scaffolding

Scaffolding Team Dynamics for Team Effectiveness in Project-based Learning Courses

cdtlsd Lighting Talks , , , , ,

Vinod VASNANI1*, Ameek KAUR2, and Randall SIE1

1Institute for Engineering Leadership, College of Design and Engineering
2NUS Business School

*vinod@nus.edu.sg

 

Vasnani, V., Kaur, A., & Sie, R. (2023). Scaffolding team dynamics for team effectiveness in project based learning courses [Lightning talk]. In Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2023, 7 December, National University of Singapore. https://blog.nus.edu.sg/hecc2023proceedings/scaffolding-team-dynamics-for-team-effectiveness-in-project-based-learning-courses/
 

SUB-THEME

Interdisciplinarity and Education

 

KEYWORDS

Team dynamics, interdisciplinary, coaching, entrepreneurship, scaffolding

 

CATEGORY

Lightning Talks

 

ABSTRACT

Experiential learning, a process in which learning occurs through experience (Kolb, 1984) is increasingly being used in several domains of education, namely, engineering, medicine, business etc. (e.g. Conger et al., 2010; Yardley et al., 2012; Kosnik et al., 2013). Experiential learning can take many forms, such as case studies, simulations, and projects. The experience of working on real-life team projects provides a rich learning opportunity for students where real-life stakeholders offer students the opportunity to integrate and apply the knowledge they acquire. In the experiential learning course MT5920 “Enterprise Development” (National University of Singapore, n.d.), students work in teams to identify new market opportunities for real existing technologies from participating companies, ranging from multinational companies, small and mid-sized enterprises (SMEs) to growth startups. The class setting emulates a real industry environment and process for new product/solution design and validation. Students benefit from working with stakeholders from real organisations. At the same time, the course provides a safe and sheltered environment to experiment and take risks.

 

Team dynamics is a key component for the success of projects in the real world, and it is also a key component in this course. Student teams manage team dynamics throughout the course whilst working and completing their various project assignments and deliverables. This course follows a project-based learning pedagogical approach (De Graaf & Kolmos, 2003). Project-based learning enables a process in which the students can learn, experience, reflect and manage team dynamics. This is accompanied by a deliberate effort by the instructors to scaffold the process of managing team dynamics, which subsequently impacts the team effectiveness in carrying out its project with the actual companies.

The teams are typically multidisciplinary and multicultural. Along with the challenges of finding new market opportunities for these companies, a common challenge that arises for the students is team dynamics. The right team dynamics greatly impacts the success of the team and the intended outcomes (Delice et al, 2019; DiTullio, 2010 ). As mentioned in Kokotsaki et al. (2016), project-based learning is a student-centred form of instruction characterised by students’ autonomy, constructive investigations, goal setting, collaboration, communication, and reflection within real-world practices. The team dynamics scaffolding effort in MT5920 exhibits the above-mentioned characteristics.

 

In this course, these tools are applied to manage team dynamics:

  • GRPI [Beckhard, R. (1972)],
  • A self-assessment (National University of Singapore, n.d.)
  • Team reviews and interventions
  • Individual self-reflection

 

Please refer to the chart below for an overview of the course and the various tools that we apply.

MT5920: Course overview with team dynamics scaffold

 

The scaffolding on team dynamics takes students through a structured process. It begins with self-assessment and understanding of personal strengths and weaknesses followed by a Team Dynamics Workshop. This explores conflict management, communication styles using the self-assessment, and culminates in the creation of a team GRPI1. Data about the team dynamics is collected on a continuous informal basis through student mentors (alumni who act as mentors and join the teams), as well as on a formal basis through student self- and peer review evaluations and surveys. Mid-semester, based on evaluations and surveys completed, an individual team review takes place between all team members and faculty. This is a critical review to gauge and improve on team effectiveness. Any other team dynamics are dealt with on an ad hoc basis through team meetings with faculty or student mentors. All the while, teams reflect and update their GRPI. At the end of the course, students submit individual reflection papers that have specific questions regarding team dynamics, ensuring students gain practical insights and skills for effective teamwork in the future.

 

We have found that this scaffolding process helps teams to navigate the four stages of Tuckman’s (1965) group development, i.e. forming, norming, storming, and performing. The storming phase is critical for the team to emerge from, in order to work effectively towards the end of the course for the final presentation to all stakeholders. This paper will discuss the motivation for this scaffolding and the benefits for both the instructors and the teams. The approach and steps used will be shared as an approach that can be adapted for use by other such courses.

 

ENDNOTE

  1. GRPI is an acronym that stands for Goals, Roles, Processes, and Interpersonal relationships. The GRPI model is an approach to team development that was introduced in the early 1970s by Richard Beckard, an organizational development expert and professor at MIT.

 

REFERENCES

Beckhard, R. (1972). Optimizing team-building efforts. Journal of Contemporary Business, 1(3), 23-32.

Conger, A. J., Gilchrist, B., Holloway, J. P., Huang-Saad, A., Sick, V., & Zurbuchen, T. H. (2010, April). Experiential learning programs for the future of engineering education. In 2010 IEEE transforming engineering education: Creating interdisciplinary skills for complex global environments (pp. 1-14). IEEE.

Delice, F., Rousseau, M., & Feitosa, J. (2019). Advancing teams research: What, when, and how to measure team dynamics over time. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1324. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01324

De Graaf, E., & Kolmos, A. (2003). Characteristics of problem-based learning. International Journal of Engineering Education, 19(5), 657-62. Retrieved from https://www.ijee.ie/articles/Vol19-5/IJEE1450.pdf.

DiTullio, L. (2010). Project team dynamics: enhancing performance, improving results. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Kokotsaki, D., Menzies, V., & Wiggins, A. (2016). Project-based learning: A review of the literature. Improving Schools, 19(3), 267-77. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480216659733

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall.

Kosnik, R. D., Tingle, J. K., & Blanton III, E. L. (2013). Transformational learning in business education: The pivotal role of experiential learning projects. American Journal of Business Education (AJBE), 6(6), 613-30. https://doi.org/10.19030/ajbe.v6i6.8166

National University of Singapore (n.d.). Enterprise Development. IEL website. Retrieved June 20, 2023, from https://cde.nus.edu.sg/iel/graduate/overview-of-graduate-modules/enterprise-development/

National University of Singapore (n.d.). Self Assessments -16 Personalities. Centre for Future-ready Graduates. Retrieved June 20, 2023, from https://nus.edu.sg/cfg/students/career-resources/self-assessments

Tuckman, B. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384-99. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0022100

Yardley, S., Teunissen, P. W., & Dornan, T. (2012). Experiential learning: Transforming theory into practice. 63. Medical Teacher, 34(2), e102-e115. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.643264

 

Scaffolding of Project-based Learning of Hardware Design via Test Automation

cdtlsd Poster , , ,

Rajesh C. PANICKER

Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering,
College of Design and Engineering (CDE)

*rajesh@nus.edu.sg

 

Panicker, R. C. (2023). Scaffolding of project-based learning of hardware design via test automation [Poster presentation]. In Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2023, 7 December, National University of Singapore. https://blog.nus.edu.sg/hecc2023proceedings/scaffolding-of-project-based-learning-of-hardware-design-via-test-automation/
 

SUB-THEME

Others

 

KEYWORDS

Project-based learning, scaffolding, self-checking testbench

 

CATEGORY

Poster Presentations

 

INTRODUCTION

The technological revolution that we are witnessing is enabled by advances in hardware design, and hence designing powerful computing hardware is a popular topic. The course EE4218 “Embedded Hardware System Design” at NUS is designed to provide students with the knowledge and experience in designing a complete system that involves custom hardware and software. However, hardware design is a field with a relatively steep learning curve. Project-based learning (PBL) is a powerful technique frequently employed in engineering courses (Hadim et al, 2002). In EE4218, students learn hardware design and hardware-software co-design concepts through a project that involves developing a system that performs a classification task using a neural network, accelerated using a custom co-processor written in a hardware description language (HDL).

 

CHALLENGES IN PBL OF HARDWARE DESIGN

To ensure the success of PBL, appropriate scaffolding is crucial (Condliffe et al., 2017). This is especially the case with hardware design, where evaluating the functionality of the design after each change can take substantial time and effort. Students incur several tens of minutes, even for minor changes, if they test it directly as a full system. If the result obtained is not as intended, there is no easy mechanism to debug the mistake. This can be a demotivating factor for students, based on the qualitative comments from past student feedback. This is despite providing some scaffolding in the form of a series of four labs, with a wiki (Panicker, 2023) used as a platform for information dissemination and interaction. Though there are no user-friendly tools that exist for full-system simulation (to the best of the author’s knowledge), the co-processor (a component of the system that is the main design challenge) can be tested to a good extent via simulation of the HDL code. While students were required to test the co-processor via simulation in the past, many students did not do so given the complexity of creating an HDL testbench for this purpose. This resulted in them trying directly as a full system, with less than desirable outcomes.

 

SCAFFOLDING VIA TEST AUTOMATION

In order to provide further scaffolding, in a subsequent semester, a sample automated (self-checking) testbench (Bergeron et al, 2012) was provided. This allowed some level of automation in testing their designs in simulation before venturing into full-system testing. Students could use the provided testbench to test a simple skeleton hardware code provided and modify it to test their own hardware in an automated manner. The stimulus (inputs) and the desired response (outputs) can be stored in a text file, which is then used by the testbench to determine the functionality of the HDL code. To ensure that students make use of this self-checking testbench, it was made a mandatory requirement for the first lab itself. Testing via simulation using a testbench also allows students more options for debugging, as opposed to a full-system test. It also provides more instantaneous feedback for the students.

 

RESULTS

The use of the provided self-checking testbench before a full-system test improved the students’ ability to meet the project requirements substantially. The number of students who managed to meet the outcome of implementing a functional system with a HDL-based co-processor increased from 74% (class size: 43) to 89% (class size: 36). The qualitative comments, as well as the module learning outcome survey, also showed improvements, though these could be due to a combination of factors and not necessarily due to the intervention detailed here alone.

 

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK

The primary outcome/student achievement from the project improved significantly after the introduction of a self-checking testbench as a scaffold. Hence, we believe the intervention is an improvement, though it does take away the students’ chance to design a testbench from scratch. Future directions include exploring options to do larger-scale, system-level testing through simulation.

 

REFERENCES

Bergeron, J., (2012). Writing testbenches: functional verification of HDL models. Springer Science & Business Media.

Condliffe, B., (2017). Project-based learning: A literature review. Working Paper. MDRC.

Hadim, H. A., & Esche, S. K. (2002, November). Enhancing the engineering curriculum through project-based learning. In 32nd Annual Frontiers in Education (Vol. 2, pp. F3F-F3F). IEEE.

Panicker, R. C., (2023). EE4218 Labs. https://wiki.nus.edu.sg/display/ee4218

 

Skip to toolbar