Journal of Engineering Education Transformations

Vidya Srikanth ¹, Vimala Swamy ¹, Vikas V. Shinde ²

Affiliations
1 School of Architecture, REVA University, Bangalore, IN
2 Mechanical Engineering Department, Vishwaniketan, Khalapur, IN

Abstract

The paper examines the comparative pedagogical approaches and corresponding learning outcomes in the course Vernacular Architecture in the undergraduate program of Architecture at REVA University, Bengaluru, India. The first adopts the conventional theoretical approach where instructional principles of the course are delivered through direct method, while evaluation is done through a semester end written examination. The second approach adopts Project based learning (PBL) where the course content is delivered through experiential and collaborative learning through a social environment, done by means of a Vernacular documentation study with direct applicability in the corresponding Design Studio.

Vernacular architecture is based on local needs, availability of materials and reflects local traditions. It is an architecture that is indigenous to a specific time and place and showcases the best examples of Climate responsive architecture. Sustainability is defined as avoidance of the depletion of natural resources in order to maintain an ecological balance. In Architecture, we can interpret sustainability as building with materials that are local, with minimal energy consumption yet offering thermal comfort, while serving the lifecycle pertaining to the need.

Surveys were conducted post completion of the course to understand learning outcomes and student satisfaction in both methods. The outcomes from the study suggests that Sustainability in Architecture is well comprehended and results in enhanced learning through the PBL method as it delivers the important link between 'theory' and 'praxis'.

Keywords

Vernacular Architecture, Sustainability, Project-Based Learning, Blooms Taxonomy.

Full Text

     

Bhaveshkumar N. Pasi ¹, Vikas V. Shinde ², Mayuri R. Chavan ³

Affiliations
1 Mechanical Engineering Department, Vishwaniketan's iMEET, Khalapur – 410 202, IN
2 Project Based Learning Centre of Excellence, Vishwaniketan's iMEET, Khalapur – 410 202, IN
3 Cold Chain Logistics Department, Stellar Value Chain Solutions, Mumbai, IN

Abstract

This research article focuses on survey of teachers of Vishwaniketan Institute of Management, Entrepreneurship and Engineering Technology (ViMEET), affiliated to Mumbai University, India who are implementing Course Level Project-Based Learning (CLPBL). ViMEET has to follow the curriculum given by Mumbai University, India. To make students industry ready with more practical knowledge, management of ViMEET introduces CLPBL in every semester for specific subjects along with the curriculum defined by Mumbai University, India. As there is no scope of CLPBL in Mumbai University curriculum therefore teachers of ViMEET have to deliver different roles while curriculum delivery along with CLPBL implementation. Therefore, this survey was carried out to understand teacher’s role clearly while implementing CLPBL to make CLPBL successful. In the present survey, quantitative research design method was used to understand teacher's role in CLPBL. The survey was conducted to find out what teachers know about their role while implementing CLPBL and how they are implementing PBL at course level in Vishwaniketan iMEET, India. A total of 16 teachers of Vishwaniketan iMEET, India have implemented CLPBL in the even semester of academic year 2018-19 and participated in question based survey. Quantitative data were collected by sending emails to the teachers. About 54% participants agreed that CLPBL supervisor should have leadership skill. 45% participants believes that CLPBL implementer should have passion to do mentorship, whereas 50% participants felt that CLPBL implementer should use different approach to deal with students of different skill set. 48% of participants believes that the purpose of CLPBL was to make students compulsory to do any project. Frequency analysis of participant responses shows that teachers are not aware about their roles in CLPBL. Almost half of the participants in present study stated that the main motive of CLPBL was to make students compulsory to do any project, which does not match with the definition of PBL. Also, respondents agreed that more training is required to teachers to understand their roles clearly while implementing CLPBL.

Keywords

Project-Based Learning (PBL), Course Level Project-Based Learning (CLPBL), Leadership, Technical Skill.

Full Text