Category: Grad School

Roberson, Thelma J. & Jack Klotz (2002). How Can Instructors and Administrators Fill the Missing Link in Online Instruction? Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, Volume V, Number 1V, Winter.

Abstract: As more courses in higher education move to an online format, a major concern is the lack of personal interaction between the professor and student. The literature provides evidence that online courses are often configured and delivered in a style more typically associated with independent study or correspondence work, i.e., students working independently to complete posted assignments at their own pace. While this format may work in some instances, it leaves a missing link in the learning curve for students because they lack the opportunity to benefit from the experience of structured dialogue and sense of community that can be created in a traditional on-site classroom environment. Distance education administrators and trainers should be cognizant of this gap and support faculty members in acquiring needed skills to increase the level of interactivity students experience in online courses. Although academic freedom remains with individual faculty members, assuring distance education programs have integrity is a dual responsibility shared by those who deliver and those who administer such programs. This paper supports the idea that students benefit from personal contact and access to the professor and learning is enhanced in courses with high degrees of interactivity among students. The authors suggest effective uses of e-mail, chat, and various Web-based tools to enhance interactivity and a sense of community within the online course. Sample comments are also included from students who have taken courses that employ the strategies described in this paper. (9 references)

Summary and notes:

• What is happening to interaction between students and instructors with the move to online learning?
• Chat rooms (synchronous communication) and message boards (asynchronous communication) can be effective in maintaining high levels of communication
• Email and mailing lists can also help, but they need to be returned quickly and be of high quality.
• Authors conclude that personal interaction between instructor-student and student-student is vital to the sense of community and the educational process.
• Authors recommend that exposure to content AND interactivity be considered in evaluating courses regardless of whether they are developed in-house or by an outside contractor, and that interactivity be appropriate for the course and its content.
• Course developers should be trained for creating community through online instructional tools

Resources: Part 1, Part 2

Assignment: Read Jamie McKenzie’s work entitled Grazing the Net: Raising a Generation of Free Range Students – Part One and Part Two. It was written in 1994 yet describes what many of us are told should be the student or teacher of the ‘future’.

• Is the future here? If yes, how is that the case (site examples)? If not, why not?
• What do you think about his ideas?
• How far away or close to this idea are we at present?

Part one: McKenzie paints a picture of students with access to seemingly limitless information resources on the web, but warns that large volumes of this information are the mental equivalent of junk food, and gorging or regular consumption may lead to unhealthy addictions. McKenzie implores us to teach students to become infotectives. He describes infotectives thus:

a student thinker capable of asking great questions about data (with analysis) in order to convert the data into information (data organized so as to reveal patterns and relationships) and eventually into insight (information that may suggest action or strategy of some kind) (“Students as infotectives” section, para. 2)

They are puzzle-solvers who synthesize and evaluate the information they encounter. Their skills are thinking, researching and inventing.

McKenzie essentially presents the case and a basic outline of Problem-Based Learning (PBL), with students coming at the Internet and its information with a question, and finding the answer to the ill-formed problem. McKenzie doesn’t use the PBL framework but touches on the same ideas of ill-formed problems, guiding questions and students finding their own solutions. The examples provided aren’t completely PBL, but are perhaps one step removed with their defined lack of knows/need to knows, feedback, and collaboration, but they do contain a presentation element as a capstone. Like PBL, however, the focus is constructive. The section on “Eisenberg’s Big Six” remedies some of these absences.

[Part 2]

Three levels of thought must occur concurrently and recursively:

• Envisioning – Top level, 50,000-foot view of things. Dreams, fantasy, imagination, visualization
• Inventing – Middle level, where the visions are turned into reality. Questions about what might work, how that happens. Innovation comes from this level.
• SCAMPERing/Rearranging – evaluative stage. SCAMPER comes from Osborne and modified by Eberle, refers to the mnemonic: “S=substitute. C=combine. A=adapt. M=modify, magnify, minify. P=Put to other uses. E=eliminate. R=reverse” (Osborn, cited in McKenzie).

Teachers often complain that their students are distracted by technology that finds its way to school in pockets and backpacks. From smart phones to tablets and portable games, students are always on – but not always on task, it seems to some. The Kaiser Family Foundation studied Millennials and found they were consuming 10.75 hours of media in little over 7.5 hours daily (slide 7) in a remarkable feat of multitasking.

Students are confident in their abilities to handle more than one thing at the same time. In Wallis’ (2006) story in Time magazine, she relates an oft-heard battle between parents and children about their study habits, from the teen’s perspective: “My parents always tell me I can’t do homework while listening to music, but they don’t understand that it helps me concentrate” (para. 5).  Anna Liotta, a business consultant specializing in cross-generational workplace relations, notes that “Millennial feels strongly that they need to—and are effective at—using multiple modes of communication simultaneously” (para. 1).

Multitasking is a Myth

In The New Atlantis, Christine Rosen (2008) discusses how multitasking is not only a false concept as far as human brains are concerned (2008), and calls multitasking “a poor long-term strategy for learning” (107). According to Rosen, some neurologists believe the brain can be trained to multitask for some purposes, while others caution the side effects of adrenaline and stress hormones while this rapid attention-switching is occurring. 

Research also indicates it actually takes us longer to complete tasks that require similar types of cognitive processing, not less, when we are forced to multitask (Tugend, 2008; Wallis, 2006). Edward M. Hallowell, psychologist, comments, “It gives the illusion that we’re simultaneously tasking, but we’re really not. It’s like playing tennis with three balls” (in Tugend). What your students say about listening to music, however, may be true as it uses different cognitive processing skills than many other tasks (Tugend).

Distraction and Focus

Is all this distraction for naught? While we may be quick to dismiss distraction as the bane of success, a longitudinal study that started in the 1960s may indicate otherwise. Many may be familiar with “The Marshmallow Study,” by Walter Mischel:

And just how did these children manage to avoid the temptation? Peter Bregman (2009) at Harvard Business Review argues that it wasn’t just willpower, it was technique, and that technique was deliberate distraction:

So what’s the secret of the ones who held out? Did they have more willpower? Better discipline? Maybe they didn’t like candy as much? Perhaps they were afraid of authority?

It turns out it was none of these things. It was a technique. The same technique I used with Isabelle.

Distraction.

Rather than focusing on not eating the marshmallow, they covered their eyes, sat under the table, or sang a song. They didn’t resist the urge. They simply avoided it.

….

Distraction is, in fact, the same thing as focus. To distract yourself from X you need to focus on Y.

Bregman (2012) writes later that this resistance to impulse “determines our success in learning a new behavior or changing an old habit. It’s probably the single most important skill for our growth and development” (para. 6).

Two sides of the same coin, distraction and focus in proper contexts can lead to better outcomes in our personal and professional lives. Bregman, recommends meditation for better focus, as do others in the productivity world.

Teaching Students Mindfulness and Focus

Dr. Hallowell believes that we can change our habits and return to (or learn) how to control the amount of stimulus and interruption we are receiving (Tugend, 2008). How can we go about teaching students mindfulness, with intentional focus and distraction? One way is through guided practice. Pam (last name unknown) gives a few ideas at her blog, The Mindful Classroom, including teaching mindfulness through breathing techniques even in kindergarden. 

For older students (and overwhelmed teachers and grad students!), consider teaching the Pomodoro Technique. This technique breaks work into blocks of 25 minutes with breaks of 5. After 4 sessions (or “pomodoros”), a longer break is given. Times can be adjusted for particular work situations, but the idea is to push out distractions and focus on a single task for a set amount of time. The reward is 5 minutes to do whatever you want. And of course, once your work is done, that time is yours as well. Plugins for major web browsers that will block “fun” sites and support the Pomodoro Technique are widely available. In addition, phone apps are available for users to track their work on their smartphones. 

TL;DR

While teachers and parents are concerned about digital distractions in the lives of their students and children, distraction plays an important role in goal achievement, as does focus. Multitasking, however, is not a realistic expectation of our brains, as we can’t actually focus on more than one idea at a time, but rather make rapid shifts from one area of focus to another. Distraction and focus are two parts of the puzzle that lead to success by learning which areas of attention to avoid and which to focus on. 

As teachers, we can work with all ages to help students develop mindfulness and focus through breathing exercises or other focus training techniques such as the Pomodoro Technique.

References:

Bregman, P. (2009, June 10). How to teach yourself restraint. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from http://blogs.hbr.org/bregman/2009/06/how-to-teach-yourself-restrain.html

Bregman, P. (2012, October 12). If you’re too busy to meditate, read this. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from http://blogs.hbr.org/bregman/2012/10/if-youre-too-busy-to-meditate.html

Liotta, A. (2012, November 12). Generational Savvy Solutions. Resultance Incorporated. Retrieved from http://resultance.com/multi-tasking-rude-or-efficient/

Rosen, C., (2008). The Myth of Multitasking. The New Atlantis, 20. 105-110. Retrieved from http://faculty.winthrop.edu/hinera/CRTW-Spring_2011/TheMythofMultitasking_Rosen.pdf

Tugend, A., (2008, October 24). Multitasking can make you lose… um… focus. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/25/business/yourmoney/25shortcuts.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Wallis, C. (2006, March 27). The Multitasking Generation. Time. Retrieved from http://www.balcells.com/blog/images/articles/entry558_2465_multitasking.pdf

Computer-Mediated Problem-Based Learning

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this paper is to present an analysis of the theme of Problem-Based Learning (PBL) in computer-mediated environments. Problem-based learning refers to the “constructivist teaching method in which students learn content knowledge and problem-solving skills through investigating and solving ill-structured problems” (Park and Ertmer, 2008, p. 632). These problems are presented to students, who must then solve them through research and developing an appropriate process (Samsnov, Pedersen & Hill, 2006). This personal development of the solution and research appropriate to the group or individual creates meaning for the student (Samsnov et al.). It is important to examine PBL in computer-mediated situations because as Samsnov et al., and Park and Ertmer stated, using computer technology can enhance and increase the efficacy of PBL activities. The studies included in this review indicate that while computer-mediated environments can be used for problem-based learning activities, changes in pedagogy and delivery systems are not without complications, obstacles, and some degree of success.

Organization of the paper

This paper begins with a methods’ section that describes how the analysis was conducted. The findings’ section examines the results of each study to determine how PBL is being taught through computer-mediated technologies and what the barriers to learning are in these situations. The discussion section looks at common themes in the studies surrounding scaffolding. Finally, the conclusion section looks at what can be learned from the studies, the implications for application and the limitations of this literature review.

METHODS

The 10 sources were selected from seven peer-reviewed educational technology journals. Because all sources were selected from educational technology journals, all included an electronic medium.  The analysis only included sources with the words “problem-based learning” and a type of computer-mediation (technology-enhanced, web-driven, software, online, electronic learning environment, CSCL, blended, computer-mediated, social media and web-enabled) as part of the title. To figure as part of the analysis, the journal sources had to include research participants. This means that meta-analyses, book reviews, etc. were excluded. The studies selected ranged from 2002 to 2012.

The studies were largely qualitative (six studies), with some quantitative (three) and a mixed-methods study. The six qualitative studies (Buus, 2012; Lu, Lajoie, & Wiseman, 2010; Mayer, Musser & Remidez, 2002; Park & Ertmer, 2008; Ronteltap & Eurelings, 2002; Samsnov et al., 2006) used a variety of methods to gather data, including informal conversations, using Grounded theory and triangulation to code and verify “questionnaires, interviews, informal meetings, demonstrations, online chat sessions, e-mail communications, user tracking scripts, learner artifacts, and message boards” (Mayer et al., p. 261); content analysis of dialogue to form thick descriptions, observations, reflective journal analysis, surveys, analysis and coding of work produced in an online learning environment. The three quantitative studies, Dalsgaard and Godsk (2007), McLinden, McCall, Hinton and Weston (2006), and Shen, Lee, Tsai, & Chuan (2007), used questionnaires, student performance measures in the form of grades, and quasi-experimentation. Finally, Zumbach & Spraul (2007) used a mixed-methods design in which students were administered knowledge tests which were scored, providing quantitative data, while for qualitative data the students were surveyed.

The purpose of the analysis was to identify similarities and differences, to identify patterns and to reach some basic understanding of the history and current use of computers in the delivery and implementation of problem-based learning activities across disciplines and age groups. By examining the place of study, participants, method(s) used, research questions, hypotheses, and findings, the ten studies were grouped for common theme, purpose or finding. Due to the limitations in the quantity of source material to draw from and the limited results, studies could not be eliminated for quality, biases, assumptions or other problems. As such, it is impossible to assert that the studies included in this literature review represent anything beyond the list of journals they were pulled from and that they contain certain key terms in the titles.

FINDINGS

The findings of this review will be focused under the following categories:

1. How have PBL activities been implemented in computer-mediated environments?
2. What barriers have been found when implementing computer-mediated PBL?

How have PBL activities been implemented in computer-mediated environments?

When considering computer-mediated PBL for learners of different ages and needs, there were likewise corresponding differences in implementation. For younger students in middle school, a computer game was the mode of delivery. In the game, students had to research information to solve a problem and successfully complete the game (Samsnov et al., 2006).

In university and vocational school settings, the approaches were not game-based. In Shen et al. (2007), web-enabled PBL was used to simulate on-the-job activities for vocational students they would encounter in the workplace. They found students benefitted from problem-based learning and self-regulated learning treatments equally over no treatment at, but that both treatments in combination had no statistically significant effect over one or the other. Zumbach and Spraul (2007) looked at university settings where they found that tutors played an important role in both face-to-face and computer-mediated discussion about PBL problems, and that differences by setting were negligible. From this, they determined that with adequate tutoring, PBL sessions could be transferred to synchronous computer-mediated environments without “drastic restrictions” (Zumbach & Spraul, p. 183). Dalsgaard and Godsk (2007) also concluded that linear, lecture-based instruction could be moved to a web-based PBL format with adequate reconceptualization and redevelopment. Buus (2012) also highlighted this need for re-design of university curricula, but instead focused on instructor needs for implementing web 2.0 technologies. She found that even when web-based technologies are available to instructors, they are not quick to employ the full range of activities possible and require scaffolding on “learning design, development and implementation” (p. 21).

McLinden et al. (2006) found that for post-degree learners in a professional development situation, online PBL can be successful, but as in Zumbach and Spraul (2007), appropriate learner support is necessary. This ability to support learners turned from technology to content in the study by Lu et al. (2010). When dealing with interns in a physicians’ training program, the use of interactive white boards allowed for instructors in the program to move away from managing the rules of the PBL scenarios and instead differentiate the level of the activity based on learners’ needs.

What barriers have been found when implementing computer-mediated PBL?

Lack of comfort using technology was a key theme in the barriers to learning. McLinden et al. (2006) found the barriers in their study had little to do with the PBL, but rather were related to the online delivery. The six areas identified were student expectations, the availability and accessibility of technology, the student’s experience using ICT and their (dis)comfort with it, student time management, non-participation and technical issues. For each problem, a set of potential solutions or preventative measures was given. Likewise, Mayer et al. (2002) found that “both instructors and students must attain a level of comfort with technology and proficiency with using a Web browser that will facilitate effective use of the [online learning] software” (p. 262). Rontletap and Eurelings (2002) echoed this finding. Their study found that while students can be comfortable with the offline version of collaboration required in PBL, they need time and experience using forums and other online methods before they can make it work for them.

Another barrier that can cause difficulties with computer-mediated PBL is commitment to the delivery format. Mayer et al. (2002) found a lack of orientation toward the online delivery and the change in roles for instructor and learner caused difficulties. Once participants oriented themselves toward the new format, it was sufficiently flexible and comprehensive to be used outside of the particular program for which it had been developed.

Park and Ertmer (2008) examined a series of barriers from the perspectives of all stakeholders to determine which were the most relevant to the planning and implementation processes as they pertained to the middle school classroom. Generally, they found that a lack of vision sharing was the greatest barrier, with teachers not understanding the purposes of the administrators in initiating technology-enhanced PBL. While the administration focused on the technology aspect of the project, the teachers focused on the pedagogical change. This disparity caused the greatest confusion for teachers as to the goals of the project. Another barrier was lack of feedback for the teachers on whether their implementation was meeting expectations. Lack of qualification or confidence implementing PBL restrained approximately one quarter of the teachers in the study. Some teachers lacked motivation to implement technology-enhanced PBL, and there was disagreement between administrators and teachers in the perceived value of the rewards and incentives for participating the program. While administrators saw student response, access to technology, and grants as incentives, not all teachers agreed with this assessment. Finally, while there was general consensus that the tools and environment were adequate for implementation, a couple of teachers still felt underprepared to implement the technology-enhanced PBL.

DISCUSSION

Examining how PBL has been combined with some form of computer-based technology, the studies showed that moving PBL from face-to-face classrooms to computer-mediated environments was a viable option (Buus, 2012; Dalsgaard & Godsk, 2007; Park & Ertmer, 2008; Shen et al., 2007), but that it required a shift in the pedagogy to match the new delivery medium (Buus; Dalsgaard & Godsk; Zumbach & Spraul, 2007). This shift from face-to-face instruction to computer-mediated instruction created obstacles for learner and instructor as indicated in the findings around barriers and obstacles listed above. To bring about success transferring PBL to a computer-mediated environment, the studies suggest scaffolding for both students and instructors (Buss; Dalsgaard & Godsk; Mayer et al., 2002; McLinden et al., 2006; Ronteltap & Eurelings, 2002; Samsonov et al., 2006). This scaffolding for instructors and students approaches solutions for the lack of comfort with new technology, and commitment or orientation to the new technology. The final barrier of communication between administration and instructors is not directly addressed within the scaffolding requirement, although it is not completely disparate. These will be discussed in more detail below.

Scaffolding the instructors

For instructors, three areas mentioned above served as barriers to successful deployment of computer-mediated PBL. These were unfamiliarity with the technology, unfamiliarity with PBL, and unfamiliarity with the purposes of using them in combination. Scaffolding instructors appropriately can serve to address each of these issues.

As indicated in the findings section of this review, several studies indicated that where instructors did not have adequate knowledge of how to employ the technology for PBL, there were a variety of reactions and needs. Buus (2012) found that the availability constructivist technology alone was not enough to encourage instructors to offer constructivist learning activities with the technology. The instructors in this study were given access to web-based learning tools that had both web 1.0 (information dissemination) and web 2.0 (interactive, multi-directional) properties, but the instructors did not use the constructivist-style web 2.0 features available to them. Rather, they merely shifted their instructor-focused teaching style to a new medium. Buus points out that using web 2.0 technologies alone does not create interactivity; that instructors will not automatically move to student-focused, constructivist styles of teachings merely by shifting the medium. Rather, it is necessary to scaffold the instructor as they design, develop and implement changes to their curricula to ensure they are shifting not only media but also pedagogy. Likewise, Dalsgaard and Godsk (2007) agreed that computer-mediated PBL is possible provided the instructors are appropriately scaffolded through the process. In their study they highlight the need for attention on both the medium and the pedagogy, scaffolding instructors on the rethinking of their curricula in terms of problems and the need for instructors to relinquish control of the learning process toward self-governed work by the students, eventually becoming a guide rather than an instructor.

The issue of instructor and student orientation occurred only in Mayer et al. (2002), but in combination with Park and Ertmer’s (2008) findings with instructor/administration miscommunication, it is an important consideration. While PBL first started being used in the 1960s (Zumbach & Sproul, 2007), McLinden et al. (2006) report based on sources primarily in the 1990s and 2000s on its move outside of medicine into other fields. This may indicate that PBL has a young history in non-medical education and as such familiarity with the pedagogy and the reasons for it may not be widespread outside of the medicine discipline. A key element of PBL is described as a “shift in focus from teaching to learning” (p. 333), which is correlated with a shift from instructor-centered to student-centered pedagogy (McLindent et al., 2006; Park & Ertmer, 2008; Samsnov et al., 2006). As such, the general newness of PBL and its implementation may have lead to the confusion between the instructors and administration in Park and Ertmer’s study, and the resistance of the instructors (and students) in Mayer et al. These findings reinforce the importance of clear communication of goals and outcomes along in concert with explanations of the PBL pedagogy for a unified vision, understanding, and implementation of this constructivist, student-centered methodology.

Scaffolding the Learners

Like the instructors, student needs are also technical and pedagogical. A lack of familiarity with particulars of web browsing, using common online communication tools such as forums, and Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) each posed their own unique challenges for learners.  In Rontletap and Eurelings (2002), students were comfortable PBL activities and conversations provided they were offline, but needed time and experience to become comfortable with technical aspects of the online system, citing the forums as an example. Mayer et al. (2002) found that student and teacher alike needed to become comfortable with using a web browser to use the online educational software effectively. In McLinden et al.’s 2006 study, most participants were unfamiliar with Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) and/or online communication, and that there were high (76%) levels of apprehension initially. This apprehension remained for 40% of participants even after completing induction activities. McLinden et al. concluded from these findings that a form of scaffolding should be available to students, especially in early stages of access to online resources. Samsnov et al. (2006) focused on at-risk learners who had difficulties with computer-based collaborative PBL, and concluded that at-risk students may require more scaffolding for successful collaboration in student-centered activities than their non-at-risk classmates. They did not draw conclusions as to the cause being technical, curricular or otherwise.

The scaffolding for pedagogy and content was more successful. Lu et al. (2010) looked directly at changes in how instructors scaffolded learners when different technologies (traditional whiteboard and interactive whiteboard) were used as learner collaboration tools. Briefly, the instructor spent more time scaffolding in traditional whiteboard treatment than with the interactive whiteboard simply because the technology of the interactive whiteboard required less cognitive assistance. In this instance, the technology allowed the administration of activities to take a backseat to the content, allowing for greater differentiation. Zumbach and Spraul (2007) examined the degree of content scaffolding required, and found that beginning learners may benefit from having more expert tutors, but as students developed in their understanding, less expertise may assist greater development of self-regulated learning. Shen et al. (2007) found that appropriate scaffolding in PBL and self-regulated learning helped students with traditionally high levels of Internet addiction achieve academic success in web-based environments. In Park and Ertmer (2008), when exploring the differences between how expert and typical PBL teachers worked, two of the three major differences included an element of scaffolding; providing students with self-monitoring guidelines and engaging them in reflective and self-evaluation on the problem-solving process. These studies indicate that scaffolding for both the content and the PBL pedagogy bring positive outcomes for students, and that sometimes newer technologies can allow for greater differentiation and more precise tutoring.

CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Conclusions

Based on this review, we can see that while the specific concerns of technology have changed from how to use a web browser (Mayer et al. 2002) to incorporating web 2.0 technologies (Buus, 2012), comfort and familiarity with new technologies is an ongoing challenge to new users. In addition, while the shift from teacher-centered to student-centered learning in PBL is not a new phenomenon, it is still uncommon enough that it is unfamiliar to some students (Samsnov et al. 2006) and teachers (Park & Ertmer, 2008).  Teachers as well as students need to have an understanding of how both PBL and the computer-mediated technology function to use them to their full extent and educational benefit; merely having access is insufficient (Buus, 2012; Mayer et al. 2002). To this end, both students and teachers require scaffolding in the pedagogy and the associated technology to avoid the barriers to and challenges associated with computer-mediated problem-based learning (Dalsgaard & Godsk, 2007). In addition, when the decision is made by administration to employ computer-mediated PBL in the pedagogy, clear communication needs to exist between administrators and faculty to eliminate confusion around the desired outcomes resulting from the shift (Park & Ertmer). This scaffolding of learners and instructors, along with clear lines of communication about goals and outcomes, may assist in overcoming some of the technological, pedagogical and administrative obstacles to implementation.

Implications

The studies imply that for successful transference of existing curricula into a computer-mediated environment, particularly web-based, careful thought and consideration needs to be taken before engaging with students. At the early stages, instructors need to understand why the shift is occurring and what the desired outcomes are (Park & Ertmer, 2008). Before implementation, instructors need to be made familiar with the capabilities of the technology and have links between the pedagogy and technology clearly drawn, along with expectations of use, so as to avoid merely transferring old pedagogy to a new delivery medium (Buus, 2012).  When implementing the technology in a learning environment, students should receive scaffolding to be comfortable using the technology (McLinden et al., 2006; Ronteltap & Eurlings, 2002). Some students, such as at-risk students, are likely to require extra scaffolding and special considerations will need to be taken with these populations (Samsnov et al. 2006). Likewise, in populations with high levels of Internet addiction, additional scaffolding for self-regulated learning approaches may benefit these students and assist in the shift to student-centered learning (Shen et al., 2007). As Zumbach and Spraul (2007) and Dalsgaard and Godsk (2007) found, it is possible to have success moving from a traditional classroom setting to computer-mediated PBL provided planning, reconceptualization and reworking of the lessons is adequate.

Limitations

This review was limited to articles from a set list of journals within the educational technology field with specific key words in the titles. Had the scope of available materials been broader, and included content-specific journals, conference proceedings and other sources, it is probable that this review could have included a wider understanding of the literature on computer-mediated PBL. A simple search on Google Scholar for “problem based learning” and “technology” yields 119,000 results, indicating the scope of this area of study likely extends far beyond the ten articles included in this study. A broader search base may also allow for greater specialization within computer mediation to examine specifically the use of PBL in entirely online or blended programs, or any other specific context from the articles in this review. This would allow for greater thematic continuity within the selected articles. Without this greater contextualization and inclusion of other research, the implications above may have been discredited or otherwise found unsuitable in another study. Likewise the content of other studies may hold implications not considered based on the results of the articles reviewed. In the future, researchers seeking to understand how PBL can be implemented in a computer-mediated environment should consider a wider range of sources and evidence.

References

Buus, L. (2012). Scaffolding teachers integrate social media into a problem-based learning approach? The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 10(1), 13–22. Retrieved from http://www.ejel.org/issue/download.html?idArticle=175

Dalsgaard, C. & Godsk, M. (2007). Transforming traditional lectures into problem‐based blended learning: challenges and experiences. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 22:1, 29-42. doi:10.1080/02680510601100143

Lu, J., Lajoie, S. P., & Wiseman, J. (2010). Scaffolding problem-based learning with CSCL tools. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(3), 283–298. doi:10.1007/s11412-010-9092-6

Mayer, C., Musser, D., & Remidez, H. (2002). Description of a web-driven, problem-based learning environment and study of the efficacy of implementation in educational leader preparation. Computers in the Schools, 18(1), 249–265.

McLinden, M., McCall, S., Hinton, D., & Weston, A. (2006). Participation in online problem‐based learning: Insights from postgraduate teachers studying through open and distance education. Distance Education, 27(3), 331–353. doi:10.1080/01587910600940422

Park, S. H., & Ertmer, P. A. (2008). Examining barriers in technology-enhanced problem-based learning: Using a performance support systems approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(4), 631–643. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00858.x

Ronteltap, F., & Eurelings, A. (2002). Activity and interaction of students in an electronic learning environment for problem-based learning. Distance Education, 23(1), 11–22. doi:10.1080/0158791

Samsonov, P., Pedersen, S., & Christine, L. (2006). Using problem-based learning software with at-risk students. Computers in the Schools, 23(1-2), 111–124.

Shen, P., Lee, T., & Tsai, C. (2007). Applying web-enabled problem-based learning and self-regulated learning to enhance computing skills of Taiwan’s vocational students : A quasi-experimental study of a short-term module. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 5(2), 147–156. Retrieved from: http://www.ejel.org/issue/download.html?idArticle=46

Zumbach, J., & Spraul, P. (2007). The role of expert and novice tutors in computer mediated and face-to-face problem-based learning. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 02(02), 161–187. doi:10.1142/S1793206807000336

I’m quite surprised there haven’t been any comments here yet on open source, so let me get it started with a few ideas. Open Source has its roots in academics and has the idea that, if we all have access to the source, we can fix the problems together and progress more quickly than if we had to rely on one person or a small group to make updates and changes. This open concept is related to a lot of other areas, and is used commonly in our day-to-day lives.

Here are some random but connected tidbits related to open source and associated movements as they relate to technology and our lives as teachers:

• Some of the websites and platforms we rely on every day are, or are based in, open source. Wikipedia, WordPress and others all rely on open-source development and are often protected by the GNU General Public License. Another name for this is sometimes called “Copyleft,” a response to copyright.
• A lot of basic websites and servers run on open source. These include the Apache web server, PHP for dynamic-content websites and MySQL for databases in which website information is stored are also open.
• If you need a free photo that you can use on your website, look at Flickr.com’s advanced search functions and search with the creative commons for copyleft photos that simply require attribution to use.
• Apple’s OS X operating system is based on Unix (well, it is Unix), which is synonymous with open platforms, although Apple’s version is certainly proprietary.
• Android is open source.
• The Internet wouldn’t exist without open standards.
• In this vein, some academics, particularly scientists it seems, are pushing for “Open Academia,” which doesn’t have anything to do with MOOCs, although it may sound like that at first. These academics are pushing for open access to research; that is, not behind the pay walls of big journals.

In sum, Open Source and its related cousins of openness have been and remain crucial to our growth and development as technological beings. But enough fawning. What do you all think?

Speaking directly to the situation of foreign language instructors in Korea and other nations, there is a dire need for even the most rudimentary training. Instructors who come are almost always untrained teachers with little or no experience teaching any subject or skill, let alone a language in a foreign language. Instructors rely on their own memories of their experiences learning foreign languages, if they did at all, and cobble together ideas of best-practice from the under-qualified instructors in their immediate environment. For teachers who do spend time and money pursing training, trainers are often peers with little experience or training, although some specialists are available. This situation is evident in a visit to the national conference for English teachers here in Korea.

What needs to be done for the field? In many ways, there are problems with motivation and perceived need. For “teachers” and employers alike, there is not a perceived need to actually teach; it is enough to have a visible “native speaker” (as though these people were authorities on their own language and how to learn it, simply because they can communicate in it and may or may not have mastery) in the same room as the learner. To be fair, some teachers take their role seriously and pursue learning at every opportunity. These teachers may at some point work toward certification or higher education in the field, but for too many it is merely enough to get through the 12-month contract, get paid, and get out.

For those who wish to become competent but who are unable or uninterested in pursing official certification, there is little in terms of competent training resources available. Most of what is free is merely anecdotal how-tos by others in the same circumstances, that is, novices evaluating their own performance. A clear need is for easily accessible training for novices interested in developing their skills. Official sources often require time away from work, the classroom, and therefore a source of income, placing a barrier between  potential trainee and the training.

When it comes to teaching students, however, resources abound. Korea is interested in moving toward the highest forms of widely available technology for use in the classroom. While the universities are slower to adopt technologies such as interactive white boards (IWB), both public and private schools are quickly adopting IWBs, ebooks and other technologies in the interest of better education for students. The level of training that educators receive, however, on how to use and best implement these new technologies (and even more elementary- are they helpful?) is unclear.

The greatest technology, which is not widely available, is the technology of better pedagogy. Korean instruction is still largely stuck in a DI model, which some claim is a holdover of Confucian authoritarian structures. If this is true, there are core cultural barriers to change. Without cultural changes, or a shift in mindset, the greatest technological advances may be stymied by lagging pedagogy.

In speaking with a professional Korean elementary school teacher, who is currently in a model school for “smart education,” I learned that in her case, she has persued training in technologies as part of her graduate studies, and there are frequent seminars avilable to her throughout the semester. She explain that a lot of the teachers are pursing training of their own accord. From what she told me, there isn’t much in relating the technologies to pedagogy; rather teachers are expeced to know the pedagogies already and find ways to use the techologies within their existing schema.

What this indicates to me is that depending on how abreast of pedagogical shifts teachers are, there may or may not be understanding of current pedagogies and how to best utilize technologies for educational outcomes. This is mere conjecture, however, and does not speak to anything from data. It would be a very interesting area of study.

1. Which aspects of WEB safety are of most concern in your teaching institution?

While I assumed that phishing and online bullying would be concerns for my students, when asked, they had different answers. One cited loss of control over who sees their personal information on social networking websites. Another was worried about viruses and only viruses, while a third responded that he was concerned about hackers breaking into unsecured servers and accessing their personal data. This third student cited several instances over the past few years in which hackers breached security measures and stole the personal information of two thirds of the population (35 of 50 million people). Because until recently, Korean law demanded real-name identification to register for a website, which included the use of citizens’ personal identity numbers, this was a massive breach. This student was concerned that his identity could then be used to access websites that he himself would not use, and gave adult video websites as an example.

The students in school today are referred to as “digital natives” (Prensky, 2001), Selwyn (2009) notes that proponents of this idea may be short-selling the dangers this always-on generation faces, both to their person and their intellect. In addition to the physical, social and sexual harm that may come from unfettered, unguided access to the Internet, students may also suffer from a “dumbing-down” that results from how they interact with information (Selwyn). To this end, determining the quality of information found online is a skill students may not have unless they have previously learnt it. Selwyn goes on to note that students, far from being digital natives, constructing their reality in digital form, are more passive consumers of entertainment rather than active in the creation of content. All of these play into the issues students bring with them in their access to information on the Internet that teachers can assist with.

2. How do teachers better effect positive change in students who routinely access knowledge and fact through the use of computer and when conveying information?

Keeping in mind the concerns of their students, it is important for teachers to evaluate the technology they require their students to use. For my situation, ensuring that the terms of service and privacy structures of the website, service or software do not violate the rights of their students to personal privacy and safety. Whereas my students are ESL/EFL students and often struggle with simple registration processes in the use of online technology, they cannot be expected to read, let alone understand the Terms of Service they agree to when they register. Additionally, if they are required to participate in class via this medium, then the onus is even more heavily on the teacher or administration to ensure their students are protected; if the online work is a required part of the students’ grades, the power in the relationship is entirely in the hands of the teachers and thus their responsibility to manage ethically.

Part of effecting the change is to help students learn how to be safe, smart digital citizens. We as teachers need to be cautious to scaffold appropriately and not assume students are able to do things that they have not yet learned to do. Online and blended learning software, such as the Moodle LMS, lean heavily on constructivist pedagogy (Foster, 2012), but if the generation is accustomed to consumption over production, there may be a gap between how students expect to use the Internet and how their teachers envision their engagement (Selwyn, 2009). This includes how to protect their own safety and privacy when engaging with the Internet and online services. Working with students to raise their knowledge and awareness of safety and processes online is a necessary responsibility for teachers at all levels. Additionally, it is important to teach students the same critical thinking required to establish the authority of a source, be it on the internet or in an analogue or other format.

Teaching these kinds of personal and social responsibility will better prepare students to be safe, healthy and smart digital citizens of the future, native or otherwise.

3. What is a useful method that could improve the handling of WEB safety or the values (ala text readings) in your profession and in your school?

My school has, along with others across the country, jumped on the blended learning wagon. While I am not privy to every discussion and decision, it does not appear that much attention has been given to any of the student needs listed above. Rather, it appears that the decision to engage in blended learning has been more for the reputation of the school than for the educational benefit of the students.

To improve, there are many things that could be done. First, a new course in digital citizenry should be developed. It doesn’t need to be for credit or last a full semester, but an introductory semester covering online research, responsibility, safety and other concerns could greatly benefit the students. Secondly, greater concern with finding technology that does not present barriers to student learning with technical glitches abounding. Anecdotally, I probably spend as much time managing and troubleshooting technology with my students as I do assisting them with the content of the course.

Finally, it may be of greatest benefit for the school to find an in-house solution for their educational needs, rather than relying on outside providers. These outside providers do not have our students’ best educational interests at heart, and do not create products (and they are for sale, and as such are truly products) that specifically meet the needs of our students at our school. Rather, this product is intended to be as broadly applicable as possible to obtain the greatest return on investment possible.

As a teacher, I need to ensure my students have true understanding of how to use the technology requirements of the course. As I am working in a second language with them (either theirs, or mine when I engage them in their L1), many details get lost in translation. I have set them up for on-demand help from me via phone chats, which they use regularly. Having patience when things go wrong, providing extra help when the technology fails, and being prepared to extend deadlines as per the cultural norms all play into success with the students. I’m honestly not sure if the language or the technology is a greater hurdle for my students; I wish neither were the case.

References

Foster, H. (2 February 2012). Moodle Documentation: Philosophy. Retrieved from http://docs.moodle.org/23/en/Philosophy

McCurry, J. (2010, July 13). Internet addiction driving South Koreans into realms of fantasy. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/13/internet-addiction-south-korea

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. Innovate: Online Journal of Online Education, 5(3). Retrieved from http://www.innovateonline.info/pdf/vol5_issue3/H._Sapiens_Digital-__From_Digital_Immigrants_and_Digital_Natives_to_Digital_Wisdom.pdf

Selwyn, N. (2009). The digital native – myth and reality. Aslib Proceedings, 61(4), 364–379. doi:10.1108/00012530910973776

Yonhap News Service (2012, July 22). High-speed wireless internet distribution tops 100%. The Korea Times. Retrieved from http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/biz/2012/07/123_115610.html