Session F2D

PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING AS APPLIED TO THE CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING

CAPSTONE COURSE AT NORTH DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY
Charles McIntyre1
Abstract North Dakota State University (NDSU) was
the recent recipient of a Bush Grant for providing support
and training for NDSU faculty. As part of that grant, the
Faculty Institute for Excellence in Learning (FIEL) was
created. The author was selected as a FIEL Fellow and
subsequently submitted a proposal and received funding to
apply a problem-based learning approach to the
departmental capstone course. During the summer of 2001,
the capstone course was revised and restructured to meet the
primary objective of the course. The basic philosophy,
format, evaluation and assessment of the course came into
question. The contents of this paper, 1.) describe some of
the philosophical questions that had to be addressed, 2.)
provide an overview of problem-based learning, 3.) explain
the revised course content and delivery systems, and 4.)
provide an explanation of the techniques used to evaluate
student work and provide course assessment.
Index Terms Problem-Based Learning, Capstone,
Construction Engineering, Engineering Capstone Course.

INTRODUCTION
The Department of Civil Engineering and Construction at
North Dakota State University consists of two divisions, the
Division of Construction Management and Engineering and
the Division of Civil Engineering. Prior to 1998, the
Department had three separate capstone courses for each
degree program (construction engineering, construction
management, and civil engineering). During the Spring
Semester of 1998, a single overall departmental capstone
course was created. The intent was to provide a true
capstone experience, where students in each degree
program could combine their skills to achieve the successful
completion of a project. The primary objective of the
capstone experience is to combine all aspects of the
planning, design, and construction phases of a project into
meaningful education experience which mimics real-world
design and construction practices. Students are required to
use all of the knowledge and skills that they have acquired
throughout their educational experience to develop the
documentation required for actual project construction
(design drawings, cost estimates, project schedules, quality
and safety plans, etc.). The intent of the capstone experience
is to integrate the engineering and management disciplines
into a single comprehensive educational experience.

PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTIONS
1

A number of meetings were held to determine the exact role

and function of the capstone experience.
Initially,
fundamental philosophical questions had to be addressed by
the faculty. For example, what should be the overall
structure of the course and how is this tied to the course
objectives?, what is the basic instructional format?, what are
the purpose and function of the group and class meetings?,
what is the role of the instructional staff?, should and will
the expertise of other faculty be required?, what is the role of
guest / industry speakers?, and is there a need for faculty
advisors for each group? Along with the discussion that
followed these questions, the issues of evaluation,
assessment and information access were also discussed. For
example, how will the student work be evaluated and by
whom?, how will information be accessed by the students
(Blackboard Course-Info, www, share directory)?, how will
course assessment be accomplished?, how will previous
course assessment be incorporated into subsequent course
offerings?, and how can the assessment be tied to the Annual
Departmental Assessment Report and the ABET & ACCE
reports? After much discussion, it was determined that the
basic approach that should be used in the capstone course
would incorporate problem-based learning.

WHY PROBLEM -B ASED LEARNING [1][2]

In June of 1994, the Wingspread Conference brought
together state and federal policy makers, and leaders from
the corporate, philanthropic, higher education, and
accreditation communities to discuss quality in
undergraduate education. The discussion that took place was
based on the assertion that there exists a substantial need for
improvement in American undergraduate education in order
to meet the needs of today's business and industry.
The conference developed the following list of important
characteristics of quality performance of co llege and
university graduates:

<
<
<
<

High level of communication skills.

Ability to define problems, gather and evaluate
information, develop solutions.
Team skills (the ability to work with others).
Ability to use all of the above to address problems in a
complex real-world setting.

Problem-based learning (PBL) techniques help students

develop the above skills necessary in order to succeed in
their post college careers. Students in PBL courses are

Charles McIntyre, North Dakota State University, CME Bldg. - Room 120, Fargo, ND 58105 charles.mcintyre@ndsu.nodak.edu

0-7803-7444-4/02/$17.00 2002 IEEE

32 nd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
F2D-1

November 6 - 9, 2002

Session F2D
challenged to "learn to learn" so that they can achieve their
highest potential in their chosen professions. Students work
cooperatively in groups, seeking solutions to "real world"
problems by asking and answering their own and their peers'
questions. In helping to teach each other, students achieve a
high level of comprehension of the concepts of the course.

PBL - ROLES AND PROCEDURES

PBL is an instructional method characterized by the use of
real world problems as a context to learn critical thinking,
problem solving skills, and acquire knowledge of the
essential concepts of the course. Arguably, there is a gray
area between problem-based learning and other forms of
cooperative or active learning due to the facts that they share
certain common features and hybrid approaches are formed
as course instructors adapt methods for particular situations.
However, in PBL the problem comes first, which contrasts
with teaching strategies where concepts are presented in a
lecture format followed by "end-of-chapter" problems [3].
In PBL, students working in small groups must identify what
they know, and more important, what they don't know and
must learn in order to solve a problem. The scope and nature
of the problem preclude simple answers. Students must go
beyond the textbooks to collect information and knowledge
from a variety of resources. The primary role of the
instructor is to act as a facilitator for the overall group
process and stimulate and direct learning. The basic features
of PBL are:

< Learning is initiated by a problem, which are based o n

real-life, open-ended situations.

< Students work in small permanent groups with access to

an instructor.

< Students identify and locate the resources required to

solve the problem.
is active,
connected.

< Learning

integrated,

cumulative,

and

of the Fargo Department of Planning and Development,

since the Regional Science Center is an appropriate use of
the land and will conform to the Southwest Area Growth
Plan. In addition, the construction of the green space
parkway and possible pedestrian paths could be integrated
into the proposed plan for the Center. It is anticipated that
the current land owner (who is not the anonymous
benefactor) will donate this parcel of land for the Center.
Thus the entire $700,000 will be used for actual construction
of the Regional Science Center, as well as, the associated onsite facilities.
It is anticipated that the Regional Science Center will
consist of the following: Science Center Building, Access
Road, Parking Facilities (for guests and staff), Pedestrian /
Bike Trails (tied into the SW Area Parkway System),
Potable Water System, Sanitary Sewer System, Storm Water
Management System, Landscaping Pla n ( u s i n g t h e
fundamental concepts of Xeriscape).
The Groups: For the capstone course, students were
assigned to groups of five or six students per group. Since
there were fifty-eight students in the course, we used eight
groups of five students and three groups of six students for a
total of eleven groups. For each group, we tried to achieve a
balance of construction and engineering students within each
group. There were, at a minimum, three engineering
students and two construction students per group. The
student groups were responsible for developing the learning
issues that they believed were fundamental for completing
the problem.
In addition, they had to define what
information was needed for the problem, where they could
find it, and how were they to properly use that information in
the cont ext of the problem. Initially, they were not aware of
the information that could be accessed through Blackboard
Course Info.
In order to promote effective group work, several team
building and communication exercises were incorporated
into the initial phases of the course. Student groups had to
develop the deliverables and grading criteria for each status
report, oral presentation, and the final project. Once the
student-based deliverables and grading criteria for the status
reports and final project were formulated, they were
distributed to the faculty members who were responsible for
evaluating student work. Faculty members then had the
opportunity to review and comment on the deliverables and
grading criteria. Faculty members were invited to the class
to present the revised deliverables and criteria and to offer
any comments, suggestions, or answer any questions.
Resources: The basic project information provided by
project participants (City of Fargo Engineering and Planning
Department) and included typical information that is
available to the engineering firm (architectural CAD
drawings, a geotechnical report, very basic project
specifications, a plat map, and a topography map). All of
this information was in electronic format and could be
accessed by the groups using Course Info. The information
was centrally located in order to minimize repeated, and

Typically, a class is divided into groups of

approximately four or five students. These are usually
permanent groups whose membership remains constant
throughout the semester. At the purest level of PBL, the
groups define the "learning issues" that they believe are at
the core of each problem. The groups then decide how to
divide their labors to resolve these issues.
The basic features of PBL were incorporated into the
course delivery system for the Capstone Course, as described
below.
The Problem: An anonymous benefactor has offered to
provided a sum of $700,000 to be used for the construction
of a Regional Science Center located in the Fargo-Moorhead
area. Several sites are currently being considered for the
Center. One in particular looks quite promising. It is
located on 23rd Avenue SW, between the Red River Zoo and
45th Street SW. This particular site has the recommendation
0-7803-7444-4/02/$17.00 2002 IEEE
32 nd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
F2D-2

November 6 - 9, 2002

Session F2D
possibly disruptive, contact between student groups and
industry professionals.
The role of the instructional staff was to act as an agent
of the owner. They had decision making capabilities with
regard to project definition and scope. Other faculty
assumed the role of project consultants, for both the student
groups and the owners (the instructional staff). Student
groups assumed the role of design/build firms who were
responsible for the complete design and construction of the
facility.
TABLE I
BASIC COURSE OUTLINE
Introductions and Team Formation ................................................. Week 1
Team Building Exercises ........................................................ Weeks 1&2
Project Requirements and Resources ......................................... Weeks 2&3
Basic Work Plan, Preliminary Cost and Time Estimates ................ Weeks 3-6
Site Layout/Design and Constructibility Reviews ......................... Weeks 6-8
Building Interior and Exterior Design ....................................... Weeks 9-12
Overall Engineering Design, Revised Cost & Time Estimates ...... Weeks 12-14
Final Report ............................................................................. Week 15

In order to check student progress, a number of written

status reports were required to be submitted throughout the
semester.
Additionally, two oral presentations were
scheduled for each group as well as a final written report.
Peer evaluation of group members also contributed to the
student grade, as indicated in Table II.
TABLE II
GRADING CRITERIA AND BASIC DELIVERABLES
STATUS REPORT NO. 1 .....................................................................

10%
(Work Plan, Cost Estimate, and Project Schedule)
Status Report No. 2 ......................................................................... 10%
(Site Layout/Design and Constructibility Reviews)
Midsemester Oral Presentation ........................................................... 10%
Status Report No. 3 ......................................................................... 10%
(Building Interior and Exterior Design)
Status Report No. 4 ......................................................................... 10%
(Final Design, Final Cost and Time Estimates)
Final Oral Presentation ..................................................................... 10%
Final Project .................................................................................. 30%
Peer Evaluations ............................................................................. 10%
TOTAL ....................................... 100%

EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT

The basic starting point for assessing student learning begins
with asking two basic questions: 1.) what should students
know and be able to do at the end of the semester?, and 2.)
what evidence will indicate that they have reached these
goals? The basic tools that were used for assessing
knowledge in the capstone course were the status reports, the
oral presentations, and the final projects. For the capstone
course, evaluation of the student work (status reports, oral
evaluations, and the final project) was performed by select
faculty who had expertise in given areas (structures,
geotechnical, cost estimates, schedules, etc.).

The actual deliverables and the grading criteria for the

status reports and the final project were developed in class
by the student groups, with input from the faculty. The
faculty members that graded each of the status reports and
final project used the formatted versions of the student-based
deliverables for their evaluation of student work. Appendix
A illustrates the grading sheet that was used for Status
Report No. 1 (Work Plan, Cost Estimate, and Project
Schedule). Appendix B contains the evaluation form used to
evaluate team members. The final course evaluation form is
found in Appendix C.
Our assessment practices follow ABET guidelines, as
follows. Initially the Capstone Learning Objectives must be
identified, followed by the ABET Learning Objectives.
Both are linked through Objective Mapping.
Capstone Learning Objectives: The specific Learning
Objectives of the Capstone course were developed from a
student perspective during the Fall 2001 semester. They
were modified slightly, by the students, for the Spring 2002
semester, as listed below.
1. Think critically and be able to design, analyze, and solve
complex, real world problems.
2. Locate, evaluate, and properly use appropriate learning
resources.
3. Work cooperatively and effectively in a small group
setting.
4. Demonstrate versatile and effective communication
skills, both verbal and written.
5. Use the knowledge and intellectual skills acquired in this
course to assist me in continual and lifelong learning.
ABET Learning Objectives: The A-K objectives of the
ABET criteria are to prepare civil and construction engineers
who will have:
A. an ability to apply the knowledge of mathematics,
science, and engineering.
B. an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as
to analyze and interpret data.
C. an ability to design a system, component, or process to
meet desired needs.
D. an ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.
E. an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering
problems.
F. an understanding of professional and ethical
responsibility.
G. an ability to communicate effectively.
H. the broad education necessary to understand the impact
of engineering solutions in a global and societal context.
I. a recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in
lifelong learning.
J. a demonstrated knowledge of contemporary issues.
K. an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern
engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.

0-7803-7444-4/02/$17.00 2002 IEEE

32 nd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
F2D-3

November 6 - 9, 2002

Session F2D
Objective Mapping: The purpose of objective mapping
to match the Capstone Learning Objectives (1-5) with the
ABET Learning Objectives(A-K) in the form of a matrix.
TABLE III
Objective Mapping

1
Capstone
Learning
Objectives

2
3

U
U

90%

Form Work

Submittal of all forms

100%

TABLE V
A SSESSMENT SCHEDULE

U
U
U

The next phase of assessment should indicate how we

assess and measure each of the ABET Learning Objectives.
We have to identify the following: 1) Curricular Practices,
2) Outcome Indicators, 3) Performance Target, 4)
Assessment Schedule, and 5) Continuous Improvement
Methods for the Capstone course.
Curricular Practices: The basis question is, what do we
do in a particular course that helps meet each of the ABET
Learning Objectives? For the Capstone course, this includes
the following: Written Reports, Oral Presentations,
Participation in an Extracurricular Workshop, and
Evaluation and Assessment Forms.
Outcome Indicators: Next we had to indicate what
methods and deliverables we use to measure our curricular
practices. For the Capstone course the following outcome
indicators are used: Written Reports - Status Reports 1-4,
Final Project , Oral Presentations, Workshop Participation,
and Evaluation and Assessment Forms.
Performance Target: The purpose of the Performance
Target is to determine our goals for each of the outcome
indicators. For each outcome indicator, the following targets
were used for the Capstone course.
TABLE IV
Performance Targets
Outcome Indicators

Required participation

Assessment Schedule: The purpose of the Assessment

Schedule is to determine the points in time when progress is
checked (evaluated) for the outcome indicators. For the
Capstone course the following Assessment Schedule is used.

ABET Learning Objectives

A

Engr. Workshop

Target
Min. Group Standard

Outcome Indicator
Engineering Workshop

Sat. February 2

Status Report No. 1

Thurs. January 24

Status Report No. 2

Thurs. February 14

Midterm Oral Presentation

Tues. Feb. 26 & Thurs. Feb. 28

Status Report No. 3

Thurs. March 7

Status Report No. 4

Thurs. April 4

Final Project

Thurs. April 18

Final Oral Presentation

Tues. April 26 & Thurs. April 28

Form Work (Evaluations)

Tues. April 30 & Thurs. May 2

Continuous Improvement Methods: After mapping the

outcome indicators versus the ABET learning objectives,
outcome performance must be measured and documented, as
shown in the matrix on the following page. Additional
performance measures for the capstone course come directly
from the course evaluation forms (refer to the supplemental
document). Performance measure allows for continuous
improvement at the course level through documentation of
the results and then finally attempting to answer the
following basic Assessment Questions:
1.
2.
3.

Target
Class Average

Status Report No. 1

80 pts. (100 pt. scale)

85 pts.

Status Report No. 2

80 pts. (100 pt. scale)

85 pts.

Status Report No. 3

80 pts. (100 pt. scale)

85 pts.

Status Report No. 4

80 pts. (100 pt. scale)

85 pts.

Final Project

85 pts. (100 pt. scale)

90 pts.

Midterm Oral

85 pts. (100 pt. scale)

90 pts.

Final Oral

85 pts. (100 pt. scale)

90 pts.

Date

What did we find out?

Did we learn anything and what will we do
differently next time?
How will we modify our curricular practices,
indicators, targets, and/or assessment schedule?

What did we find out? The interim status reports were

tremendously beneficial for keeping the students on track.
At the end of the semester there was no mad rush to get the
work completed. The students had time to reflect on their
work, finalize the written report, and prepare for the final
oral presentations.
Did we learn anything and what will we do differently
next time? The students have an intense desire for quality
faculty input concerning their work. A superficial response
or evaluation is taken more negatively by the students than
no response at all. We (as a faculty) have to develop tools

0-7803-7444-4/02/$17.00 2002 IEEE

32 nd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
F2D-4

November 6 - 9, 2002

Session F2D
and techniques that allow for quality response to student
work with a minimal time commitment form the faculty.
This is a classic Catch 22" situation. It takes time to
complete a comprehensive review of student work but we
have severe time limitations. We have to determine a proper
balance between student needs and available faculty time. It
was anticipated that the role of technical consultants (by the
faculty) would be less of a time commitment that their
previous role as group advisor. However, it appears that
most groups went to other sources of information to get
answers to their questions. This is not necessarily a bad
thing, in fact we encourage this type of initiative. We want
our students to be able to research outside sources and
collect and analyze information that is relevant to the topic at
hand. At this time it is not clear of the future role of faculty
in the capstone course, specifically related to the technical
aspects of the project.
The Course Info site worked very well for transmitting
information to students and to contact students (via e-mail)
concerning various aspects of the project. Starting with the
Summer 2002 semester, ITS will be upgrading to
Blackboard 5.5.1. We will be transferring the course to
Blackboard and we will be taking advantage of some of the
new and improved features.
How will we modify our curricular practices, indicators,
targets, and/or assessment schedule? This question will
remain unanswered until we review all of the course
documentation, evaluation, and assessment. However, we
(the course instructors) feel that indicators, targets, and
assessment schedule are reasonable and seem to be well
suited for the capstone course. Not all student groups
achieved the minimum (or average) performance target for
each course deliverable. The performance targets may need
adjustment, but without sacrificing quality or lowering out
standards. We may just need to develop better evaluation
tools. Curricular practice is another issue, however, the PBL
approach that was used this seemed to create more student
engagements and involvement in the course and also within
their respective groups.

BENEFITS
Based primarily on the response of the students, we can
confidently state that the primary benefits of the PBL
approach for the capstone experience are that:
1) PBL more realistically reflects actual design and
construction practices.
2) PBL promotes the concept of teamwork.
3) PBL assists in improving student communication skills.

perceived adversarial relationships that can often occur

between engineers, construction managers, and contractors.

REFERENCES
[1] Allen, D., Introduction to Problem-Based Learning (PBL), a workshop
organized by the Faculty Institute for Excellence in Learning, August
21, 2001.
[2] Duch, B., Groh, S., and Allen, D., The Power of Problem-Based
Learning - A Practical "How To" for Teaching Undergraduate Courses
in Any Discipline, Stylus Pub., April 2001.
[3] Rhem, J., Problem-Based Learning: An Introduction, a featured article
in the National Teaching and Learning Forum, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1998.
[4] Kaufman, D., Felder, R., and Fuller, H., Accounting for Individual
Effort in Cooperative Learning Teams, ASEE Journal of Engineering
Education, pp. 133-140, April 2000.

APPENDIX A
STATUS REPORT NO. 1
Work Plan, Cost Estimate, and Project Schedule
Introduction ............................................................. (5 pts)_____
Who are you?
What do you do?
What is your background?
Project Objectives ................................................... (5 pts)_____
What are you going to do?
How are you going to do it?
How long is it going to take?
How are you going to measure the progress?
What are the project costs?
Plan of Work and Work Breakdown Structure . (10 pts)_____
Detailed description of your work plan.
WBS with code numbers.
Constructibility Review ........................................ (10 pts)_____
(site conditions and restrictions; sequence of work as
planned; allowances for space and access; etc.)
Cost Estimate ......................................................... (40 pts)_____
QTO and costs for all resources
Computerized version of the cost estimate
Project Schedule .................................................... (30 pts)_____
Summary Table of Scheduling Information
Computer Generated Project Schedule

For the capstone course, construction management students

Total (100 pts) ................... _____
increase their exposure to design activities, while civil (and
construction engineering) students increase (or supplement)
APPENDIX B
their knowledge in the area of project management. This
approach, in the long, may help to mitigate the actual or
0-7803-7444-4/02/$17.00 2002 IEEE
November 6 - 9, 2002
32 nd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
F2D-5

Session F2D
PEER EVALUATION OF GROUP MEMBERS
Your Name: ___________________

Very Good
Satisfactory
Ordinary
Marginal
Deficient
Unsatisfactory
Superficial
No Show

Were faculty consultants response to technical questions

helpful in attaining solutions?
Explain:

4.

Did you like the way in which class meeting time was
used? If not, how would you suggest that class time be
used?

5.

What did you like best about this course?

6.

What did you like least about this course?

7.

Overall, what did you think of the course and what

suggestions (general or specific) do you have for
improving the course?

Group No. ______

Please write the name of all of your other group members

(do not include yourself) and rate the degree to which each
member fulfilled his/her responsibilities in completing the
assigned tasks. The possible ratings are as follows:
Excellent

3.

Consistently went above and beyond -tutored teammates, carried more th a n

his/her fair share of the load
Consistently did what he/she was supposed
to do, very well prepared and cooperative
Usually did what he/she was supposed to
do, acceptably prepared and cooperative
Often did what he/she was supposed to do,
minimally prepared and cooperative
Sometimes failed to show up or complete
the assigned tasks, rarely prepared
Often failed to show up or complete the
assigned tasks, rarely prepared
Consistently failed to show up or complete
the assigned tasks, unprepared
Practically no participation
No participation at all

These ratings should reflect each individua ls level of

participation, effort, and sense of responsibility, not his/her
academic ability.
Name of Group Member
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________

Rating
____________
____________
____________

Your Signature: ___________________________________

APPENDIX C
COURSE EVALUATION FORM
At the conclusion of this semester, please answer the
following questions. If necessary, use the back side of this
sheet for any additional comments.
1.

On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate your overall

experience in working with your group? ________.
Explain:

2.

Overall, how would you assess or rate the work that

your group did? (Was it your best effort? Could you
have done better? Were you happy with your work?
Did you have serious time constraints? Were the
objectives of the course unclear?)

0-7803-7444-4/02/$17.00 2002 IEEE

32 nd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
F2D-6

November 6 - 9, 2002