Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 102 (2013) 548 – 559

6th International Forum on Engineering Education (IFEE 2012)

The Implementation of an Open-Ended Experiment in the Civil

Engineering Laboratory
Zaiton Haron*, Shahrin Mohammad, Abdul RahmanMohd Sam, MushairryMustaffar,
JamaludinMohdYatim
Faculty of Civil Engineering,
UniversitiTeknologi Malaysia, 81310 Skudai, Johor, Malaysia

Abstract

The execution of the concrete mix design experiment in the civil engineering laboratory was changed to an open-ended style.
This paper describes the open-ended concrete mix design experiment implementation and its impact on the overall student
grades and learning experiences. 44 students were chosen as a case study. The results showed that overall grading represents
the students’ abilities in designing and conducting the experiment, analysing and interpreting the experiment’s results and
working in a group. Students understood the experimental concepts better than with traditional experiment instruction and
would be prepared for the undergraduate final year project.

© 2013
2013 The
TheAuthors.
Authors.Published by by
Published Elsevier Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Ltd.Ltd.
Elsevier
Selection and/or
Selection and/orpeer-review underunder
peer-review responsibility of Professor
responsibility Dr Mohd.
of Mohd Zaidi
Zaidi Omar,Ruhizan
Omar, AssociateMohammad
Professor Dr Ruhizan MohammadHamid,
Yasin, Roszilah Yasin,
Dr Roszilah Mohd.
Norngainy Hamid,Tawil,
Dr Norngainy Mohd. Tawil,
Kamaruzaman YusoffAssociate Professor
, Mohamad DrRasul
Sattar Wan Kamal Mujani, Associate Professor Dr Effandi Zakaria.

Keywords:expository learning, open-ended experiment, open-ended laboratory, outcome-based education ;

1. Introduction
Beginning in Semester II of the 2008/09 academic session, the execution of the concrete mix design
experiment in the civil engineering laboratory was changed from an expository type of instruction style to an
open-ended (OEE) style. This implementation was in agreement with both the Engineering Accreditation Council
[1] and Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) [2] engineering accreditation criteria

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: zaitonharon@utm.my

1877-0428 © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Professor Dr Mohd. Zaidi Omar, Associate Professor Dr Ruhizan Mohammad Yasin,
Dr Roszilah Hamid, Dr Norngainy Mohd. Tawil, Associate Professor Dr Wan Kamal Mujani, Associate Professor Dr Effandi Zakaria.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.771
 Zaiton Haron et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 102 (2013) 548 – 559 549

requirements. Such criteria include that the laboratory experiment must deliver students with the ability to design
and conduct experiments, as well as analysing and interpreting the data, and the ability to work in a group. This
is to enable students to utilise the knowledge gained from the laboratory work to become young engineers who
are not only well-versed in theories, but are also practical and understand practical situations

In the open-ended style, the problem may have multiple solutions and there is no best way of solving the
problem, so students have to work theoretically and practically [3,4]. Hence, this makes the laboratory class more
explorative in the sense that students use their own initiative and creativity to design their own experiments [5-6].
Due to the nature of OEE, students can improve their learning ability [7], encourage their individual creativity
[6], gain self-confidence [8] and feel the design environment for real industry outside the academic world [2,6]
[9]. For this reason, most of the laboratory work done in many scientific areas currently embraces open-ended
working [5,9-12]. OEEs are also linked to authentic student achievement, so students can actively experience the
feelings of practising professionals [13]. One important aspect of OEE is that students need high self-motivation
and, according to Berg [7], students with weaker attitudes need more support to meet the challenge of OEE.

In respect of the civil engineering course, the experiment relating to the concrete design mix is one of the
compulsory experiments in most civil engineering laboratory courses. The theory or method of design mix has
not been taught in the classroom in our faculty by the time the experiment is underway. For this reason, the
experiment was selected because of its ability to make students think critically in order to complete the activity
related to the experiment. The previous practice in this experiment was that students were required to follow the
traditional (or expository or cookbook) instructional format which contains theory, and the step by step
methodology and procedure to follow. This paper describes the open-ended concrete design mix experiment, its
implementation and its impact on the overall student grades and learning experiences. The OEE in our faculty
has to fulfil the four course outcomes (CO) in order to address the four programme outcomes (PO) specified and
defined by the Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE), Malaysia. The COs are i) ability to perform laboratory
experiments (CO1), ii) ability to produce laboratory reports (CO2), iii) ability to identify and analyse problems
in complex situations and make a justifying judgement (C03), and iv) ability to work in a team during lab work
(C04). CO1, CO2, CO3 and CO4 are utilised to address the program outcomes known as PO2, PO3, PO4 and
PO7, respectively.

2. Methodology

44 students who had already done the traditional concrete laboratory (TL) course in Semester II 2010/2011 (in
Year 2) were chosen as a case study to obtain their experience in the open-ended experiment in Semester I
2011/2012 (in Year 3). This is OEE in the sense that the problem can be solved using more than one solution and
students are free to choose using their own initiative and creativity. Students follow the teaching plan shown in
Table 1. Comparison with the traditional experiment procedure that they experienced in year 2 is also shown in
the table. The students were divided into groups of four/five and each group was given 4 hours duration of in-lab
sessions and 4 hours duration of out-lab sessions. In-lab sessions were spread over two consecutive weeks, 2
hours each. Out-lab sessions were spread between week 1 and week 3. An in-lab session means students carry
out work during laboratory class, while an out-lab session is the discussion handled outside class time with the
group members once the project is underway.Second order head

Prior to the week 1 in-lab session, students were briefed on matters pertaining to safety and regulations, and
on what they needed to do during the OEE session. Hence, students could make early preparations before
attending the week 1 in-lab session. In week 1, using the given simple procedure, students conducted the pre-set
of the trial mix for normal concrete strength and carried out the pre-set experiment to determine the fresh and
550 Zaiton Haron et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 102 (2013) 548 – 559

hardened concrete properties. The lecturer is not required to teach but rather to facilitate the group discussion. At
the end of lab session 1, after the pre-set experiment was completed, a complex problem that reflected the real
situation was given. The lecturer explained in detail the method of the experiment in week 2 so that students
would know in advance what was expected from them. Students were encouraged to get extensive information
from the library, journals and reports to research methods and the selection of materials. Discussion in the out-
lab session was required to help students understand and brainstorm the approach to incorporating other material
such as slag, POFA, fly ash and, admixtures, and to design further experiments.

Assessment methods are not based solely on the laboratory reports submitted by the students but also take into
account additional attributes that represent their teamwork skills, and practical skills. Assessments were carried
out using the rating given in the rubrics. The rubrics are utilised in order to avoid large variations in the
assessments. The content of the lab report includes the introduction, data collection and recording, analysis,
discussion and log book notation for the assessment of CO2. Practical skills include two items; first the ability to
use tools to solve civil engineering problems, which is used to assess the CO1; second, the critical thinking and
problem-solving skills, to evaluate the CO3. The practical skills were observed during the experiment, to assess
the students’ ability to handle the test, while teamwork was evaluated during discussion and experimental
handling in lab sessions 1 and 2 for the purpose of CO4. The overall marks for the experiment were obtained by
taking into consideration the rating given for the laboratory report, and practical and teamwork skills.The result
of assessment of COs and POs will then be used to consider the Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI)
recommendations.

The perceptions of all students regarding the OEE and TL environments (Figure 1) were discussed on a one-
to-one basis between each participant and the authors. The interviews were semi-structured, that is, the
participants were asked to answer in more detail the questions that appeared in the survey, but the authors
frequently asked additional questions that arose during the participant’s response to the survey questions.

Table 1:Teachingplanfor the open-ended e x p e r i m e n t

Activities Open-ended Traditional

experiment experiment
Briefing on theories X √
Complete manual X √
Apparatus proposal X √
Experiment √ √
Report √ √
Teamwork evaluation √ √
Practical skills evaluation √ X

3. Results and discussions

The problem given to each group was the design mix for high strength concrete for a multi-storey building.
Students begin without knowing the specific concept of the design mix. At the beginning, in the first week,
students started with the design mix for normal concrete, for example, concrete strength 25N/mm2 for 28 days
using ordinary Portland cement, uncrushed aggregate and sand with grading passing sieve 600. Students
proposed the proportions of trial mix constituents such as cement, fine aggregate, coarse aggregate and water.
Initially, students had difficulties in understanding the fundamentals of the design mix method but by the end of
lab session 1 they managed to prepare the simple design mix constituents. After the experiment with wet and
 Zaiton Haron et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 102 (2013) 548 – 559 551

mechanical strength, they had the sense of the design mix method process and were able to identify the obtained
result, and this was very important for them before proceeding to the given problem.

In the second week’s class, students came up with a proposal for the trial mix for high strength concrete. They
were able to include other materials such as admixtures, fly ash or blended cement in their proposed mixture.
This was the result of collecting information and discussion among group members in the out-lab session to
decide and select their own experiments for the second week. At this stage, the students were very sure of their
decision and any doubts were discussed with the lecturer before engaging in the real experiments. Students
recorded materials pertaining to the planning, all the discussion, analysis, report writing and division of work
among group members in the log book. The logbook was then assessed by the lecturer. It was found that the
students became innovative by producing a varied selection of materials to increase the strength of the concrete
at a later stage. This showed that independent learning amongst students can be nurtured if a proper platform is
given to them. The use of a variety of materials also indicated that the students were capable of being innovative
and creative.

Figure 1 shows the ratings of the report writing by each group, evaluated using the rubrics described in Table
2. It can be seen that all groups have an excellent rating for introduction, data collection, analysis,
discussion/conclusion, and a good rating for presenting the required calculation. However, there were differences
in evaluation of the logbooks recording discussions in the out-lab sessions, ranging from fair (2) to excellent (4).
Rating 2 (Fair) implied that some groups only organised one meeting, at which up to 80% of the aspects of the
problem were properly logged. The logbook is important as it shows discussion of the students’ activity while in
the out-lab session, including the report-writing preparation, data analysis and self-discipline. This resulted in
different scores for report writing for each group (Figure 2), with most of the groups obtaining marks higher than
80%.

With regard to practical skills, the aim was to determine the ability or capability of individual students. This
was rated by the lecturer while students performed measurements and data collection using the rubrics in Table 3.
It was found that students were able to achieve level scale 3 out of 5 in using or applying appropriate lab
equipment to obtain the specific characteristics of concrete (i.e. its workability and mechanical strength) when
evaluated using the rubrics in Table 3. The same ratings were obtained for each student in problem-solving using
the rubrics in Table 4. Students were able to identify and solve problems in the complex situations found in lab
session 2. This was carried out when students came up with the proposed design mix for high strength concrete
in week 2 with the inclusion of a new design mix. This proved that students have innovative and creative thinking
skills, although they did not give completely excellent justifying reasoning for the results obtained in their design
mix. The activity of students in teamwork was assessed individually during classroom discussion and also while
conducting the experiment, based on the rubrics described in Table 5. Half of the students enjoyed the work and
were sometimes able to motivate other group members and often demonstrate constructive opinions, taking
responsibility in completing the group task.
552 Zaiton Haron et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 102 (2013) 548 – 559

Table 2: Rubrics for report writing

Item Poor ( rating 1) Fair (rating 2) Good (rating 3) Excellent (rating 4)

Summarized Summarized Summarized procedure Summarized procedure
procedure and procedure and and purpose of work and purpose of work with
Introduction purposes of work purpose of work with relevant relevant background
with relevant with relevant background information sufficiently
background background information available provided and the report is
information information missing. but not completely very well organized.
missing. Report Report is still provided. The report is
is poorly reasonably well still well organized.
organized. organized.
Data Data is poorly Some data is missing Data collected is Data collected is clearly
Collection organized or and / or data deviates improperly tabulated written and appropriately
and grossly drastically from the (units missing) or the tabulated; Data is within
Recording incomplete expected norms. data deviates the expected norms.
appreciably from the
expected norms.
Analysis Calculations are Some calculations All required All required calculations
grossly are missing and / or calculations are present are presented and
incomplete and / there are significant but minor errors are performed correctly;
or incorrect. errors in the present in the Results (with % error
calculations. calculations; Results where appropriate) are
section is incomplete clearly stated.
(i.e. % error values are
reported without the
values they refer to).
Discussion/c Not all assigned Some assigned All assigned questions All assigned questions (if
onclusion questions are questions are are answered and any) are answered and
answered. answered. discussed lightly. discussed appropriately.
Discussion of Discussion of results Discussion of results Discussion of results
results is does not identify needs some refinement shows a strong grasp of
inappropriate for appropriate concepts, but shows a reasonably the scientific concepts
the lab and shows needs significant strong grasp of the covered by the lab.
a lack of work and / or shows scientific concepts
comprehension of a weak grasp of covered by the lab.
scientific concepts.
concepts.
Logbook No entries at all. Once a week. Twice a week. At least 3 times a week.
Less than 80% of At least 80% of Most aspects of the All aspects of the problem
aspects of the aspects of the problem have been have been properly logged
problem have problem have been properly logged
been properly properly logged
logged

Marks obtained were related with the COs and POs, as shown in Figure 3. It is seen that PO3 and PO7 were
achieved with more than 70% marks for the baseline key performance index in the Faculty of Civil Engineering,
 Zaiton Haron et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 102 (2013) 548 – 559 553

UTM. Hence both CO1/PO2 and CO3/PO4 needed CQI. Norliza et al. (2007) also found the same results when
the creativity element was included. Among their recommendations are that the lecturer should put more effort
into clearer briefing on the objective of the OEE so that students know in advance what is expected from them.
In this way, students with weaker attitudes will also benefit by understanding their task and contribution to the
group, as was also suggested by Berg [7]. Second, students will be advised to increase their willingness to learn
how to operate the equipment and will consequently be able to run more than one experiment to compare results.
Third, students will be encouraged to seek more information through library and internet access in order to fully
understand the detail of the experiments and develop the direction of the experiment for the new material used
for high strength concrete. Chiu and Chiu [6] use the same technique in order to increase the students’
understanding of open-ended laboratory implementation in electronic engineering.
Figure 4 shows the total marks for each student based on report-writing and practical and teamwork skills,
normalised to 100%. It can be seen that total score for the OEE is lower due to the individual practical and
teamwork skills which showed reliable student achievement. This makes the trend of OEE total marks fluctuate
less than the total marks obtained from the traditional concrete experiment that they have in Year 2 (Figure 5). In
this respect, the traditional style of assessment was based only the written laboratory report without practical and
teamwork skills. The reports were without the log book item and were assessed using the same rubric as in
Table 2.
Figures 6-9 show the results of student feedback concerning the OEE and TL environment. Based on their
experience of both OEE and traditional lab work, 61% of the students admitted that OEE had given them a lot of
new concepts relative to TL (Figure 6). Students learned the method for designing a mix for high strength
concrete with their own selected materials. All of them really enjoyed the experiment they performed. The students
also emphasized that their ability and creative thinking improved. Thus, 64% of students would prefer to choose
OEE for future experiments (Figure 7). Consequently, half of the students believed that the open-ended
experiment helped them to understand the design mix method concepts better than with traditional experiment
instruction, while half of them found both types of experiment equally effective (Figure 8). Further, the survey
revealed that students had some difficulties because they were not familiar with the new type of laboratory
experiment, but they admitted also that it could help them prepare better for the undergraduate final year project,
help in their employment and inculcate an innovative and creative mind (Figure 9).

ϱ
Ğ
ůĂ ϰ
Đ^ /ŶƚƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶ
Ő ϯ
Ŷ
ŝƚ Ϯ ĂƚĂĐŽůůĞĐƚŝŽŶ
ĂZ
ϭ ŶĂůLJƐŝƐ
Ϭ ŝƐĐƵƐƐŝŽŶͬĐŽŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶ
ϭ Ϯ ϯ ϰ ϱ ϲ ϳ ϴ ϵ >ŽŐŬ
^ƚƵĚĞŶƚƐŐƌŽƵƉ

Fig. 1: Report rating for each group

554 Zaiton Haron et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 102 (2013) 548 – 559

 ϵϰ
Ğ
Ő
Ăƚ ϵϮ
Ŷ
Ğ
Đƌ ϵϬ
Ğ ϴϴ
W
Ɛ tƌŝƚŝŶŐ^ĐŽƌĞƐ
Ŭƌ ϴϲ
Ă
D ϭ Ϯ ϯ ϰ ϱ ϲ ϳ ϴ ϵ

^ƚƵĚĞŶƚƐŐƌŽƵƉ

Fig. 2: Marks from report-writing for each group

ϭϬϬ
Ğ
Ő
Ăƚ ϴϬ
Ŷ
ĞĐ ϲϬ
ƌĞ
Ɖ
Ɛ ϰϬ ǀĞƌ ĂŐĞŵĂƌŬƐ
Ŭƌ
Ă ϮϬ
D
Ϭ
KϭͬWKϮ KϮͬWKϯ KϯͬWKϰ KϰͬWKϳ

Fig. 3: Percentage of each CO/PO for the experiment

Table 3: Practical skill: The use of laboratory equipment/tools in solving problems

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Unable to describe
and classify lab
equipment available
to be used for specific
purpose.
(e.g. equipment for
slump test – for
workability or
compressive machine
for determination of
cube strength )
Able to describe and
classify lab equipment
available but unable to
use and apply them in
specific lab test.
Able to use or apply
appropriate lab equipment
to obtain specific
characteristics of concrete
(i.e. workability and
mechanical strength of
concrete)
Able to compare or Able to combine,
evaluate results obtained compare or evaluate
using more than one lab results obtained
equipment (e.g. slump using more than one
test, vebe test, or lab equipment (e.g.
compactability to obtain workability test –
workability of concrete). using slump test or
vebe test and
mechanical strength-
eg. compressive test
and its relation
between results of
workability test and
compressive test).
 Zaiton Haron et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 102 (2013) 548 – 559 555

Table 4: Practical skill: Ability to identify and analyse problem in complex situation and make justifying judgement

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Unable to identify and
solve problems in
complex situations found
in lab session 2 using
formulas or concepts in
lab session 1
Limited ability to Able to identify and solve
identify and solve problems in complex
problems in complex situations found in lab
situations found in lab session 2. Integrates
session 2 with marginal associated activities in lab
justifying judgement session 1 and develops
incomplete solutions to
meet varying requirements
and yield justifying
judgement.
Able easily to identify and
solve problems in complex
situations found in lab
session 2. Integrates
associated activities in lab
session 1 to develop
complete solutions in
meeting various
requirements in lab
session 2 and make good
justifying judgement.
Able clearly to identify
and aptly solve
problems in complex
situations found in lab
session 2. Integrates
associated activities in
lab session 1 and
develops complete and
innovative solution to
meet varying
requirements whilst
making excellent
justifying judgement.

Table 5: Teamwork skills

Criteria Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Ability to develop good Unable to work and Able to work but Able to work and Enjoys work and Enjoys work and
relationship, interaction refuses to interact with less interact with others. sometimes able to always motivates
with colleagues and with others interaction with motivate other group other group
work effectively with others. members. members.
other people to achieve
mutual objective

Ability to understand Refuses to Participates but Participates and Participates and Participates and
and play a role participate in the rarely provides sometimes provides often provides ideas routinely provides
sparingly with other group and in ideas in the group ideas in the group in the group and in ideas in the group
members classroom and in classroom and in classroom classroom and in classroom
discussion. discussion. discussion. discussion. discussion.

Ability to identify and Always Occasionally Occasionally Often demonstrates Always

respect other people’s demonstrates demonstrates demonstrates constructive opinion demonstrates
behaviour and beliefs. negative opinion negative opinion constructive opinion and responsibility to constructive
and resists and only partially but only partially complete the group opinion and highly
completing the involved in involved in task. responsible in
group task. completing the completing the completing the
group task. group task. group task.
556 Zaiton Haron et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 102 (2013) 548 – 559

ϭϬϬ
Ğ
ŐĂ ϵϬ
ƚ ϴϬ
Ŷ
Ğ ZĞƉŽƌƚǁƌŝƚŝŶŐK
Đƌ ϳϬ
Ğ
Ɖ
Ɛ ϲϬ dĞĂŵǁŽƌŬƐŬŝůůƐ
Ŭƌ ϱϬ
Ă WƌĂĐƚŝĐĂů ƐŬŝůůƐ
D ϰϬ
dŽƚĂůŵĂƌ ŬK
ϭ ϰ ϳ ϭϬ ϭϯ ϭϲ ϭϵ ϮϮ Ϯϱ Ϯϴ ϯϭ ϯϰ ϯϳ ϰϬ ϰϯ ϰϲ

^ƚƵĚĞŶ ƚƐ

Fig.4: Comparison between overall score for report, practical and teamwork skills

ϭϮϬ
ĞŐ
ƚĂ ϭϬϬ
Ŷ
ĞĐ
ƌ ϴϬ
Ğ
Ɖ
Ɛ ϲϬ dŽƚĂůŵĂƌŬK
Ŭƌ
Ă dŽƚĂůDĂƌŬd>
D ϰϬ
ϭ ϰ ϳ ϭϬ ϭϯ ϭϲ ϭϵ ϮϮ Ϯϱ Ϯϴ ϯϭ ϯϰ ϯϳ ϰϬ ϰϯ ϰϲ

^ƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ

Fig. 5: Comparison of marks score between OEE and TL

ĚŝĚŶ͛ƚůĞĂƌŶĂŶLJ ƚŚŝŶŐŶĞǁďƵƚŚĞůƉĚĞǀĞů ŽƉďĞƚƚĞƌ

ƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚŝŶŐ

ĚŝĚŶ͛ƚůĞĂƌŶĂŶLJƚŚŝŶŐŶĞǁ
d>
>ĞĂƌŶĞĚĂů ŽƚŽĨŶĞǁĐŽŶĐĞƉƚ
K

Ϭ ϭϬ ϮϬ ϯϬ ϰϬ ϱϬ ϲϬ ϳϬ
WĞƌĐĞŶƚĂŐĞŽĨƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ

Fig. 6: Comparison between OEE and traditional experiments

 Zaiton Haron et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 102 (2013) 548 – 559 557

DŝdžĞĚKͲd>
ϭϲй tŽƵůĚƉƌĞĨĞƌ
K
ϲϰй

tŽƵůĚƉƌĞĨĞƌ
d>
ϮϬй
Fig. 7: Preferred type of experiment in the future chosen by the students

ĚŽŶ͛ƚŬŶŽǁ

ĚŝƐĂŐƌĞĞ

K
ĂŐƌĞĞ
d>

Ϭ ϮϬ ϰϬ ϲϬ

WĞƌĐĞŶƚĂŐĞŽ ĨƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ

Fig. 8: Percentage of students who believed experiment format provided a better understanding of what it is like to do real work

ŚĞůƉŵĞŝŶƚŚĞĞŵƉůŽLJĞŵĞŶƚ

ŝŶĐƵůĐĂƚĞŝŶŶŽǀĂƚŝǀĞĂŶĚ ƉƌĞƉĂƌĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌĨŝŶĂůƉƌŽũĞĐƚ
ĐƌĞĂƚŝǀĞŵŝŶĚ
ŝŶĐƵůĐĂƚĞŝŶŶŽǀĂƚŝǀĞĂŶĚ
ĐƌĞĂƚŝǀĞŵŝŶĚ
ƉƌĞƉĂƌĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌĨŝŶĂůƉƌŽũĞĐƚ
ŚĞůƉŵĞŝŶƚŚĞĞŵƉůŽLJĞŵĞŶƚ

Ϭ ϮϬ ϰϬ ϲϬ
WĞƌĐĞŶƚĂŐĞŽĨƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ

Fig. 9: Students’ opinions on benefits of OEE

558 Zaiton Haron et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 102 (2013) 548 – 559

4. Conclusion

From our experiences, it can be concluded that the open-ended experiment increasedtheindependent
learning amongst students by giving them a platform to be innovative and creative in designing and executing
their own experiments. The open-ended experiment resulted in an overall marks score that represents the
students’ abilities in designing and conducting the experiment, analysing and interpreting the result, and working
in a group. OEE makes reliable assessments possible for the following reasons: (i) the use of rubrics in the
assessment of the lab report; so lecturers no longer depend solely on their own experience, which helps to avoid
large variations; (ii) the use of rubrics to assist lecturers to assess students fairly in terms of teamwork and
practical skills. Analysis of the surveys showed that half of the students believed that the open-ended experiment
helped them to understand the experimental concepts better than with traditional experiment instruction, while
half of them found both experimental concepts were equally effective. Further, the survey revealed that students
had some difficulties because they were not familiar with the new type of laboratory experiment, but they
admitted that it could help them prepare better for the undergraduate final year project, inculcate creative
thinking and represent a real work situation.

The present experiment does have some drawbacks, mainly;

• It puts heavy loading on the lecturers in the practical and teamwork assessment and
evaluation because students perform and behave differently.
• The normal in-lab session is not sufficient, and extra classes for the experiment are
generally necessary.

Acknowledgements

Our deep appreciation goes to Associate Professor Dr Naziha Ahmad Azlifrom the Faculty of Electrical
Engineering for the guidance and advice during the eary stage of the implementation of open-ended laboratory in
our faculty.

References

[1] Engineering Accreditation Council (EAC) Board of Engineers Malaysia.

http://www.eac.org.my/web/document/EACManual2007.pdf. , 2007.
[2] Tranquillo, J. Qualitative, quantitative, open-ended design.A progression in laboratory/lecture learning.American Society for
Engineering Education.http:www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/jvt002/Teaching/ASEE-2006.pdf, 2006.
[3] Priemer, B. Open-ended experiments about wind energy.https://www.girep.org/proceedings/conference2006/Burkhard_Priemer_-
_Open-Ended_Experiments_about_Wind_Energy.pdf, 2006.
[4] Land, S. M. Cognitive Requirements for Learning with Open-ended Learning Environments. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 48(3), 61-78. DOI: 10.1007/BF02319858, 2000.
[5] Planinšiþ, G. Project laboratory for first-year students. European Journal of Physics, 28, 571-582. DOI:10.1088/0143-0807/28/3/807,
2007.
[6] Chiu, M. D., &Chiu, S. Y. An open-ended laboratory system with computer-aided simulation for undergraduate electronic
engineering. International Journal of Engineering Education, 2004 .2(20), 193-197.
[7] Berg, C. A. R., Bergendahl, V. C. B., &Lunberg, B. K. S. Benefiting from an open-ended experiment? A comparison of attitudes to
and outcomes of an expository versus an open-inquiry version of the same experiment.International Journal of Science Education, 2003, 25(3),
551-372.
[8] Brickman, P., Gornally, C., Armstrong, N., &Hallar, B. Effects of inquiry-based learning on students’ science literacy skills and
 Zaiton Haron et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 102 (2013) 548 – 559 559

confidence. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, vol 2.http://hdl.handle.net/10518/4155. 2009.
[9] Domin, D. S. Students’ perceptions of when conceptual development occurs during laboratory instruction. Chemistry Education
Research and Practice, 2007, 8(2), 140-152.
[10] Caccavo, F. An open-ended, inquiry-based approach to environmental microbiology. The American Biology Teacher, 73(9), 521-
525. DOI:10.1525/abt.2011.73.9.4., 2011.
[11] Norliza, A. R., Noorhisham, T. K., MohdSobri, T., &SitiRozaimah, S. A. .Comparative study between open-ended laboratory and
traditional laboratory.IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference, April 4-6 2010, Amman, Jordan. 2010
[12] Tsarpalis, G., &Gorezi, M. A modification of a conventional expository physical chemistry laboratory to accommodate an
inquiry/project-based component: Method and students’ evaluation. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education,
2005, 5(1), 111-131.
[13] Wright, J.C. Authentic learning environment in analytical chemistry using cooperative methods and open-ended laboratories in
large lecture courses.Journal of Chemical Education, 1996, 73 (9), 827.DOI:10.1021/ed073p827
[14] Clement, J.. An open-ended laboratory for college physics students. SRRI working paper.
http://people.umass.edu/~clement/pdf/An%20Open-ended%20Laboratory.pdf, 1980