Abstract

Introduction

Figures (7)

Section snippets

References (19)

Recommended articles (6)

Abstract

Implementation of student-centered learning has shown wide global acceptance within institutes of higher learning. Some methods, such as active learning, project-based learning, problem-based learning, and experiential-based learning, have significantly impacted the students’ understanding of a particular subject. However, students will still have problems integrating the materials learned from one course to other courses. Thus, this is where the proposed initiative comes in. This paper discusses the implementation of integrated project-based learning (IPBL) to assist students in integrating the knowledge gained from one course to the other for first-year chemical engineering students of Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS. The mapping of assessments and learning domains to the learning activities are also shown in detail. This study was conducted on two courses offered in the same semester, namely, Principles of Chemical Engineering and Chemical Engineering Fluid Mechanics, in January 2019. A total of 214 students grouped in 43 teams were asked to develop a Do-It-Yourself (DIY) hydraulic jack, which uses the fundamentals taught in these two courses. The results show that 100 % student was able to come up with a working prototype within 5 weeks and 90 % of the students agree that the initiative increased their understanding in chemical engineering fundamentals and developed their leadership, problem-solving, communications and time management skills.

Introduction

Standard STEM programs are typically offered to students through a series of courses that need to be completed in 4 years. Knowledge is imparted to the students in courses for a better understanding of the overall program. In the chemical engineering discipline, the courses were taught separately to have more focus within each intended course, such as separation, reaction, fundamentals, control, and safety. This was necessary to equip the students with an in-depth knowledge of the fundamentals in a sequential manner. Conventionally, the program requires an individual project or a team project to be given to the students. It was expected for the students to complete it and send in a report to the instructor. However, a recent trend in academia showed project-based learning and problem-based learning as alternative approaches for the projects. This initiative can be seen in subjects such as process control (Yusof et al., 2012), separation process (Calvo and Prieto, 2016), design project (Vega and Navarrete, 2019), unit operations and modeling and simulations (Ballesteros et al., 2019), reaction engineering (Azizan et al., 2018), and introduction to engineering (Sadikin et al., 2019).

However, a problem that can be seen in this approach is the failure to integrate the learning materials from one topic or course to another. Several methods have been proposed over the years, such as open-ended problems, problem-based learning, case studies, cooperative learning, and class debates (Hung et al., 2008; Hamouda and Tarlochan, 2015). Although there is still inconclusive evidence on which approach is most suited for enhancing critical thinking skills, addressing this issue only within individual courses would limit the students’ time to gain other critical skills (Huber and Kuncel, 2016).

Over the last few years, the integration of coding activities for children in K-12 education has flourished. In addition, novel technological tools and programming environments have offered new opportunities and increased the need to design effective learning experiences. This paper presents a design-based research (DBR) approach conducted over two years, based on constructionism-based coding experiences for children, following the four stages of DBR. Three iterations (cycles) were designed and examined in total, with participants aged 8–17 years old, using mixed methods. Over the two years, we conducted workshops in which students used a block-based programming environment (i.e., Scratch) and collaboratively created a socially meaningful artifact (i.e., a game). The study identifies nine design principles that can help us to achieve higher engagement during the coding activity. Moreover, positive attitudes and high motivation were found to result in the better management of cognitive load. Our contribution lies in the theoretical grounding of the results in constructionism and the emerging design principles. In this way, we provide both theoretical and practical evidence of the value of constructionism-based coding activities.

Introduction

There is growing evidence supporting the introduction of computer science (CS) and computational thinking (CT) into K-12 education (Hubwieser, Armoni, Giannakos, & Mittermeir, 2014); (Horizon, 2015). According to Wing (2006 p.33) “CT represents a universally applicable attitude and skill set everyone, not just computer scientists, would be eager to learn and use”. CT involves problem solving, design of systems and understanding human behavior by employing central concepts of CS (Wing, 2006). Organizations like the Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA), Informatics Europe, the Cyber Innovation Center, and the National Math and Science Initiative have developed standards applied to coding education (Hubwieser et al., 2015). Increasing interest in learning coding in pedagogical contexts has also been driven and disseminated by organizations like Code.org and Codeacademy, which argue for the need to create skills that support future career opportunities while highlighting the educational advantages that coding offers. CT and coding in education have become integral parts of the school curricula in many countries. For example, the United Kingdom has integrated computer programming as a mandatory course starting from primary school (Jones, 2013), while Denmark promotes digital literacy, focusing on the knowledge gained from building technologies (Tuhkala, Wagner, Nielsen, Iversen, & Kärkkäinen, 2018). Pioneered by Seymour Papert (Papert, 1980), computer programming in education has received a lot of interest from educators and researchers seeking alternative ways of teaching complex problem-solving skills and providing dynamic learning experiences (Kalelioğlu, 2015; Lye & Koh, 2014).

Abstract

Lots of research has been done on smart cities, however, only few studies can be found on smart cities from the educational perspective. This paper will discuss the framework of building smart city from educational perspective to identify the importance of promoting smart learning in smart cities. Then the characters of smart learning are elaborated, and the difference of traditional classroom learning, digital learning and smart learning are analyzed. After that, the paper analyzes the typical learning environments in cities: school, family, community, workplace, and museum. Based on the analysis, we develop indicators to evaluate learning environments in smart cities, which was used to evaluate the learning environments in the selected 68 cities in China.

Framework for Smart Cities from Educational Perspective

Smart cities are nowadays widespread all over the world to tackle urban sustainability issues. In the initial stage, both academic research and the practice of the smart city focused on how to utilize information technology to improve economic and political efficiency (Röller and Waverman 2001). With the development of smart city, the focus was no longer limited to the hardware facilities, but more attention was paid to the availability and quality of knowledge communication, as well as to social infrastructure (human and social capital).

Nam, T. and Pardo (2011) identified and clarified the key dimensions of smart cities, and re-categorized them into three categories of core factors: technology (infrastructures of hardware and software), people (creativity, diversity, and education), and institution (governance and policy). The most often cited dimensions of smart city appeared in the report of “Smart Cities-Ranking of European Medium-Sized Cities” by Vienna Univer‐ sity of Technology, University of Ljubljana, and Delft University of Technology, in which Giffinger (2007) identified the six characteristics as a roof for the further elabo‐ ration of smart cities: smart economy, smart people, smart governance, smart mobility, smart environment, smart living.