Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin, 2018, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 167–182
© Kudryavtsev N., Temerbekova A., 2018
UDC: 
37.01+378.147:62

Special features of the project interfaces method as a mechanism of developing a project approach to the educational process and children's technical creativity

Kudryavtsev N. 1 (Gorno-Altaisk, Russian Federation), Temerbekova A. 1 (Gorno-Altaisk, Russian Federation)
1 Gorno-Altaisk State University
Full text (Open Access) — Downloaded 5764
Abstract: 

Introduction. The article is devoted to the problem of developing a project approach applied to engineering education. The purpose of the research is to identify special features of project interfaces method as a mechanism of developing a project approach to the educational process and children’s technical creativity.
Materials and Methods. The authors applied a system-synergetic approach. The methodological base of the research includes the following methods: phenomenological description, interpretation, comparison, and comparative analysis of research works by Russian and Foreign scholars on the project approach to education. The authors also used the results of studying schoolchildren and students’ creative products.
Results. The authors argue that project interface method presented in this paper is a development of the project approach to the educational process and children's technical creativity. The authors analyze and summarize the conditions enhancing efficiency of project teams, which work on complex projects, by using decomposition and encapsulation procedures within the framework of the project interfaces method. Relying on the results of the comparative analysis and summarizing the findings of examining students and schoolchildren’s creative products, the authors conclude about the role of natural encapsulation in aligning complexity levels of educational projects and the competence of project teams. The authors also show how to develop the project approach through artificial “strengthening” of encapsulation and unification in the functional parts of educational projects. The authors conclude that the efficiency of using the project interfaces method is determined by types of educational projects, mentors’ competence, and the number of members within project teams. Possible limitations, determined by requirements for mentors and project managers are also considered. The authors present an analysis of the methodological experiment on the practical application of the project interfaces method in blitz projects carried out at Gorno-Altai State University.
Conclusions. In conclusion, the authors summarize the special features of the project interfaces method as a mechanism for the development of the project approach in the educational process and children's technical creativity.

Keywords: 

Project approach; Educational process; Children's technical creativity; Project interface; Decomposition; Encapsulation; Unification; Project teams

99.370 Pedagogical Support | Educational Process | Professional Competence

https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?src=s&origin=cto&ctoId=CTODS_1...

Special features of the project interfaces method as a mechanism of developing a project approach to the educational process and children's technical creativity

For citation:
Kudryavtsev N., Temerbekova A. Special features of the project interfaces method as a mechanism of developing a project approach to the educational process and children's technical creativity. Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin, 2018, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 167–182. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/2226-3365.1806.11
References: 
  1. Nikolaenko A. Development of project-oriented education in modern conditions. Quality of Education, 2016, no. 9, pp. 7–11. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=27521196
  2. Rusakova S. P. Modern information technologies of design at the lessons of Informatics and mathematics: from experience. Journal of Pedagogical Innovations, 2015, no. 2, pp. 123–128. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=25085219
  3. Mullen J., Byun Ch., Gadepally V., Samsi S., Reuther A., Kepner J. Learning by doing, High Performance Computing education in the MOOC era. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, 2017, vol. 105, pp. 105–115. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpdc.2017.01.015 
  4. Powell P. C. Assessment of team-based projects in project-led education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 2004, vol. 29, issue 2, pp. 221–230. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03043790310001633205  
  5. Gómez Puente S. M., van Eijck M., Jochems W. Professional development for design-based learning in engineering education: A case study. European Journal of Engineering Education, 2015, vol. 40, issue 1, pp. 14–31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2014.903228  
  6. Kim P., Suh E., Song D. Development of a design-based learning curriculum through design-based research for a technology-enabled science classroom. Educational Technology Research and Development, 2015, vol. 63, issue 4, pp. 575–602. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9376-7
  7. Alves A. C., Sousa R. M., Fernandes S., Cardoso E., Carvalho M. A., Figueiredo J., Pereira R. M. S. Teacher’s experiences in PBL: Implications for practice. European Journal of Engineering Education, 2016, vol. 41, issue 2, pp. 123–141. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2015.1023782  
  8. Dym C. L., Agogino A. M., Eris O., Frey D. D., Leifer L. J. Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 2005, vol. 94, issue 1, pp. 103–120. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00832.x
  9. Lima R. M., Andersson P. H., Saalman E. Active learning in engineering education: A (re)introduction. European Journal of Engineering Education, 2017, vol. 42, issue 1, pp. 1–4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2016.1254161  
  10. McCrum D. P. Evaluation of creative problem-solving abilities in undergraduate structural engineers through interdisciplinary probl8em-based learning. European Journal of Engineering Education, 2017, vol. 42, issue 6, pp. 684–700. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2016.1216089
  11. Jones B. D., Epler C. M., Mokri P., Bryant L. H., Paretti M. C. The effects of a collaborative problem-based learning experience on students’ motivation in engineering capstone courses. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 2013, vol. 7, issue 2, pp. 34–71. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1344
  12. Warnock J. N., Mohammadi-Aragh M. J. Case study: use of problem-based learning to develop students’ technical and professional skills. European Journal of Engineering Education, 2016, vol. 41, issue 2, pp. 142–153. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2015.1040739
  13. Strobel J., Van Barneveld A. When is PBL more effective? A meta-synthesis of meta-analyses: comparing PBL to conventional classrooms. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 2009, vol. 3, issue 1, pp. 44–58. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1046
  14. Remijan K. W. Project-based learning and design-focused projects to motivate secondary mathematics students. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 2017, vol. 11, issue 1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1520 
  15. Dole S., Bloom L., Kowalske K. Transforming pedagogy: Changing perspectives from teacher-centered to learner-centered. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 2016, vol. 10, issue 1. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1538
  16. Ralph R. A. Post secondary project-based learning in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Journal of Technology and Science Education (JOTSE), 2016, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 26–35. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/jotse.155
  17. Petersen C., Nassaji H. Project-based learning through the eyes of teachers and students in adult ESL classrooms. Canadian Modern Language Review, 2016, vol. 72, no. 1, pp. 13–39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.2096   
  18. Ganseuer C. Dr., Neretina E. A., Korokoshko Yu. V. Experience of project-oriented learning and organisation of teamwork among university students. Integration of Education, 2015, vol. 19, no.  2, pp. 22–30. (In Russian) DOI: https://doi.org/10.15507/Inted.079.019.201502.022
  19. Edström K., Kolmos A. PBL and CDIO: complementary models for engineering education development. European Journal of Engineering Education, 2014, vol. 39, issue 5, pp. 539–555. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2014.895703 
  20. Chubik P. S., Chuchalin A. I., Solovyov M. A., Zamyatina O. M. Training of high-class technicians and technologists. Educational Studies Moscow, 2013, no. 2, pp. 188–208. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=19424091
  21. Bukharina A. Y. Talent management: what to teach employees today to survive tomorrow. Social Psychology and Society, 2017, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 144–162. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17759/sps.2017080109  (In Russian)
  22. Zamyatina O. M., Mozgaleva P. I., Solodovnikova O. M., Goncharuk Yu. O. Advanced pedagogical methods for stimulating and involving children and young people into scientific and engineering creativity. Periodic Scientific and Methodological Journal Concept, 2015, no. T15, pp.  31–35. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=26349945
  23.  Mikhelkevich V. N., Ovchinnikova L. P., Lisovskaya A. I. Theoretical and methodological foundations of organizing students’ project activity in institutions of children’s and youth arts. Samara Journal of Science, 2017, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 198–203. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=28772241  

 

Date of the publication 31.12.2018