Article: Simulation-based Learning in Engineering Education: Performance and Transfer in Learning Project Management
In order to improve engineering project management skills, new methodologies and tools are developed at an accelerated rate. This paper describes the utilization of a desktop simulator as part of engineering project planning and management course. The objectives of such a course are learning various methodologies and techniques of project management: basic issues of project management through scheduling techniques, resources allocation, budget, control, risks and the use of commercial software packages.
There are some well known advantages of using simulations as a learning tool [1]. Simulators are tools enabling the acquisition of practical experience and acceptance of an immediate response of the learned system to the user’s decisions and actions and yields a higher level of efficacy compared to traditional lectures [2]. Good simulators offer a realistic model of the interdependence of decisions that a project manager makes. The advantages of using engineering simulation-based training include the reduction of the gaps between the learning environment and the “real” environment, and the availability of training in situations that are difficult to obtain and practice in the “real world”.
One of the most basic strategies in engineering teaching is to provide the learners with feedback on their progress. Learning progress or learning history, as it is often referred to, can be easily stored in technology-based learning systems such as simulators. The learning history mechanism has been introduced in several simulation-based teaching tools in the engineering area. The user of these systems obtains access to past states and decisions and to the consequences of these decisions. Learning histories encourage students to monitor their behavior and reflect on their progress [3,4,5]. Learning histories also enable analysis of the decision-making process as opposed to analysis of results only. Learning history might be very effective for engineering processes, because the direct influence on the user’s actions can be seen. For example, Prechelt [6] noted that learning history is used as a quality improvement tool for programmers.
History recording can be done either by automatic control or by learner control. In automatic history recording, the training system such as the simulator determines when to record a given state in the learning process. These recording points are pre-determined by the simulator designer or the instructor that prepares the training program. In such a situation, the learner is completely uninvolved in the decision when to keep a specific state in their learning process. In contrast, in a learner-controlled mode, the learner determines if and when to keep a specific state in their learning process. Giving the learner some control over the learning environment by letting them actively construct the acquired knowledge was shown to produce better learning [7-10].
The basic hypothesis underlying the study reported here is that a user-controlled or manual learning history recording will have a greater positive impact on simulator-based learning as compared with the automatic history recording. The simulator contained an extended history mechanism which allowed users to both review their previous decisions and actions and to run the simulation from a history store point. Automatic history keeping was compared with manual history keeping, with the latter having the trainee actively involved in saving learning points manually. The impact of history keeping mode was assessed both in the engineering learning phase of a given scenario in the Project Management Trainer (PMT) and in the transfer of learning to a different, more complex scenario, without any history keeping mechanism. The Project Management Trainer (PMT) used in this study is a teaching aid designed to facilitate the teaching of project management in a dynamic, stochastic, multi-project environment. The Project Management Trainer is designed to train engineering students and managers to exploit the ability of modern decision support systems to collect, store, process and present large quantities of real time information Shtub [11]
Participants were 98 fourth year Engineering students with ages ranging from 18 to 35 and no practical experience with project management. They ran two scenario types. The first was a single-project (SP) scenario, considered to be an easier one, and the second was a multi-project (MP) scenario, considered to be a more difficult one. Measurements of learning and transfer were”>1. Profit – The cumulative profit at the end of the simulation run was considered as the best indicator of the effectiveness in which the student manages the project; and 2. Scenario runs duration – the elapsed time it took each student to run each simulation run. The findings and analysis indicated that having a history keeping mechanism had a significant impact on performance compared with no history keeping mechanism. In all conditions where there was a history mechanism, mean profits increased significantly between simulation runs, whereas there was no significant improvement without history. In addition, the highest mean profit at the end of the third simulation run was found for the manual history keeping as compared with the automatic history keeping.
The findings and analysis indicated that when transferring to a complex multi-project management scenario and with no history keeping mechanism, participants who practiced a simple scenario with a history keeping mechanism achieved significantly higher profits than participants who did not practice previously with the history keeping mechanism. In addition, participants who practiced previously with a manual history keeping achieved higher profit in the multi-project scenario as compared with having previously an automatic history keeping mechanism. The use of history mechanism gives users (engineering students) a strong tool to enhance their learning process. This history mechanism should be implemented with undo abilities that aid the user to run simulation scenarios from saved store points. A manual history mechanism is better, it allows the user to save the desired simulation states based on their own decisions. With this, the user is actively involved in the learning process, being mindful and aware of the various situations and making decisions. This in turn produces better learning in terms of performance improvement and positive transfer.
References
[1] Thompson, T.H., Purdy, J.M., and Fandt, P.M., “Building a strong foundation using a computer simulation in an introductory management course,” Journal of Management Education, Vol. 21, 1997, pp. 418-434.
[2] Nguyen, J., and Pascal C.D., “Development of online ultrasound instructional module and comparison to traditional teaching methods,” Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 91, No. 2, 2002, pp. 275-283.
[3] Carroll, S., Beyerlein, S., Ford, M., and Apple, D., “The learning assessment journal as a tool for structured reflection in process education,” Proceedings of Frontiers in Education’96, IEEE, 1996, pp. 310-313.
[4] Edelson, D. C., Pea, R. D. and Gomez, L. M., “The collaboratory notebook,” Communications of the ACM, Vol. 39, No. 4, 1996, pp. 32–33.
[5] Parush, A, Hamm, H., and Shtub, A., “Learning histories in simulation-based teaching”>the effects on self-learning and transfer,” Computers and Education, Vol. 39, 2002, pp. 319-332.
[6] Prechelt, L., “Accelerating learning from experience: avoiding defects faster,” IEEE Software, Nov/Dec 2001, pp. 56-61.
[7] Cuevas, H.M., Fiore, S.M., Bowers, C.A., and Salas, E., “Fostering constructive cognitive and metacognitive activity in computer-based complex task training environments,” Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 20, 2004, pp. 225–241.
[8] Driver, R., “Theory into practice II”>a constructivist approach to curriculum development,” In Development and dilemmas in science education, P.J. Fensham, London: The Falmer Press, 1988, pp. 165–188.
[9] Von Glaserfeld, E., “Learning as a constructive activity,” In The construction of knowledge: Contributions to conceptual semantics, E. Von Glaserfeld, California: Intersystems Publication, 1987, pp. 212–214.
[9] Wheatley, G. H., “The role of negotiation in mathematics learning,” In The practice of constructivism in science education, K. Tobin, Washington, DC”>AAAS Press, 1993, pp. 121–133.
[10] Spigner-Littles, D.A., and Chalon, E., “Constructivism: a paradigm for older learners,“ Educational Gerontology, Vol. 25, 1999, pp. 203–210.
[11] Shtub, A., “PMT – The project management trainer,” Ninth international conference on project management and scheduling, PMS 2004, pp. 430-433.
Author 1: Lior Davidovitch [email protected]
Author 2: Avi Parush [email protected]
Author 3: Avraham Shtub [email protected]
Article Link: www.asee.org