Townsend, V., & Urbanic, R. J. (2014, June), Project Management Learning Takes Flight  Paper presented at 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, Indiana. 10.18260/1-2--22948

\bibitem{asee_peer_22948}
  Townsend, V., \& Urbanic, R. J. (2014, June), \emph{Project Management Learning Takes Flight}
  Paper presented at 2014 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, Indianapolis, Indiana.
  10.18260/1-2--22948

Victoria Townsend and (Ruth) Jill Urbanic P.Eng..  "Project Management Learning Takes Flight".  2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, Indiana, 2014, June.  ASEE Conferences, 2014.  https://peer.asee.org/22948 Internet.  15 Dec, 2024

\bibitem{asee_peer_22948}
  Victoria Townsend and (Ruth) Jill Urbanic P.Eng..
  "Project Management Learning Takes Flight".
  \emph{2014 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, Indianapolis, Indiana, 2014, June}.
  ASEE Conferences, 2014.
  https://peer.asee.org/22948 Internet.  15 Dec, 2024

@INPROCEEDINGS{asee_peer_22948
author = "Victoria Townsend and (Ruth) Jill Urbanic P.Eng."
title = "Project Management Learning Takes Flight"
booktitle = "2014 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition"
year = "2014"
month = "June"
address = "Indianapolis, Indiana"
publisher = "ASEE Conferences"
note = {https://peer.asee.org/22948}
number = {10.18260/1-2--22948}
}

TY  - CPAPER
AB  - Please  note:    as  no  word  limit  was  mentioned  in  the  IED  call  for  papers,  the  Program  Chair  was  contacted  who  recommended  that  abstracts  are  usually  1-­‐1/2  to  2  pages.                                             Project Management Learning Takes FlightProject management is a threshold concept in engineering education, meaning that it istransformative, integrative, and often troublesome for learners [1]. For these reasons, it shouldbe developed with deep versus surface learning opportunities [2]. The question is – how? Whatpurposeful conditions and contexts can educators create to help students learn projectmanagement, and how can it be introduced on a small scale for iterative development?These questions are explored in this paper with a student-centred, experiential learning projectmanagement workshop that has been developed and tested with industrial engineeringundergraduate students (in capstone courses) and graduate students (in a seminar) over fouryears. This workshop utilizes a relational Structure of Observed Learning Outcomes (SOLO)approach, which intentionally encourages learners to build connections between parts and thewhole, to explore the significance and meaning behind these connections, and to connect theoryand practice [3]. This understanding is critical to learning project management, since projectmanagement involves building and being aware of relationships between people, purpose, goals,tasks, processes, procedures, environments, materials, settings, time, etc. These relationships arefurther emphasized by the experiential learning approach, where students interact with andformulate these connections personally in a dynamic system. Specifically, the experientiallearning iterative cycle used in this workshop is Deming’s plan-do-check-act (PDCA) cycle [4].By combining the SOLO relational and experiential learning approaches as a methodology forthe workshop, a learning space is created for each student to challenge, test, find, question, andcreate project management relationships in a dynamic system. This combination yields theopportunity for each learner to develop situational awareness -- a critical trait of a dynamicproject manager and decision-maker (and a trait rarely discussed in the engineering educationliterature).This methodology is operationalized in the project management workshop in three phases: phase1 (plan), phase 2 (do), and phase 3 (check, act). These phases also align with increasing levels ofBloom’s Taxonomy [5], [6], which brings students into deeper learning as the workshopprogresses – phase 1 (comprehension), phase 2 (application and analysis), and phase 3 (creationand evaluation). In phase 1, a 10-minute mini-lecture shares fundamental project managementconcepts (e.g. Henri Fayol’s stages of project management) using the project management bodyof knowledge (PMBOK) as a reference to integrate industry and academic sources [7].In phase 2 of the workshop, a project charter to build a “flying apparatus” is shared with thestudents; this both models a project charter and provides instruction for the active learningexercise. The charter states the objective: to experience and reflect on a project managementcycle with your team; to plan (design), execute (construct), and monitor (successfully fly) aflying apparatus. The “longest flight” is deemed a metric of success. Students are divided intogroups and each group receives different resources (some groups receive paper and scissors andother groups receive an array of items, including tape, cardboard, pipe cleaners, elastic bands,etc.). This is meant to directly mimic that different groups often find themselves with differentresources (e.g. in capstone projects). The timeline is specified: each group has 15 minutes toplan (design) and execute (construct) a flying apparatus and 5 minutes to monitor (fly) it. Eachstudent is given a contemplation card with an aspect of project management relationships toconsider, question, and discuss with their group as they design and build their flying apparatus.The eight different cards address: resources, negotiation, risk and contingency, change,constraints, bias, work breakdown, and questions. These cards are intended to prompt studentsto draw out relationships in project management -- e.g. are the resources a constraint orsomething that can be questioned and negotiated? In this phase of the workshop, results haveshown that students directly experience common frustrations in project management andcorrespondingly the importance of such concepts as time management (“we need more time”)and clear metrics for success (“longest flight” is ambiguous and can mean time or distance).In phase 3 of the workshop, the teacher facilitates a class discussion to help students criticallyreflect between their experience in phase 2 and project management theory, building on thequestions in the contemplation cards. For example, the teacher prompts students to considerwhat bias may have affected their understanding of a “flying apparatus.” Results have shownthat most students assume that a flying apparatus should be a paper airplane, but in realitystudents could create a ball, a ball and bat, a Frisbee, etc. Thus, the value of asking questions ishighlighted for challenging biases and evoking creativity. Differences in team approaches arediscussed and evaluated (e.g. asking why some teams made more than one plane, tested, andselected the best one before their team’s “official” flight -- linking this to managing risk andcontingency). The discussion is fluid based on the different experiences in phase 2, and thepurpose is to build relationships of meaning. When students discover these concepts, practicethese skills, and are emotionally engaged in a simple exercise building a paper airplane, theycome to identify and appreciate the gravity of the challenges involved in a larger project. Inother words, the students co-create and co-validate knowledge of project management in ameaningful context as a learning anchor for further growth.The four-year results of these workshops, conducted with undergraduate and graduate industrialengineering students, are discussed in the paper along with lessons learned. Mind-maps are usedto document the discussions. Results from student feedback forms are also shared, whichevidence impacts across learning domains -- performative (skills), cognitive (concepts), andaffective (beliefs) [8]. These results highlight the merits of this workshop in teaching projectmanagement. Workshop materials are included in appendices, so that other educators, incapstone courses for example, can conduct the workshop. In addition to this pragmaticapproach, this paper’s theoretical grounding in pedagogical literature by synthesis of learningmethodologies (a relational SOLO approach with Deming’s experiential and iterative cycle)offers further potential for educators to use, challenge, adapt and modify the learning frameworkand workshop example in this research for other complex, threshold engineering concepts thatcould benefit from deep learning.References[1] J. H. F. Meyer and R. Land, “Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (2):    Epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning,”    High. Educ., vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 373–388, Apr. 2005.[2] F. Marton and R. Säljö, “On Qualitative Differences in Learning: I—Outcome and    Process*,” Br. J. Educ. Psychol., vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 4–11, 1976.[3] J. B. Biggs and K. F. Collis, Evaluating the quality of learning: the SOLO taxonomy    (structure of the observed learning outcome). Academic Press, 1982.[4] W. E. Deming, The New Economics for Industry, Government, Education - 2nd Edition, 2nd    ed. The MIT Press, 2000.[5] B. S. Bloom, Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals    Handbook I, Handbook I,. New York; New York; London: McKay  ; Longman, 1956.[6] D. R. Krathwohl, “A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview,” Theory Pr., vol. 41,    no. 4, p. 212, Sep. 2002.[7] A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide), 5th ed. PA, USA:    Project Management Institute (PMI), 2013.[8] M. Potter, “A Primer on Learning Outcomes and the SOLO Taxonomy,” University of    Windsor, 2011.
AU  - Victoria Townsend
AU  - (Ruth) Jill Urbanic P.Eng.
CY  - Indianapolis, Indiana
DA  - 2014/06/15
PB  - ASEE Conferences
TI  - Project Management Learning Takes Flight
UR  - https://peer.asee.org/22948
DO  - 10.18260/1-2--22948
ER  -