L. A. GODOY
64
by a number of researchers, and reviews may be found in com-
pilations by Prince (2004) and by Froyd (2007). Prince found
evidence that supports most forms of active learning. He con-
cluded that different implementations of problem-based learn-
ing emphasize different elements and this makes it difficult to
state a general assessment of this approach; however, it seems
that this “positively influences students attitudes and students
habits. Studies also suggest that students will retain information
longer and perhaps develop enhanced critical thinking and
problem-solving skills” (Prince, 2004).
Basically, the strategy of learning-by-doing supports that
students learn by performing activities aimed at reaching a
pre-established goal, and not (only) by listening to an instructor
in a lecture. Advocates of learning-by-doing stress the role of
doing as part of preparing to perform in a profession. Accord-
ing to Schön (1987), the main features of reflection in action
are learning by doing, coaching rather than teaching, and creat-
ing a dialogue between coach and student. Effective forms of
lear ni ng by d oi ng i n r e al la bo ra to ries have been implemented in
Engineering Education, especially for capstone courses. Alter-
natively, a methodology of building a simulated scenario, in
which the student can learn-by-doing while interacting with
fictitious characters (some of whom provide coaching), has
been proposed by Schank (2002) as an effective form of active
learning. Most simulations described by Schank and co-work-
ers deal with training to perform managerial tasks. A review on
the potential relevance of this approach as part of the education
of engineers has been recently presented by the author (Godoy,
2009).
In the early tools developed by Schank and coworkers,
simulations as close to reality as possible were developed, in-
volving animations and multimedia; however, the cost of such
implementations may become prohibitive if a realistic simula-
tion is attempted (Schank, 2005). An alternative has been pro-
posed in the form of Story-Centered Activities (SCA), which
are also forms of active learning in a computer environment
(Schank & Cleary, 1995). In SCA the participant performs
tasks to reach a goal; however, SCA do not attempt to create
fictitious characters or realistic situations to represent real life.
As an example, Schank and Cleary describe a master’s course
in which a mission is given to the student through an e-mail
from a fictitious character (Schank & Cleary, 1995). This
communication includes details of what should be the outcome
of the work to be performed as a consequence of the research.
In this example there is no navigation dimension (which is the
most expensive part to implement in simulations). To help stu-
dents do their work, guidelines and reading materials are pro-
vided for download from internet sites. The guidelines provided
list the activities that should be completed in each case to
achieve something. Examples of step-by-step guides may in-
clude: “Read through the analysis objectives and evaluation
requirements listed in the e-mail; Download the template for
the analysis and recommendation report; Download and read
through the case material on the case”; etc. The final report
submitted by students should respond to specific questions,
which include an analysis of a situation and recommendations
about how one should proceed next. This form of active learn-
ing does not employ videos or recordings and is far simpler to
implement than a more realistic simulation. The evaluation of
the report produced by the participant is made in an asynchro-
nous mode. In broad terms, this may fall in the category of
problem-based learning, in which a significant problem is
posed to the students in order to provide motivation for learn-
ing.
The educational model for this initiative falls within what is
known as a constructivist approach. There is not just one con-
structivist theory, but there is a group of researchers in educa-
tion who share some fundaments about how a student learns
(Duschl & Hamilton, 1992, Ashman & Conway, 1997). The
main references in this field are based on the works of Jean
Piaget (1972, 1974) and Lev Vygotsky (1931/1997a, 1931/
1997b), which have been extensively employed in the USA
(Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999).
The basic assumptions of constructivist theory, which are
accepted in this work, may be written as follows: 1) Knowledge
is a construction of the person. Thus, it is not conceived as
something that a teacher can transfer directly to a student be-
cause the teacher has knowledge and can give it to the students.
In the constructivist approach there should be an involvement
and participation of the student. 2) This construction is an ac-
tive process. The student will make meaningful learning by
means of activities. The present project is centered on activities
carried out by the student in the simulated environment. 3) This
activity of the student takes place in a context of cooperation
with others. This cooperation could be implemented in a com-
puter environment through the forum and chat rooms; however,
this has not been implemented at present. 4) The learning acti-
vity is done within a historical and cultural context. Learning
changes as a consequence of the existence of cultural artifacts
available during the process. The cultural artifacts in this pro-
ject are the computer simulations, which are part of present day
technology of education. The first three premises are shared by
both Piaget and Vygotsky, but the fourth is the new aspect con-
sidered in the works of Vygotsky.
Design of the Story
The activity has been designed following the work of Kieran
Egan on the use of storytelling as part of teaching. Egan (1986)
proposed a model for planning a teaching activity and organ-
ized it around a story. To facilitate construction of the story,
Egan presented five activities and questions for each one of
them. This scheme has been followed by the author in design-
ing the present activity, and the approach is given next:
1) Identifying importance: What is most important about this
topic? Why should it matter to students? What is affectively
engaging about it? Buckling is usually considered as a mysti-
fying phenomenon, an unexpected sudden failure of a structure.
Buckling problems are included in most engineering programs,
with differences in emphasis depending on the branch of engi-
neering considered and on the instructor’s preferences. It is part
of “Mechanics of Materials” in sophomore courses, and in
graduate structural courses. Thus, adding a historical dimension
to this topic may have a larger impact than other more specia-
lized topics that are not always covered. It should be clear to
students that column buckling problems have been faced by
engineers for over two centuries as a matter of survival of wood
constructions. The discovery of buckling phenomenon should
be seen as a truly amazing achievement: Scientists in the XVII
Century had no understanding of buckling problems.