 2005, Marton, and 

Booth, 1997). In a phenomenography study the object of the study is not the phenomenon itself, 

but rather the relation between the study's population and the phenomenon  (Stamouli & 

Huggard, 2007). (Figure 3.1).  

 

 

As can be seen in Figure 3.1, the aim of this study is to find out the relationship between the 

engineering students and the PBL, that is how a PBL is experienced by a specific group of 

engineering students and the variation in the ways PBL is understood. Meanwhile, there is an 

unavoidable relationship between the researcher and the phenomenon (PBL) that is investigated 

in any study; this is because the researcher is required to have a thorough knowledge and 



21 
 

understanding of all aspects of the phenomenon that they are attempting to analyze. This is 

necessary so that the researcher is able to discuss and query the interviewee about the related 

aspects of the phenomenon. 

 

Nevertheless, Phenomenography research has been used primarily in education, including 

engineering education, to investigate variations in the ways students understand important 

concepts such as energy in solution processes (for example, Ebenezer & Fraser, 2001), and 

transient responses in student problem solving contexts (Carstensen & Bernhard, 2009). It has 

been used to identify conceptions of competent work among engineers in an auto manufacturing 

company (Sandberg, 2000), and Students' conceptions of learning in an engineering context 

(Marshall, Summer, Woolnough, 1999). However, it used to identify conceptions of the value 

of information-technology (IT) research among IT researchers and practitioners (Bruce, Pham, 

& Stoodley, 2004). 

 

Thus, in line with the fore going discussion, this study is aimed to identify engineering student’s 

experiences on PBL and their experience was captured in a categories of description. However, 

the relationships between these Categories of description are then analyses in terms of 

comprehensive hierarchical understanding of the engineering students. This is in line with the 

aimed of phenomenography methodology since Marton, (1994) asserted that, the aim of 

phenomenography research is to produce a set of Categories that are logically and hierarchically 

organized. Therefore, phenomenography methodology was considered suitable to identify 

variation of students’ experience or understanding of PBL in engineering education in 

Bangladesh.  

 

3.2. Participants 

In order to ensure equal representation in the study, phenomenography approach suggests that 

the researcher will include participants with different feature such as gender, age, discipline, 

experience, religion, and so on (Green, 2005). Another argument is in relation to number of 

participants needs to be considered during data collection. Trigwell, (2000) suggested fifteen to 

twenty interviewees in his research practice. He had stated that a reasonable number of 



22 
 

variations could be provided by a minimum of ten to fifteen participants, whereas effective 

management of the gathered data could be brought about and allowed by a maximum of twenty.  

 

In this study, the researcher used sixteen participants whose gave different level of their 

understanding or experience on PBL. Two universities was purposively selected which are: 

Islamic University of Technology (IUT) and Daffodil International University (DIU) all from 

Dhaka Bangladesh. Four Participants each from four engineering department available in IUT 

and DIU were purposively selected. The engineering disciplines selected are Electrical and 

Electronic Engineering (EEE), Mechanical and chemical Engineering (MCE), Computer 

science and Engineering (CSE), and Civil and Environmental Engineering (CEE) (Table, 3.1).  

 

Table 3.2 Summary of demographic features of participants 

Participants Level of study Discipline Current 

academic year 

Gender English 

P1 Undergraduate EEE 3rd  year Male Fluent 

P2 Undergraduate MCE 4 year Male Fluent 

P3 Undergraduate EEE  3 year Male Fluent 

P4 Undergraduate CSE 3 year Male Fluent 

P5 Undergraduate CSE 4 year Male Fluent 

P6 Undergraduate CEE 3 year Male Fluent 

P7 Undergraduate CSE 4 year Male Fluent 

P8 Undergraduate MCE 3 year Male Fluent 

P9 Undergraduate CSE 4 year Male Fluent 

P10 Undergraduate EEE 3 year Male Fluent 

P11 Undergraduate EEE 4 year Female Fluent 

P12 Undergraduate CCE 2 year Male Fluent 

P13 Undergraduate MCE 4 year Male Fluent 

P14 Undergraduate MCE 4 year Male Fluent 

P15 Undergraduate CEE 4 year Male Fluent 

P16 Undergraduate CEE 4 year Male Fluent 

 



23 
 

The reason for selecting four participants from each departments is to ensure equal 

representation from all departments and level. The participants was from different level in order 

to ensure variation of experience among respondents. As stated, it is therefore important to 

maximize the potential variation of experience in the sample of individuals interviewed, 

ensuring the sample is fully representative of potential experience with respect to the 

phenomenon under consideration: not all the highest performing students, for instance, nor all 

the poorest performing students (Case & Light, 2011)  

 

3.3 Data Collection 

Different method of data collection have been used in phenomenography research work such 

as observation, drawings, behavior and the products of work (Marton, 1988), questionnaire 

(Loyens, Rikers, & Schmidt, 2009; Purdie & Hattie, 2002), Written discourse (Christine Susan 

Bruce, 1994), and mixed method, using both questionnaire and interview (Lee, Johanson, & 

Tsai, 2008; Marshall, Summer, & Woolnough, 1999). Interview (Eklund-Myrskog, 1998; 

Marshall et al., 1999; Tsai, 2004). Nevertheless, interview is the most preferred data collection 

technique in phenomenography research (A° kerlind 2012; Marton and Booth 1997; Khan & 

Markauskaite, 2016).  

Therefore, a semi-structured interview schedule was adopted (Appendix 1) for this study. The 

interview was started with broad questions, (For example, what do you understand by PBL?) 

then follow by leading questions, (For example, why do you think this?), for further clarification 

of information by the interviewer more extensively. Similarly, the depth of the data was 

achieved by asking the participant more information (Christine S Bruce, 1994). Following 

Marton and Booth (1997)’s recommendation, the main emphasis of the follow-up questions 

was on the interviewee’s experience of a particular aspect in a state of in-depth understanding. 

All interview questions were open-ended which allowed the interviewees to describe their own 

view (Khan & Markauskaite, 2016). 

 

Therefore, every participants was invited to a one-to-one semi-structured interview at his or her 

convenience time, and the interview was lasted for about 40 to 50 minute. The interviewee was 



24 
 

asked open-ended questions following the introductory of the subject. All interviews conducted 

was digitally audio recorded. 

 

3.4 Data Analysis  

Data analysis started after all the interview had been conducted. Each interview had been 

digitally audio recorded during the interview for further analysis of the data. The digital audio 

recorded was then transcribed for further data analysis (Bowden, 2005). 

 

Moreover, Phenomenography research aims to explore the range of meanings within a sample 

group, as a group, not the range of meanings for each individual within the group (Åkerlind, 

2012). The analysis usually starts with a search for meaning, or variation in meaning, across 

interview transcripts, and is then supplemented by a search for structural relationships between 

meanings. Nevertheless, the researcher was constantly adjust his thinking in the light of 

reflection, discussion and new perspectives as recommended by (Åkerlind, 2012). 

 

Furthermore, different steps were available for the analysis of Phenomenography research 

González, (2010), for example, employed five steps while Sjöström & Dahlgren (2002) and 

Khan (2015) employed seven steps. Notwithstanding, This study adopted seven steps of data 

analysis as used by (Sjöström and Dahlgren 2002, Khan, 2015). The researcher observed that 

seven steps were conducted in professional studies which is in line with a current studies. The 

steps are: 

Familiarisation stage: After the transcription phase, all the transcripts was read several times 

for error checking and to be familiar with the content. Compilation stage: During the second 

stage, all answers to certain questions will be compiled from all respondent. During this stage 

the research will mainly focus on identifying the most significant elements in the answers given 

by each respondent to a particular question. Condensation stage: The third stage is mainly 

focused on reducing of individual answers from longer dialogues without distorting the 

meaning. The researcher will have to consider the whole transcript of a respondent, for clarity 

and ensuring integrity of the data, before condensing it. Preliminary grouping stage:  Basing 

on the similarities and differences identified in the previous stage, the researcher will identify 



25 
 

the significant aspects in order to form preliminary category basing on the meaning drawn. 

Preliminary comparison of category stage: The preliminary conception per category is cross 

checked with all transcripts to ensure the integrity of meaning is maintained. The preliminary 

conceptions per category should share similarity among them and they should be different from 

those in other categories in order to establish the border between the categories. Naming the 

categories stage: Each category is named depending on internal key elements and 

distinguishing features shared among them. Contrastive comparison:  During this last stage, 

the researcher will establish a structural relationship among the categories by describing the 

unique character per category as well as the resemblance among them. 

 

 



26 
 

3.4 Validity and Reliability of the Instruments 

Establishing trustworthiness in a phenomenography research study is imperative and it is 

generally ensured by checking validity and reliability. 

 

3.4.1 Validity  

Validity is widely regarded as the extent to which a study find out what it aimed to investigate, 

or the degree to which the research findings actually reflect the phenomenon being studied 

(Gay, Mills, & Airasian, 2011). However, a phenomenography researcher asks not how well 

their research outcomes correspond to the phenomenon as it exists in ‘reality’, but how well 

they correspond to human experience of the phenomenon (Uljens, 1996). Kvale (1996), identify 

two types of validity checks, such as: communicative and pragmatic validity. 

This study adopted communicative validity checks. In communicative validity check, a strong 

emphasis must be placed on a researcher’s ability to argue convincingly for the particular 

interpretation that they have proposed. There is no longer a search for the ‘right’ interpretation, 

but for an interpretation that is defensible (Guba, 1981; Sandberg, 1994, 1996; Kvale, 1996; 

Marton & Booth, 1997). Therefore, in this study a researcher provided a barking argument that 

support the results of this study and the outcome of the study were validated through feedback 

from two lecturers who had phenomenographic research experience.  

 

3.4.2 Reliability 

From a qualitative research perspective, reliability may be seen as reflecting the use of 

appropriate methodological procedures for ensuring quality and consistency in data 

interpretations (Guba, 1981; Kvale, 1996). A reliability check that were adopted for this study 

was that, researcher make his interpretive steps clear to readers by fully detailing the steps, and 

presenting examples that illustrate them as suggested by (Guba, 1981; Sandberg, 1994, 1996; 

Kvale, 1996). 

 

 

 



27 
 

 

  



28 
 

CHAPTER IV 

 

INTERPRETATION OF DATA 

 

4.0     Introduction   

Data analysis commenced after completing data collection as recommended by Bowden (2005) 

that the phenomenographic data analysis should not start until all the interviews had been 

completed. Each interview was transcribed verbatim by the researcher to get a deep 

understanding of the data. The analysis was done by following seven main steps of data analysis 

as used by (Sjöström and Dahlgren 2002, Khan, 2015). Which are: Familiarisation stage; 

Compilation stage Condensation stage; Preliminary grouping stage; Preliminary comparison of 

Category stage; Naming the Categories stage; and Contrastive comparison stage.  For details 

see page 22.  

 

This analysis undergoes several repetitive review and modification of outcome by the 

researcher. After preliminary Categories were decided on, the researcher met frequently with 

the supervisor to discuss and refine the outcomes. During the final stage of confirming the 

outcome space, the supervisor went through all the Categories and dimensions of variation and 

checked if they could be simply recognized within the data.  

 

4.1 Findings 

Four Categories of description, indicating qualitatively different ways of experiencing PBL in 

engineering education were detected. PBL in engineering is viewed as: 

I. Category A: Understanding engineering concept. 

II. Category B: Enhancing networked learning. 

III. Category C: Changing conceptual development. 

IV. Category D: Linking knowledge to the real practices.  

 



29 
 

 

With consideration to the participants’ responses, these Categories of description were arranged 

hierarchically ranging from low to high level of understanding moving downward from 

category A to D. While, in terms of engagement, teachers engagement are weakening, moving 

from category A to D, while students engagement are decreasing, moving from Category D to 

A, as shown in fig 4.1. Each Category of descriptions were further explained and illustrated in 

detail using the quoted words extracted from the interviewed transcript. At the end of each 

quotation, a participant’s identification number were used to keep interviewees identity 

confidential, but allow record tracing.  

 



30 
 

4.1.1. Category A: Understanding engineering concept 

In Category A, PBL is viewed as a pedagogical approach that integrates information across 

multiple aspects to support students understanding of engineering concept. The aim of using 

PBL approach in a class situation is to stimulate students to understand engineering concept. 

For instance, participants conceived that, learning under the canopy of PBL stimulate them to 

understand the meaning of the engineering concept rather than dogmatically storing what is 

exactly given to them by the teacher. 

 

“PBL inspire you to understand engineering content more clearly in details, is not like 

memorizing your study rather understanding them, if you learn something by using that [PBL] 

it will remain for a long… than how it will remain when you memorize its.” [P 16]  

 

According to this view, teachers should focus more on practical project than preliminary 

theoretical explanation at PBL class setting. For example, participants see learning engineering 

concepts as more easily provided the teachers are practically oriented. 

 

“if we learn by means practical project our learning will have an overall completion we believe     

that there will be better understanding of the knowledge that we are gaining, because once you 

learn it practically [by means of PBL] we will definitely understand it better” [P 15] 

 

Category A also involves the use of clear examples of engineering content in PBL environment 

for student’s understanding. The engineering students perceived that, using an appropriate 

examples facilitate students’ understanding of engineering task or activities without being 

subjected to practical activities. 

 

“…you see some teachers are very much easy for us to understand because while they are 

teaching,[before assigning a project] they also try to demonstrate with examples, some time we 

see clear example… this actually help us to understand theoretical knowledge without practical 

knowledge”. [P 10] 

 



31 
 

In conclusion, understanding of engineering concept in this Category can be achieved by using 

PBL as a strategies for inculcating knowledge and skills to engineering student. While some 

participants viewed practical project can foster students understanding of engineering 

discipline. Other participants conceived that, using an appropriate examples can also help 

student to understand how to perform an engineering task.  

 

4.1.2. Category B: Enhancing networked learning 

In Category B, the focus is on using PBL to create and maintain interaction throughout learning 

process. In addition to Category A, Category B focuses on explicit networked between people 

[teacher and students] as well as learning resources for the purpose of supporting students 

understanding. Participants mainly focus on three type of interaction such as teacher-students 

interaction, student-students interaction and students-content interaction. These were explained 

with the help of quoted extract from our interview transcripts below. 

In Category B, students-teacher interaction is viewed as a communication between students and 

teacher in PBL setting. This includes students to contact teacher upon any difficulties 

encountered while conducting a project and teachers also to give feedback for what students 

are looking for. For instance, participants see that, engineering teachers assigned task to a 

student, and students keep on visiting the teacher to ask question on area of difficulties. 

Similarly teachers guide them on how to do the task accurately.      

“Yes like in programming, java and software development process, here a teacher will assign 

you a work and students…keep on visiting the teacher to see your progress or guide you when 

necessary” [P 4] 

 

Students-students interaction is viewed in PBL environment as a collaborative learning process 

between the peers. In this process, students share their knowledge, skills and idea with one 

another. Teachers used to supervise the process to ensure that every students are participating 

actively in the learning process. For example, participants conceived that, when students 

interact in project learning environment, they shared their knowledge and skills with each other 

and this widened the understanding of their discipline.  

 



32 
 

 “…Students will interact with each other, they will came to know more by sharing their skills, 

knowledge with each other”, [P 12]    

 

The use of PBL is also seen as a pedagogy that team up student to work together and learn what 

they do not know from their colleagues. Participants’ view on PBL process shows that, 

engaging students in group work enhanced student’s ability to learn what they don’t know or 

did not understand from their colleagues.  

 

“As we are doing the task sometime even if I don’t know if someone it happen to be in our group 

know it, and he is doing it for us if I am serious, I am listening I will definitely learn from him” 

[P, 9] 

 

Student-contents interaction is seen, as a students learning under a supervision of their teacher. 

For instance, participants stated that teacher assigned students to work in a group project under 

supervision, every students actively participate and learn from what he contributes as well as 

what other colleagues contribute in the process. 

 

“But in PBL as I observed at least there is a supervision of a teacher, so every student must 

have to participate or contribute this can improved our learning because we will learn from 

each other” [P 4] 

 

Student-contents interaction is viewed as a process in which students actively learned their 

discipline. For example, participant mentioned that, the use of project assignment to actively 

engage student to search for an answers from the library, you tube, Google and all available 

learning resources enhanced their understanding of their engineering discipline. 

 

 “...everyone will go and do research and search all the necessary search engine and try to get 

more knowledge on that topic that you give him, and you will be able to depend its if you came 

to class, and if he ask you, will be able to defend what you learn” [P 8] 

 



33 
 

Participants conceived that, YouTube, Google, and all other available learning resources 

facilitate their understanding of a particular topic in their disciplines if they were not clear from 

the teacher explanation during class hour. 

   

“sometime if we don’t understand we came back to our room we have you tube we have allot 

of resources, we can learn from there, sometime I experience that I did not understand the topic 

then I came back to my room search on the Google and you tube when I found a particular 

lecture on that I went through it I saw it, then I concluded a decision on how I do it” [P 12] 

 

Overall, PBL process creates different type of networked learning such as students-teacher 

interaction, students-students interaction and students-content interaction. Students-teacher 

interaction employed effective communication and regular feedback between teacher and 

student in PBL process. While student-student interaction is a collaborative learning between 

students at which students shared their knowledge and skills with other students, aiming to 

facilitate students understanding. Finally, Students-content interaction is seen as an interaction 

between students with a learning materials. Searching Google, YouTube, and library are among 

students content interaction as highlighted in this study. 

 

4.1.3. Category C: Changing conceptual development 

In Category C, PBL is viewed as a pedagogical approach that helps students to acquire deeper 

understanding of knowledge as well as changes upon existing understanding of engineering 

discipline. Category C, is not only limited to establishing interaction that lead to understanding 

of engineering discipline. In addition, it integrates comprehensive familiarization of 

engineering field which can bring a higher order thinking as well as development of new ideas 

or techniques in engineering field of study. Participants mainly focus on three main features 

that PBL environment will developed to the engineering students if it is fully implemented. In-

depth acquisition of knowledge and skills through practice, develop new idea through critical 

thinking and provision of an everlasting engineering knowledge. These were explained with the 

help of quoted extract from our interview transcripts below. 

 



34 
 

PBL is viewed as a pedagogical technique that give room for students to practically participate 

in designing and constructing of an engineering project, for student learning. For instance, 

participants conceived that, engineering students are frequently involved in project learning, 

they gradually became more familiar with the task. Hereafter, they got deeper understanding of 

that knowledge. 

 

“Because when I am doing something with my hand, I will understand what is going on inside 

it fully… and I will not forget.” [P 10] 

 

“…if I am to participate on everything definitely I will never forget it, I don’t know others and 

it is to all” [P 11] 

 

PBL is also seen as engaging engineering students with a certain activities or task in form of 

project that make them to interact with learning materials and other students. In the process, 

students has to derive the final conclusion about the task and present it during a class hour. 

When this were repeated frequently will developed students critical thinking ability. For 

instance, participants reported that, teachers engaged them in design and presentation of a task 

that drive them to go for further investigation in YouTube, Google library etc. During 

presentation, audience asked questions that sometime make them to think critically for them to 

accurately reply to such questions.  

 

“…my lecturer gives us a group assignment [inform of project] with some of my colleagues, at 

that time we visited library we read many books, we Google the internet, YouTube individually 

and come up with different ideas, we sit down together and arrived at a final answer, finally we 

present it in front of our general class mate and the teacher, they ask us many question we 

depend it correctly really it make us think in-depth and the teacher conclude and give final 

judgment, really I learn a lot , each group in the class did it” [P 6] 

 

PBL in engineering setting is also seen as a pedagogical techniques that developed critical 

thinking ability to a students. This help student to learn a new way of doing a task or solving a 

novel problems. Participants mentioned that, when student are engaged in designing and 



35 
 

constructing a group project for learning, they used to encountered a new problem but they have 

to think critically and found a new way of doing or solving that problem. 

 

“As such PBL help to developed critical thinking to a student’s…and problem solving skills to 

a students, and it make students to be flexible as well as adaptability he has to be adaptable 

with such kind of problem, also productivity, productivity is how productive such student should 

be as they said practice make perfect as you practice such approach more and more you will 

be came productive so that whenever you have a problem you can solve its within short period 

of time. [P 3] 

“This technique helps students to collaborate, to bring out some critical thinking and also try 

to work together in order for them to get some knowledge or skills” [ P 3] 

In a nut shell, PBL in this Category is a pedagogical technique that developed higher order 

thinking skills to engineering students. It enrich student with a productive knowledge or 

comprehensive understanding that will be used to solve problems, or explain phenomena in a 

novel dimension. This can be achieved through frequent engagement of student with a task that 

demand presentation as well as subjecting them in to critics from their colleagues. It conclude 

that frequent involvement of engineering students in to design and construction of a project will 

help them to learn how to solve novel practical problem. 

 

4.1.4. Category D: Linking knowledge to the real practice.     

In Category D, PBL is viewed as a pedagogical approach in which complex real-world 

problems are used as a means to promote student learning. Category D, differs from Category 

C, by applying newly developed idea to solve societal or industrial problem. Three main aspects 

are the dominant features in this Category: developing Problem-solving abilities, providing 

leadership and fellowship ability, and acquisition of knowledge that will make students fit for 

the job field immediately after graduation. These were explained with the help of quoted extract 

from our interview transcript below. 

 



36 
 

In Category D, PBL is viewed as an inevitable pedagogy that bring real object or situation to 

facilitate students understanding of practical knowledge in engineering discipline. This can be 

achieved by taking students to the site and see how exactly what they are reading theoretically 

happening in the world of work. For example, participants mentioned that in PBL setting, 

teachers take students to the field and show them how exactly things are being constructed or 

done. This give them a better experience and deeper understanding on how it is being done than 

reading it in textbook. Therefore, it gave students self-assurance to do it practically when they 

found themselves in the job field.  

 

“….Now I am sitting in my room, reading in the book that side of the beam should be 12 * 10 

inch, the side of the column should be 8 * 8 inch, the thickness of the slab should be 7 inch but 

if you look around you can’t see the side of the beam here, you can’t see the thickness of the 

slab all you see is plaster, so we have to see with our own eye how the dimension of a beam is 

been set, how the slab is being casted, if I could see that I think I could be more benefitted than 

studying it in my book, I think I could be able to do it myself when I am an engineer and when 

I will be assign to do a job like that” [P 16] 

 

PBL is also seen as an approach that developed leadership and fellowship ability to the students. 

This can be attained by engaging engineering students to work in group with colleague as a 

leader and others as a follower. Participants asserted that it gave them firsthand experience on 

leadership and fellowship experience. For example, Participants reported that, when they were 

involve in  team learning in designing or constructing a project, they learned how to lead and 

how to follow a leader this kind of experience promote their ability to lead or follow a leader in 

the society, industry or any place they found themself. 

 

“We will learn how to work in a group, supposed we are a student now but after some days we 

will worked in a power sector, we will worked in some company, we will know how to lead a 

team because in each project there is a leader, we will know how to flow the command of our 

leader, these think actually grow inside us by so doing” [P 10] 

 



37 
 

PBL is also viewed as strategies that gave engineering students’ knowledge and skills that 

should put into practice in the society. This can be attained by involving students in to practical 

construction of engineering project in their learning process. For example, participants 

explained that, if students are trained practically they can acquire the skills faster and they can 

instantly contribute it to the society after graduation. 

 

“for example, if we are practically taught something we can understand it faster and even better 

and we can contribute to the society much faster, so once we graduate we can immediately go 

to the field and work in those area because we have enough knowledge to work in this area I 

think this is biggest advantage of PBL” [P 15] 

 

PBL is seen as an approach that prepare engineering students to face the challenges at job field. 

Participants reveal that if student are trained using practical project they should acquire 

knowledge and skills that should make them competent, and fit for the job field immediately 

after graduation.  

 

 

“for a competitive engineering, skills does not came from memorization and restitution, if you 

are given a project and you really carry out such project, you will acquired the necessary skills 

needed which will help you to overcome 80 to 90% of the challenges in the field after graduation 

[P 1] 

 

In this Category, PBL in engineering is seen as a pedagogical strategies that link classroom 

environment with real life situation. Participants has reported that, teachers linked the subject 

matter with the real world happening through several approaches among them are: Visiting the 

site with the students to see how exactly things are being constructed; actively involving 

students in the practical construction of a project; assigning a leader in any group work giving 

to the students; and engaging students to conduct a research and found solution to a practical 

problem encountered during project activities. This activities as express by the participants 

developed, competency in problem solving skills, leadership and fellowship ability as well as 



38 
 

independents knowledge discovery. All this knowledge should be used in solving practical 

problem in the industries, society or any other applicable situation after student graduation. 

 

 4.2. Relationship between Categories of Description 

In this section, identified relationships between the Categories of description along the four 

dimensions of variation were presented and discussed. These identified variation were 

supported with evidence extracted fr om the quoted extract from the interview transcripts. Each 

of the Categories of description reflect a distinctive characteristics that shows how each 

Category is deviated (distinct) from next Categories. The four qualitatively different ways 

experiencing PBL in engineering are explained by variations along these four inter-related 

dimensions:  

 

1. Purpose of PBL. 

2. Role of the teachers. 

3. Role of the students. 

4. Level of engagement in PBL. 

 

The innate characteristics of PBL was further explored in two main horizon: internal and 

external horizons. The internal horizon was represented by the central awareness of the 

participants. While the external horizon was defined as the way in which PBL was connected 

to its environment. In this study, the four dimension (Purpose of PBL, the role of teachers, the 

role of students, and the level of engagement in PBL in engineering education) was included as 

internal horizon while there was no any external horizon found. These four dimension were 

described in details focus on the relationship among the four previously presented Categories 

of description which provide a broader understanding on PBL in engineering education. 

 

4.2.1. Dimension 1:  Purpose of PBL 

Dimension one, represents the theme depicting the expanding focus on the purpose of PBL 

from providing understanding of engineering discipline to application of newly developed 

knowledge in to practice (Table 4.2.1.). The relationship between each Category with regard to 



39 
 

the purpose of PBL is describe in the following section with the help of the quoted extract from 

the transcribed data. 

 

Table 4.2.1 Variation in the Purpose of PBL in engineering Education 

Category                                                           Purpose of PBL 

A: Understanding Engineering Concept      

 

Support student in understanding engineering 

concept.  

 

B: Enhancing Networked Learning                 

 

Provide deeper understanding of engineering 

discipline through collaboration learning. 

 

C: Changing Conceptual Development Provides not only deeper understanding of 

knowledge but also develops new ideas in this 

discipline.           

 

D: Linking Knowledge to the real practice       Extends their knowledge and skills to the real life 

situation.  

 

To elaborate in Category A, the purpose of PBL in engineering is to support student in 

understanding engineering concept. This can be achieved mainly by teachers’ ability to 

demonstrate the concept effectively in a manner that will help students to sense the meaning 

rather than memorizing what is given to them by the teacher. For example, participants 

perceived that, PBL environment display the real object or an engineering materials inform of 

animation or demonstration to the student. This certainly helps capturing students interest and 

motivate them to understand engineering effectively. 

 

“When student see something is working live, it help to capture his interest, attention of the 

students this will come naturally if you captured the interest of the students you can captured 

their motivation and off course they will learn” [P 13] 

 



40 
 

In Category B, the purpose of PBL is expanded to provide better understanding of engineering 

discipline through collaboration and independent learning. In this context PBL is not only used 

to support student understanding, but also for enhancing deeper understanding by networking 

students to interact with colleagues, teacher and available learning materials. Students share 

their knowledge and skills, and seek teachers’ assistance and feedback while conducting both 

independent and collaborative learning activities. For example, participants reported that 

engineering students get an insight on what they did collaboratively with their colleagues 

because they used to share their knowledge and skills with each other. They insist that 

engineering student get further understanding of what they did themselves than waiting for the 

teacher to do everything for them. 

 

“The good think I want to share with you here is that, sitting down and discuss things with my 

colleagues give me a better understanding of what I am doing and I learn how to think and 

depend my point in front of many people, developed me professionally and I understand how 

people think differently really this is a good way of learning to me”. [P 6] 

 

“It help me to understand what I did myself than waiting for the teacher to do everything for 

me. So given opportunity for a students to lay hand on doing things is one of the advantage of 

PBL” [P 5] 

 

While in Category C, the main purpose of PBL is extended to assist engineering students to 

achieve deeper understanding of engineering concept that will lead to development of new idea 

or construction of new way of doing an engineering task. In this context, PBL is not only used 

to provide deeper understanding of engineering discipline, but also for acquisition of an 

everlasting knowledge and skills. This can be accomplished by frequent involvement of 

students in the learning process and exposing them in to class presentation with their colleagues 

as an audience. For example, Participants mentioned that, once they were frequently involved 

in active learning that instigates them to acquired in-depth knowledge and skills that should not 

be forgotten in their life time.  

 



41 
 

“To my own opinion I like what we called it practice when I practice I gain more knowledge 

and skills and this will help me to retain what I learn permanently i.e. long term retention” [P 

3] 

 

“…if student are involve in to a PBL, definitely no doubt there should be a quiet understanding 

and success skills student should acquire more success like that, through motivation, through 

communicating, through project participation, … So by doing that I think student will acquired 

deeper knowledge and understanding of a subject matter [P 11] 

 

Finally, in Category D, the purposes of PBL is not only to provide an everlasting knowledge 

and skills, but to apply this newly developed knowledge in to practice. PBL empowers 

engineering students with the ability to link disciplinary knowledge and skills acquired in the 

class hour into real workplace practices. When learners work on a real task problems, they feel 

motivated, and make them familiar with the challenges that he/she will encountered in the field 

work after his/her graduation from the institution of learning. For example, participant’s 

revealed that, when they see how to do a task or do it themselves it give them confidence on 

how to practice it when they found themselves in the industries or where this thing need to be 

implemented than mere reading it in their book. 

 

“A building cannot be constructed by just knowing how much reinforcement you should 

employed there, we have to see with our own eye, we have to know how a building is actually 

constructed” [P 16] 

 

“if my teachers has told me go to the construction site…and see how the workers are doing, see 

how the structure is buildup I will learn more, I could get more experience it could help me in 

the future to do my work when I am out of this university” [P 16] 

 

4.2.2 Dimension 2: The Role of Teacher 

Dimension two is represented by an expanding the role of teacher in PBL environment from 

motivating student to understand engineering discipline to providing scenario which links with 



42 
 

real workplace practices (table 4.2.2.). The relationship between each Categories upon the role 

play by the teacher is described with the help of quoted extract from interviewee’s data. 

 

Table 4.2.2.   Variation of teachers‟ role in PBL process in engineering education 

Categories                                                                           Role of the teachers 

A: Understanding Engineering Concept      Arouse the curiosity, interest and motivate student 

toward understanding of engineering discipline.  

 

B: Enhancing Networked Learning:                

 

Create a conducive avenue for different type of 

interaction in PBL environment. 

 

C: Changing Conceptual Development           Engage students with the task that require a research, 

developed critical thinking and construction of new 

knowledge in engineering. 

 

Linking Knowledge to the real practice        Bring a complex real-world problems and to provide 

scenario which link with workplace practices. 

 

 

To elaborate in Category A, the teacher’s role in PBL environment places emphasis on 

motivating students to understand engineering discipline effectively. This Category provides 

abstract knowledge of what students should learn in that course before assigning task or project 

to the students. For example, participants asserted that, it could be favorable if a teacher will 

explained the abstract application of the course to the students at the beginning of the semester 

before they embarked into project. This arouse the curiosity and interest of a students and 

empower student to understand the content rather than memorizing its.  

 

“Do you know what power plant do, student will say no, power plant is used to generate 

electricity and then the student can said yes electricity in my country is very big problem 

because it goes away. The student will said may be if I know how to generate electricity I will 

save my country so the student will be very interested because he show the application of what 

is that subject is for.” [P 13] 



43 
 

 

“…suppose we will learn something about power system, may be before the course there can 

be one short visit to the services station just to grow interest among the students no need to 

explain all the thing things in details among the students in the service station just group of 

student will go, one teacher will be there to said this is a transformer, this is a boiler, this is a 

turbine. What actually it will grow the interest of the student in learning something, and they 

will believe themselves that I am going to be an engineer” [P 10]  

 

In Category B, the role of teacher in PBL environments is expanded to create a facilitative space 

that will attract networked learning. In this context, teachers are not only to motivate students 

in understanding the disciplined, in addition, teachers has to create conducive environment for 

student to collaborate with one another, teacher himself and learning materials. For example, 

participants sees the role of teacher in PBL environment is to create atmosphere that will engage 

student either independently or in group with a task that will push them to search information 

from Google, YouTube etc. and collaborate with other student to sort out the actual solution 

needed and contact a teacher to get feedback upon every stage when required.   

 

“The teacher has to introduce the topic to the students, state his objective and explain all the 

necessary basic knowledge or background of the topic then the teacher will assign them in to 

group or individual tell them which work they should do, he should ask them to seek his 

assistances where necessary” [P 4] 

 

“Supposed a teacher has three classes in the week, whatever he has told us in this three classes 

he could tell us that you have to complete an assignments (project) based on this three classes 

in the weekend and submit that assignments or project in the next week when I came to the 

class. So we will definitely learn about the thing we did in the previous week and we will 

remember upon our semester final exam or even far be young that” [P 16] 

 

In Category C, the role of teacher in PBL is extended to engaging students with learning 

activities that will lead to development of new knowledge, technique or idea of doing a 



44 
 

particular task. In this Category, the role of teacher is not only to create networked learning, but 

also to assign a task to the engineering student that required investigation which will help 

students to acquire an everlasting knowledge as well as change their conceptions about the 

phenomena they are studying. This can be done by frequent assigning of a task to the students 

that required a research and thorough investigation before drawing a conclusion. For example, 

participants sees the role of teacher in PBL is to give a task to the student that they should go 

and conduct a research and come up with new idea, technique or knowledge that is relevant to 

the engineering field of study.  

 

“I think a teacher can split some learning content and coined some question for a student as 

an individual or a group to distribute its to the students to find its themselves. As they are 

finding, they have to be making a kind of research, while they are researching they are 

increasing their knowledge and at the end of the day, they should came up with something new 

that is much benefit or much important to the course than to just wait for the teacher to solve 

its for them” [P 5]  

 

the teacher may introduces the topic to the students and ask them some questions which 

required in-depth investigation and critical thinking students will select an approach that they 

think is suitable for them” [P 3] 

 

In Category D, the role of teacher is not only to assign learning activities that will provide an 

everlasting knowledge or new idea about the phenomena to the students, rather it is seen as 

alternative ways of bringing a complex real-world problems and links it with workplace 

practices. This can happen by involving students in to real engineering task that will developed 

practical knowledge and skills to the students, and that should be practice at the society or 

industry. For example, participants mentioned that, when teacher shows them how real 

engineering task are done, and involved them in doing it while they were learning, they can 

easily do it in the field or in the industries after graduation from the school.  

“You see when a teacher take us to site and see how real work are done or even do it myself 

then and then I start feeling confidence on myself that I will be an engineer so is very good and 

it is encouraging” [P 4] 



45 
 

4.2.3 Dimension 3: Role of students 

Dimension two explain the role play by students in PBL environments ranges primarily from 

being recipients of information, to being responsible in construction of knowledge as well as 

application of such knowledge in to real life situation (table 4.2.3.). The relationship between 

each Categories upon the role play by the teacher is described with the help of quoted extract 

from interviewee’s data. 

 

In Category A, students’ role is to pay attention on what teacher is explaining before 

commencement of designing and construction of engineering project. This can be achieved 

through teachers’ ability to persuade student interest by relating the content with an abstract 

application. In this Category, student are passively receiving the information. For example, 

engineering students mentioned that, they are paying attention and follow what teachers are 

explaining before they were embark in to the project task. 

 

“We have to pay attention and follow what a teacher is saying I thing that is all we are doing” 

[P 6]  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



46 
 

Table 4.2.3.   Variation of student’s role in PBL process in engineering education 

Categories                                                                           Role of the Student 

 

A: Understanding Engineering Concept      

 

Students receive information as a passive learner 

that enhance their understanding  

 

B: Enhancing Networked Learning:                Students interact with learning material, teachers 

and minded colleagues to develop a better 

understanding of engineering concept.                            

 

C: Changing Conceptual Development           

 

Students construct their own knowledge and 

skills.         

 

D: Linking Knowledge to the real practice       Students apply their knowledge to solve problems 

which has linked with workplace practices  

 

 

In Category B, the role of students is not only to received information from the teacher, rather 

it is extended to interaction with learning material, teachers and minded colleagues in order to 

get deeper understanding of the phenomena under study. In this category, the role play by 

student mainly to engaged in independent and collaborative learning, con