Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2009)
INTI University College, Malaysia
TACKLING THE TRANSFORMATIVE LEARNING
DILEMMA: APPLYING TL ON ANALYTICAL
SUBJECTS, PART I
Sami Salama Hajjaj
INTI University College, Malaysia (sami_hajjaj@intimal.edu.my)
ABSTRACT
The analytical nature of the engineering topics may not lend itself to an effective implementation of
Transformative Learning (TL). By default, analytical subjects tend to be procedural, and may require an
extensive hand-holding, etc. This has led many engineering educationists to conclude that classical teaching
methods are more suitable. However, research and industry feedback tells us that engineering graduates are in
dire need of TL. Many lag interpersonal skills, leadership qualities, managerial skills, and socio-economic
awareness. This work tends to tackle this issue; in this work, two analytical engineering subjects from different
years were taught using a combination of classical and TL teaching methods, they are Engineering Statics &
Robotics. In each class, the first few chapters were taught using classical methods, and the remainder in TL.
Each class was divided into groups; each responsible for a specific chapter, i.e. preparation, studying, and
teaching that chapter to the rest of the class, all in close coordination and guidance of the lecturer. The impact of
TL on three key areas was investigated; effect on Students, on Lecturers, and on Administrative issues and other
behind-the-scene matters. Academic performance of students participating in this experiment was compared to
that of previous semesters, when these subjects were taught using classic methods. Also, feedback from students
and lecturers were collected. Students responded positively to TL; they reported that TL allowed them to
develop other skills, and they preferred it over classical methods, and surprisingly, they enjoyed learning
engineering subjects more with TL. Lecturers need to develop coaching skills. Processes such as lecturer
evaluation, questions for tests and finals need to be updated in the wake of applying TL.
KEYWORDS
Transformative learning, Engineering education, Transformative learning vs. analytical subjects, Innovative
teaching methods in Engineering, Engineering education in South East Asia
INTRODUCTION: THE NEW GENERATION ENGINEERS
It is an exciting time to be an Engineer. New generation of challenges stare humanity in the
face; population over-growth, energy limitations, environment degradation, shortages of food,
just to name a few. Today’s challenges are broad and general, and if our engineers were to
tackle them, they need to be the same; not limited to narrow and specific fields or specialities,
not hindered by specific technical jargon and terminologies. We need a new generation of
Engineers.
1
A New Generation of Engineers is Needed to Tackle a New Generation of Challenges
Today’s (and indeed tomorrow’s) engineers need to be of different mould, when they tackle a
problem, they have to consider all aspects; technological, economical, social, and political
aspects. Without doing these, they will not succeed, without seeing the big picture, their
solutions would be impractical, uneconomical, and even insensitive to social needs.
New engineers must be self-confidant, free of doubt, fear, or failure. By eliminating fear and
doubt they unlock all doors to effective problem solving; creativity and imagination.
Furthermore, confidence leads to leadership, which then leads to further effective problem
solving.
But confidence requires knowledge, and so engineers must be knowledgeable, technically
(which is a pre-requisite), socially, and economically. Engineers must be knowledgeable of
the economical, political, and social impact of technology and engineering on society.
Engineers must be able to communicate effectively, with fellow engineers and everyone else.
Engineers must be able to freely switch from a technical discussion in an engineering
conference, to a social conversation in any socio-economical gathering. In either mode, they
must be able to deliver and communicate their ideas effectively and clearly.
Looking at the vast majority of engineering graduates today, you can hardly see the above
characters in engineers. The majority of today’s graduates are narrow minded, focus entirely
on their specific areas, socially inept, and very rarely trusted in leadership roles upon
graduation. Instead they are buried in specialized labs and workstations, to focus on specific
tasks and situations. You can’t help but wonder, why?
Engineering Education, the Classical Method
If we look at the way our current Engineering students are being educated (in Malaysia and
indeed Asia), we can quickly understand the problem. After browsing through a mix of public
and private Malaysia institutions of higher education[1], all teaching bachelors of engineering,
we can see the following pattern:
In the first 2-3 years, the focus is often on building up the knowledge in the basics and
theoretical sciences, and little or no exposure to real life engineering practice or impact on
society[2]. Students find themselves in a very restrictive, rigid, and extremely demanding
environment; they must work and study hard in order to make it to third year.
By which they would have been crushed and isolated in this restrictive environment. Students
soon realize that if they were to survive, they must bury themselves in textbooks and
references. Due to the demanding nature of studies and lack of time, engineering students
find themselves isolated from participating in university events, social events, and soon they
lose interest. For them there is only one focus, succeed in their studies. Ultimately, they are
isolated from society all together.
2
Are We Developing Engineers or Machines?
This isolating nature of engineering studies often result in creating the commonly perceived
tech-nerds or graduates with little interpersonal skills, narrowly focused on their fields, and
unaware of the world around them.
This is further complicated when students react negatively to this; while some survive and
move on after graduation. The majority would have developed a wall of self-fear and doubt
that blocks them from participating effectively and confidently in discussions, interactions,
and in society as a whole.
Self-doubt and fear will also cloud their judgements and block any innovative and creative
thinking. All of this will extend their isolation and relegate them to the back rooms, were they
are told to work with machines and like machines.
THE CASE FOR TRANSFORMATIVE LEARNING (TL)
Transformative Learning has gained a lot of attention in recent years in Asia as an alternative
method teaching for institutes of higher education. Research on TL and its benefits are
extensive [3-8], discussing this in detail would be outside the scope of this work, the reader is
encouraged to review the references for more.
Instead, the focus of this work would be on implementing TL on Engineering education. The
benefits and the challenges, and what can be done to maximize the benefits and minimize the
challenges.
Transformative Learning vs. Analytical Subjects
The biggest challenge when applying TL on engineering education is the very nature of
engineering subjects. Engineering subjects are almost entirely based on rigid and well proven
mathematical theorems and laws of physics, this is especially true for the first few years when
the topics are raw, basic, and very analytical.
To pass an engineering subject, students are expected to be able to solve engineering
problems, i.e. based on given inputs, construct and use a series of mathematical procedures to
find the required output. As such, engineering education - at least in the first few years - is
about understanding these procedures and applying them, and this is the challenge when it
comes to applying TL.
Can TL be Applied in Engineering Education?
It is for this reason that many educationists believe classical teaching methods are the only
effective teaching method for engineering subjects, and that TL would not be suitable. They
argue that the rigid engineering procedures and laws are very complex that an extensive
hand-holding is required to educate the new students. They argue that engineering students
must build a database of processes, equations, and methods to be able to solve engineering.
3
PROBLEM FORMULATION:
How to Effectively Apply TL on Engineering Education
When TL is applied effectively on engineering studies, students would be able to read
engineering literature, study the pre-solved exercises, perform research on real life
applications and the latest developments. But above all, they will learn how to solve
engineering problems on their own.
Students would be working in groups, dividing efforts, communicating through alternative
means of communications, and using the web for resources. The lecturer, on the other hand,
would assume a behind-the-scenes role; coordinating group activities, clearing obstacles,
delegating tasks, guiding students on resources, and intervening to provide help when needed.
In doing so, students do not only develop the knowledge database, but they will develop
human-skills as well; time management, multi-tasking, presentation skills, group
collaboration, technology literacy, English language proficiency, leadership, self-reliance,
socio-economical awareness, and many more.
How can We Achieve Effective TL Implementation
This work attempts to identify how to effectively implement Transformative Learning on
engineering studies. The best approach to achieve this is to try and observe.
In this work, TL was applied on few engineering subjects, with the aim of investigating the
impact of TL on several areas, they are:
1. The impact of TL on students
2. The impact of TL on lecturers
3. The effect of TL on the behind-the-scene administrative issues, such as examinations,
course work mark allocation, and other administrative factors.
TL would be applied on these subjects to the best knowledge available to the lecturers.
Students’ academic performance were recorded, and towards the end of the semester,
students’ feedback were recorded and analysed, along with the feedback from the lecturers.
THE EXPERIMENT
For the purpose of this work, and to investigate the above, TL was applied on two highly
analytical engineering subjects, namely Engineering Statics and Robotics. The selection was
to gather as much insight as possible, Statics is a first-year subject while Robotics is a thirdyear subject. This will allow us to broaden the range of students involved and strengthen the
data gather from this experiment, Table 1 shows more details.
4
Table 1. Experiment setting, Applying TL on Analytical Engineering subjects
Area of Experiment
Settings
First year
Third year
Students (28 in total)
13
Number of weeks TL was applied when teaching these subjects
45%
10/14
(70%)
16
55%
7/14
(50%)
Since this experiment was performed for the first time, TL was not applied exclusively.
Instead, classical teaching methods (lecture and notes) were conducted for the first few 4 – 7
weeks. During which the students were briefed and prepared on this experiment. This graceperiod allowed the students to better prepared for their sessions.
How TL Technique was Applied in this Experiment
For this experiment, each class was divided into groups, each group was assigned a chapter of
the syllabus. Each group was to prepare, study, learn, develop teaching material, and teach
the subject in class. All was done in close coordination with the lecturer. The setting were as
following:
1. The syllabus was divided into chapters, the first two were handled by the lecturer, and
the subsequent chapters were allocated to the students.
2. Group sizes were related to chapter sizes, 3-4 students handled the bigger the chapters,
while 1-2 students handled the smaller ones.
3. Each group was allocated a number of classes during which they would teach the
subject to the class, again, number of classes is related to chapter size.
4. Putting in mind dates for tests, quizzes, etc, chapters were scheduled as per the course
structure and plan. As such, students knew from the start when their sessions were
scheduled, and how much time they had to prepare. This allowed them to plan and
prepare ahead of their session.
5. To avoid any favouritism, students were assigned randomly to chapters, or based on
the order of their names in the attendance list.
5
FINDINGS
The findings of this work are divided into three areas; effect of TL on students, effect on
lecturers, and effect on the procedures and processes.
The Impact of Transformative Learning on Students
The impact of TL on Engineering students was further divided into two areas, the effect on
academic performance, and students’ attitude towards TL.
Impact of TL on Students’ Academic Performance
The easiest way to gauge this was to compare. Table 2 shows a comparison of academic
performance of students participating in this experiments and students who took the same
subjects in the previous semesters. Classes were taught by the same lecturers, and class sizes
were almost the same.
Table 2. Summary of Students’ feedback on implementation of TL
Course Work (Class average)
Class performance
Classical
TL
Assignments (4 – 5 per semester)
82%
78%
Quizzes (3 – 6 per semester)
62%
64%
Tests (2 per semester)
67%
56%
Projects (1 per semester)
67%
66%
Overall
70%
66%
As it can be seen from table 2. There was a slight drop in academic performance, we would
also see that apart from quizzes, performance dropped in every other area.
Students’ Attitude Towards Implementation of TL
To gauge students’ attitude towards TL, a questionnaire survey was carried out to all students
participating in this experiment. This survey was designed to help researchers understand
how students feel about TL, what students wish and plan to do if the experiment was repeated,
and about specific areas of implementation of this experiment. Was this technique useful?
Would you apply TL 100% next semester? And so forth.
The questions were written as statements, and students would state whether or not they agree
or disagree with these statements. A range of 1-5 of agreement level was created, with 1
representing: Strongly disagree, and 5 representing: Strongly agree. Table 3 shows these
questions and the average responses.
6
Table 3. Summary of Students’ attitude towards TL
Question
Response
(out of 5)
1. I struggled in the beginning, but now I am comfortable studying on my
3.1
own
2. TL helped me to become more independent and able to learn on my own
3.4
3. TL helped me develop important skills, such as improved
communication skills, time-management, English proficiency, team 3.6
collaboration, etc.
4. Lecturer should reduce his involvement and allow me to learn on my
2.3
own
5. TL allowed me to enjoy learning Engineering subjects
3.1
6. I believe TL can be applied on analytical subjects, provided enough
2.9
guidance and support from my lecturer/coach
7. I am open to try new techniques, such as e-learning, mobile learning, etc.
2.9
8. I believe TL is very useful for my career as an professional engineer
3.7
9. I prefer Transformative Learning method over classical methods
3.2
10. I am ready to apply TL to all of my subjects next semester
2.3
As it can be seen from table 3, students agreed with statements 1, 2,3, 5, 8, and 9, (60%
agreement or higher). while they disagreed with statement 4, and 10 (46% agreement). For
the last remaining statements; 6 and 7, students are divided (57% agreement).
This tells us that students agreed to the benefits of TL, they agreed that TL has helped them
overcome their initial struggles and grow more independent and confident. They agreed that
TL helped them develop secondary skills, which is also why they agreed to the importance of
TL to their professional careers (the highest agreement level at 74%).
One the unexpected outcomes was the fact that students enjoyed learning engineering studies
with TL (62%), and that they preferred TL over classical methods. Yet, they agreed that
lecturers should continue to be involved and not withdrawn completely. In an expected
outcome, however, students agreed that they would not want to apply TL to all their subjects
next semester.
7
The Impact of Transformative Learning on Engineering Lecturers
For this work, there was no specific survey handed out to lecturers, instead they were asked
to provide written feedback regarding their experience and any challenges they might have
faced. In general, most lecturers reported a similar pattern of response:
In the beginning students showed some resistance and resentment towards TL, they didn’t
take it seriously enough, and those who did, could not perform well due to nervousness. This
resulted in a drop in teaching quality, which prompted lecturers to intervene and take over the
class.
After few weeks, however, students gained confidence and the level of teaching/learning
picked up, eventually the class completely transformed from classical learning to TL.
DISCUSSION
Lecturers are highly trained professional, they have years of experience on knowledge
delivery, and their jobs are monitored and evaluated regularly. So when students become
involved in the learning process, as they do in TL, a drop in quality of delivery is inevitable.
In this experiment, all but very few students struggled during their first few sessions. Only
after extensive coaching from lecturers were the students able to command their sessions.
This drop in quality was limited to attitude. Some of the students were very excited about TL,
they created fantastic PowerPoint presentations, and were good speakers. But they struggled
to answer questions or explain in details. They being students, and as students, they were able
to learn, and present, but not to teach.
This was what prompted almost all participating lecturers to intervene and retake the class.
They simply could not afford to let the quality of education slip. Lecturers knew their
performance is being monitored and evaluated, they knew dissatisfaction from the class
would reflected on their students’ evaluation.
However, if lecturers were to retake the class, then the whole purpose of TL would be
defeated. This is the part where lecturers become coaches. They must step in only to help the
struggling students, and to provide support. In time, students will overcome the nervousness
and pick it up. How much time is needed? It depends on the coaching skills of the lecturer.
Adapting to Transformative Learning: Students
The fact that students are not as good as lecturers is not debatable, so what can we do?
providing extensive training for students to improve their teaching skills is impractical, so
what can be done? Let us re-evaluate the situation.
Students do not receive 100% knowledge, because they are taught by their untrained fellow
students. However, they must pass the subject, and have no other choice, so they turn to
themselves, and study and gain the new knowledge needed to pass the subject. In essence,
they apply core purpose of Transformative Learning: learning on their own.
8
The only challenge here is that students must be aware of this fact; they must be aware that it
is natural that their fellow students would not be able to provide 100% input and that it is
their responsibilities to learn the rest on their own, or collaborate with their peers after class.
Throughout their learning lives - at least here in Asia - students were trained to receive
knowledge. So when they are suddenly being asked to take knowledge, they might not know
how, even if they were enthusiastic about TL and eager to participate.
This leads to the conclusion that the early few weeks of applying TL are the most critical. We
cannot simply dump them in the deepend and expect them to perform (that is what happened
in the experiment). During the initial few weeks of TL, students must be taught on how to
participate effectively in TL; how to conduct a class, how to learn on their own, how to use
resources, and how to deliver the knowledge. All of which must be provided by the lecturers.
Adapting to Transformative Learning: Coaches (Lecturers)
The word lecturer implies a person giving a lecture. With TL, it is no longer valid. The most
appropriate description would be Education Coach. In TL, lecturers must be equipped with
the communication and leadership skills needed to coach a class.
In the early stages of applying TL, coaches need to be flexible and open to learning new
teaching techniques. For example, the use of alternative means of communication, especially
through the web.
The primary goal of using alternative communication tools is breaking barriers. In this
experiment, lecturers were encouraged to use social networking websites to interact with
students. The response was positive; students greatly appreciated it when lecturers
communicated with them in a way they could relate to.
Some of the students who were reluctant at the beginning of the experiment changed their
minds and started to participate actively after lecturers left comedic messages on their facebook pages, such as “Stop playing, go and study”, or “see you tomorrow in class ... oh yeah,
there is a quiz tomorrow!!!”
These alternative means of communication would be very useful for topic briefing, class
updates, assignment submission, group discussions, etc. Conflicting class schedules and other
physical barriers prevented many students from meeting face-to-face, so they used these
alternative means.
The resul was surprising, as students helped their lecturers (i.e. students teaching on that
week) to prepare for their session through online groups. How would you feel if your own
students help you prepare for the class? This is exactly what was happened. This was
completely voluntarily and without the prompt from the lecturer.
9
Impact of TL on Procedures and Documentations
For quality, evaluation, and documentation purposes, lecturers must follow pre-defined SOPs,
they must use a pre-set set of documents, and they are evaluated based on a given criteria.
These processes and documents were defined based on the classical teaching method.
The challenge arises when TL is applied, some (if not all) of these processes will be effected.
Lecturers reported difficulties in applying some SOPs and voiced concerns over other
processes. These are discussed next.
Peer and student evaluation
The criterion of student evaluation is based on classical teaching methods, it lists tasks that
the lecturers no longer performing, and omits new tasks lecturers will be performing under
TL. The if TL to be to applied effectively, the criteria for student evaluation must evaluate the
coaching skills of lecturers, rather than on the lecturing skills.
Lecturer’s Manual, Course Structure, teaching log
In short, these documents are designed to document the teaching process and provide a guide,
a reference for future lecturers, for evaluators, and for quality monitoring. Many lecturers
reported concern over the possible change to these documents, if any.
By studying these documents in details, we find them arranged by topics vs. weeks. These
documents provide schedule of chapters, sections and topics. There is no emphasis on
whether or not the lecturer is teaching or the student is teaching.
As such, there will be minimum change (if any) to these documents. Perhaps a new choice of
words might be used. Instead of “ I taught”, we can use the term “ the topic was taught”.
Examinations and Finals
Many lecturers reported concern over the possible change in the questions drafted for exams
and finals. The argument is simple, since teaching method has changed, evaluation and
assessment should be changed, shouldn’t they?
This argument is partially true. By applying TL we aim at producing socially oriented
engineers, but we still need them to be competent-engineers, it is the pre-requisite. Therefore,
the main emphasis of engineering finals should remain on technical and mathematical
questions.
Socio-economical awareness and decision making skills should tested by including openended questions. These could be parts of technical questions or stand-alone. These questions
require students to comment on, discuss, evaluate, decide on best course of action, etc.
Writing these questions (and their answers) might be a challenge for classically educated
lecturers. Therefore, this could be another area of improvement prior to implementing TL.
10
CONCLUSIONS
1. Students’ reaction to TL were generally positive. Students agreed to the benefits of
TL. they agreed that TL helped them to grow more independent, help them develop
secondary skills, and more importantly, allow them to enjoy learning Engineering
subjects.
2. During the initial stages of TL implementation, students must be coached and guided
extensively. Lecturers need to be prepared to intervene and guide the class through.
This should go on till the students are ready to be independent.
3. Lecturers should assume the role of Coaches that is providing enough guidance
without taking over the class. Also, they need to be flexible about new and alternative
means of knowledge delivery, communication, the use of the web, etc.
4. Many students voiced displeasure over the apparent drop in teaching quality (since it
was handled by fellow students). As such, students need to be aware of and prepared
for this; students need to be informed that under TL, it is their responsibility to learn
on their own, both individually and in collaboration with fellow students, with little
teaching from the lecturers.
5. Engineering tests and/or finals should contain TL questions; questions (or at least
components of questions) that test students’ socio-economical awareness, and
decision making skills.
6. Prior to implementing TL, lecturers must be trained on two major areas:
a. Coaching skills. To allow them to be effective in class.
b. Writing TL engineering questions (refer to point 5)
7. Lecturer related documents would be effected by TL. The criteria for student and peer
evaluation (of lecturer’s performance) must be updated to reflect the new coaching
skills used under TL, and do away with traditional/conventional lecturing tasks.
8. Lecture related documents, such as lecture’s manual, course structure, and teaching
log are not affected by TL as they serve as schedules, detailing timelines, regardless
of method of teaching.
11
REFERENCES & FOOTNOTES
[1] National University Malaysia (UKM), Islamic International University Malaysia
(IIUM), University Putra Malaysia (UPM), Nilai University College, Sunway
University College, and INTI University College.
[2] Social, economical and ethical subject maybe offered in public universities, but they
usually introduce engineering students to these topics and little effort is made to relate
and/or study the relation between them and engineering, with the exception of some
programs where this relation is the core of the studies, examples: Industrial
engineering (often named: Industrial Operation & Project management)
[3] Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative Dimensions of Adultlearning. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
[4] Mezirow, J. (1995). "Transformation Theory of Adult Learning." In In Defense of The
Lifeworld, edited by M. R. Welton, pp. 39-70. New York: SUNY Press.
[5] Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative Learning: Theory to Practice. In Transformative
Learning in Action: Insights from Practice. NEW DIRECTIONS FOR ADULT AND
CONTINUING EDUCATION NO. 74, edited by P. Cranton, pp. 5-12. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
[6] Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as Transformation: Critical Perspecive on a Theory in
Progress. San Francisco: Jossey Bass
[7] O'Sullivan, E. (2003) Bringing a perspective of transformative learning to globalized
consumption. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 27 (4), 326–330
[8] Scott, Sue M. "The Grieving Soul in the Transformation Process." In Transformative
Learning in Action: Insights from Practice. NEW DIRECTIONS FOR ADULT AND
CONTINUING EDUCATION No. 74, edited by P. Cranton, pp. 41-50. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass, Summer 1997.
12