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