Effect of Open-Ended Laboratory toward Learners Performance in Environmental Engineering Course: Case Study of Civil Engineering at Universiti Malaysia Sabah

Authors: N. Bolong, J. Makinda, I. Saad

Abstract:

Laboratory activities have produced benefits in student learning. With current drives of new technology resources and evolving era of education methods, renewal status of learning and teaching in laboratory methods are in progress, for both learners and the educators. To enhance learning outcomes in laboratory works particularly in engineering practices and testing, learning via handson by instruction may not sufficient. This paper describes and compares techniques and implementation of traditional (expository) with open-ended laboratory (problem-based) for two consecutive cohorts studying environmental laboratory course in civil engineering program. The transition of traditional to problem-based findings and effect were investigated in terms of course assessment student feedback survey, course outcome learning measurement and student performance grades. It was proved that students have demonstrated better performance in their grades and 12% increase in the course outcome (CO) in problem-based open-ended laboratory style than traditional method; although in perception, students has responded less favorable in their feedback.

Keywords: Engineering education, open-ended laboratory, environmental engineering lab.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1094329

References:

[1] Rahman NA., N. T. Kofli, M. S. Takriff, S.R.S.Abdullah, (2011) Comparative Study between Open Ended Laboratory and Traditional Laboratory, 2011 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON)
[2] Hamid R., S. Baharom, M. R.Taha, A. A. A. Kasim, (2012), Sustainable and Economical Open-Ended Project for Materials Technology Course Laboratory Work, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 60 ( 2012 ) 3 – 7
[3] Domin D.S, (1999), A Review of Laboratory Instruction Styles, Vol. 76 No. 4 April 1999, Journal of Chemical Education
[4] Kelly O. and Finlayson O. (2009), A hurdle too high? Students’ experience of a PBL laboratory module, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2009, 10, 42–52
[5] Megat J. M. M. N., Mohd Saleh Jaafar, Wan Hamidon Wan Badaruzzaman, Azlan Abdul Aziz, Suhaimi Abdul Talib, (2012) Determining Accreditation Decision, presented at the EAC Workshop on Review of Evaluation Panel Reports, Marriot Hotel, Putrajaya, 24‐26 Oct 2008 (updated 2012)
[6] McKinnon M.M., (1999), Core elements of student motivation in PBL, New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 78, 49-58.
[7] Gungat L., Asrah H., Bolong N., Makind J., (2011), Comparison Study on the Assessment Approach of Course Outcome, Proceedings – 3rd International Congress on Engineering Education, ICEED2011 7-8 Dis 2011 Malaysia, pp. 114-119. 978-1-4577-1259-3/11@ IEEEXplore
[8] Azer S.A, R. Hasanato, S. Al-Nassar, A. Somily and M.M AlSaadi, (2013), Introducing integrated laboratory classes in a PBL curriculum: impact on student’s learning and satisfaction, BMC Medical Education 2013, 13:71
[9] Baird, B. N. (1991), In class poster session, Teaching of Psychology. 1991, 18, 27–28
[10] Johnstone A.H. and Al-Shuaili A., (2001), Learning in the laboratory; some thoughts from the literature, University Chemistry Education, 5, 42-51.