The caseexamined in this study provides an illustrative account of how student-centred en-vironments and approaches to learning –involving group work, student organising and man-aging own/group’s learningactivities(Jonassen & Land, 2012;Levy, 2008;see alsoChapter 1) are applied and enacted in the context on software engineering education.Project-based learning isthe particular form ofactivity that hasbeen employed and implemented in this course, but which wascomplemented by other course-based/teacher-driven activitiesand individuallearning activities. This caseallowed to examine and gain a better understanding of bothhowteaching and learning are organised and take placeinthis context, but also how
the pedagogical design employed serves to introduce the students to the specific professional domainandpractice of software engineering; the conclusions, however, areapplicable be-yond the boundaries of thisprogramme. Inparticular, we examined which pedagogical as-pects areimportant and contribute to organising and supporting project-based activitiesto optimise students’ learning.
2.5.1 Alignment of course elements and domain-specific knowledge and activities
As shown in the literature(Levy, 2008; Spronken-Smith &Walker, 2010),designing and im-plementing student-centredlearning activities isdemanding, andwhile project-based learn-ing isoneofthe mostcommon forms, itisnot to be taken for granted that successful organi-sation and implementation is a simpletask. As illustrated by this case, usually, group-based work iscombined with other learning activities, teacher or student-driven. This requires a thorough vision and organisation in order to attend to the alignment of coursecomponents, but also in relation to the curriculum(i.e., knowledge) components and assessment (cf. Biggs
& Tang, 2011). Inthis course, the empiricaldataindicate that the envisageddesign was faith-ful to the constructive alignment principle, in that the lead teacher considered the relevant domain-specific sequence of curriculum elements, the way these should be introduced through various courseactivities and teaching methods, howtheprocess should be organised under wayand which feedback and assessment forms should be used to matchthe learnt con-tent and skills. The lead teacher in thiscourseengagedwith thistask in athorough and sys-tematic manner, by identifying contents and skills of relevance, organising thesesequentially and selecting the adequatecourse and learning activitiesinorder to create the settings for an optimallearning experiences and outcome. The reports of bothteachers and students indi-cate that the envisaged coursedesign reflectedclearly a pedagogicalvisionand the specific software engineering domainknowledge and skills to be learnt. Theaspect of alignment was thus addressedbothwith regard to matching specific curriculum and the teaching/learning methods used for structuring and supporting students’ learning.
At the same time, the enacted design differed to some extent from the one envisaged. While some activitieswere pursued and enacted asplanned (suchaslectures and lab sessions), oth-ers provedto be more challenging to realiseaccording to the envisaged design (e.g. group tutoring and, in the caseof some groups, the project work). The level of complexity and diffi-culty of the knowledge contents and competences required to engage successfully with the project task wasreportedly one ofthe main issues, generating a need for adjustment. Such adjustments were performed during the course in the tutoring sessions, which required a more tailored approach that matched the different students’ needs and in the project groups, wheredifferent types of advisorywork were needed. In a sense, theseemerge as positive in-terventions by the teacher and TAs, which aimed ataligning the envisaged activitiesbetter withlearning needs of the students; a prerequisite of the student-centred learning perspec-tive (Levy, 2008).
A special aspect highlighted by the various data sources is that of the nature of the knowledge domain and how the organisation and performance of teaching and learning is
influenced by it. In the case of the software engineering, it has become clearthat the episte-mologyandlogics oftheofthedomain,i.e. thelearning and production throughsolving prob-lems (Damşa & Nerland, 2016; Latucca, 2002),determinedto a large extent the waythe cur-riculum organisation and the teaching/learning activities have been considered and em-ployed in the design. Theproject assignment and lecturematerial were framed in a waythat prompted and supported the students to identify andgenerate programming solutions them-selves, and did notprovide ready-madesolutions.This is in line with thepedagogicalvision of the lead teacher, who indicated commitment to prompting and supporting the students to understating the principles and logics of programming, essential for setting the foundations of learning and development as a programmer (Nerland & Damşa, forthcoming/2018).
2.5.2 Pedagogical principles and strategies in project-based learning
As shown inthis empiricaldata, this (entire) course wasstructuredwith the group project assignment at the centreof learning activities. The project-based work and product was in-tended to provide an arena for bothlearning and applying domain-specific knowledge and skills andcollaborative project skills. The othercourse activitieswere plannedinsuch way they can provide the basis, input and guidance for the students to engagein the project work.
Based on empiricalexamination, a series of aspects deserve to behighlighted asproductive when considering this type of student-centred activity, and in relation to the connection be-tween curriculum and activities, together withsome that need to be carefully considered when intending to improve such settings. One aspect relates to making the function and value of the project-based work (assignment inthis case) explicit and clear to the students, which relates to some extent tobothraisingawareness of the waythecharacteristics of the profes-sionalfield are being recreatedineducationalsettings (Bucciarelli, 2003; Helleet al., 2006).
As the teachers and TAs inthis courseemphasised, the students have to understand that pro-ject work in one ofthemain formsofpractice in the fieldof software engineering; in that sense, this was faithfullyaddressed by the teaching staff, whoallocated a high level of atten-tion to introducing the task and consistently reminding the students about its importance.
One aspect that undermined (in the caseofsomegroups) workontheproject that was per-ceived assuccessful by both teacher and students was the less clear/explicit presentationof the complexity of the assignment and what it takes to arrive to afinal product. Guidance and support applies not only in introducing the task and underlying its value but alsoinunpacking the complexity, the goals and the necessary(time and effort) investment in a way that the students, asnovice programmers, can gear themselves and organise their studyandwork ac-cordingly. This type of observation goes beyond the recommendation by Loyens and Rikers (2011), who pointed to theneed forguidanceand support by theteacher oncethestudents are working on their projects.
An aspect that is worthy of attention is the way the student groups are formed, together with differences in theway groups enact their project work.Itis a difficultissue toaddress, given the diversity of the student population, and teachers often struggle with finding fi t-for-all solutions. In the observed case, the teacher engaged in a creative way in forming the groups, based on performance level, aiming atincreasing the homogeneity of the groups. The
practiceinthe course has proven that this strategy matched very well groups with a higher level ofprior knowledge and ambitionto perform well,but wasnot necessarily productive for groups/students that performedless well. Literature (Damşa, 2014; Loyens & Rikers, 2011) indicates that guiding structures and activities (i.e., group supervision, feedback session, coaching) arenecessarytomaintainproject group work on course and reassure students of the value of this work.The teaching staff in this casewere facedwith a challenging task of having to provide tailored guidance and support to especially the groups that encountered difficulties in performing the task or pursuing collaborative work. This required a high level of investment, but sustained feedback from TAs and close coaching of some of the group by the teacher led to more groupsfinalising the project work, which indicates a way to address the issues generated by the group forming strategy. Nevertheless,literature on collaborative work (cf. Damşa et al., 2015) points ataspects of group dynamics that should be also taken into consideration when forming collaborative groups.
2.5.3 Students’ exploration, knowledge construction and learning experiences
With regardto the students’ experiencewiththe project work, the case study recorded vari-ationin theway they consider it fostered their exploration and learning experiences. Gener-ally, all the students whoprovided self-reports acknowledge the value ofproject and collab-orative work and indicated they havelearnt much of the programming knowledge and skills deemedimportant. This indicates a high level of awareness of the students with regard to the study they are enrolled in and a successful approach by the teaching team in highlighting the importance of this form of activity. Variation in experience with group work is a regular find-ing of research on this topic (see Damşa et al., 2015), however, some aspects identifiedinthis case are highly relevant toinitiatives to generate productive pedagogicaldesigns for groups.
One aspect noted is theway the students observed and capitalised on theintegrationofforms of activity in the course, intended all to feed into and support the projectwork. Some groups madeoptimal use of theseinputs (from tutoring or feedback sessions, for example) otherhad difficulties inmaking the connectionbetween thesevarious activities; others found it difficult to synchronise the pace of their project work with the rest. The second observation raises the issue of explicitness withregard to thepurposeandfunction of the plannedlearning activi-ties; the latter pinpoints an aspect indicatedinstudents’ interviews regarding the complexity of thematerial addressed in lectures and thepaceatwhich some of this material was intro-duced. Here, the pedagogicalprinciples of connecting to the students’ prior knowledgeand experiencewith the field(Brandsfordet al., 2005, Introduction of this report), togetherwith employing strategies of teaching theoretical knowledge in a way that is accessible tothe stu-dents (Land, Hannafin &Oliver, 2012), bothapply. This is tobeconsidered in the case of com-plex pedagogical design, with high-pace complex activities, inorder for the benefits for stu-dents’ learning to materialise.
Finally,oneaspect highly appreciated by the students wastheformative feedback pro-vided throughout the project work period, whichwasindicated asusefulinboth solving is-sues of programming but also bottlenecks in project management attimes. In relation tothis aspect, the observed caseincluded teaching assistants, who performed a largenumberof
guidance and feedback tasks. While they had a good insight into the knowledge domainand the project topics, and experiencewiththecourseas students, they had less experiencein guiding learning activities and group work. Thesesituations were addressed at courselevel in someintroductorysessions by the lead teacher and jointdecisionsoftheteaching staff (during assessment or guidance of groups encountering problems). It is clearlyindicated in the literature (Damşa et al., 2015) that preparationatpedagogicallevel can lead to optimising the impact and value of the feedback and guidance in the context of group work.