Online Learner: Karakteristik dan Implikasi pedagogis
Nada Dabbagh
George Mason University
Abstrak
Globalisasi telah stretched lingkup online belajar dari populasi homogen profil kebanyakan orang dewasa, kebanyakan bekerja, tempat-terikat, goaloriented, dan termotivasi untuk pd hakekatnya satu yang heterogen, muda, dinamis, dan responsif terhadap inovasi teknologi yang cepat. Makalah ini menjelaskan munculnya karakteristik online learner dan pedagogis berikut implikasi dan menunjukkan bahwa penyelidikan dan dialogical online pedagogis model pembelajaran yang paling efektif untuk mendukung dan mempromosikan karakteristik ini. Penelitian untuk tanggal belum converged pada archetypal profil online learner. Meskipun beberapa berubah, afek, dan karakteristik demografis Mei membelah learner penduduk ini, apa yang kelihatannya lebih lazim adalah perubahan atau munculnya sifat online learner dan keserbaragaman cara belajar dan mewakili generasi perbedaan. Situasi ini membawa implikasi cukup pedagogis untuk desain online dan lingkungan belajar necessitates review penelitian untuk menentukan karakteristik dan keterampilan peserta didik yang muncul online. Menentukan karakteristik dan kebutuhan pendidikan online learner mungkin tidak dapat menjamin keberhasilan dalam jarak atau program pendidikan saja (Galusha, 1997). Kemungkinan besar, namun cukup membantu administrator, guru, dan desainer instruksional memahami (a) yang akan berpartisipasi dalam belajar online, (b) apa faktor motivators atau berkontribusi untuk sukses online pengalaman belajar, dan (c) potensi hambatan detering Dari beberapa siswa yang berpartisipasi dalam atau berhasil menyelesaikan kursus secara online. Dalam rangka untuk lebih memahami karakteristik dan dirasakan keterampilan online dan peserta didik yang motivasi dan kendala yang berhasil dampak pengalaman belajar online, review dari karakteristik tradisional atau klasik pendidikan jarak jauh peserta didik sangat penting.
Jarak yang Klasik Pendidikan Learner
Profil sebelumnya yang online learner dapat untuk pelaksanaan pendidikan pengaturan jarak klasik (misalnya, rumah atau korespondensi belajar) di mana sebagian besar peserta didik adalah orang dewasa dengan pekerjaan, sosial, dan keluarga komitmen (Hanson et al., 1997). National Home Study Council (NHSC) didirikan pada 1926 mengumpulkan informasi tentang para mahasiswa dan menciptakan profil berikut demografis untuk rumah belajar siswa (Lambert, 2000): "Rata-rata berumur 34 tahun, 66% adalah laki-laki, 25% sekolah memiliki gelar ; lebih dari 50% telah memiliki beberapa perguruan pendidikan, dan lebih dari 75% adalah menikah "(hal. 11). Rumah belajar siswa juga digambarkan sebagai motivasi diri, berorientasi tujuan, dan disiplin diri starters.
J akademik diri siswa-konsep ini juga ditampilkan untuk menjadi tukang ramal kunci untuk keberhasilan pendidikan di kejauhan pengaturan. Dille dan Mezack (1991) belajar profil siswa yang terdaftar di telecourses (program-program yang disampaikan melalui televisi) yang berfokus pada tempat kontrol (internal / eksternal atribusi keberhasilan dan kegagalan) dan gaya belajar (misalnya, lisan, visual, atau kinesthetic) sebagai predictors keberhasilan pendidikan jarak antara sekolah siswa. Mereka menemukan bahwa tempat kontrol adalah signifikan tukang ramal kegigihan dan keberhasilan dalam program pendidikan jarak jauh. Khususnya, siswa dengan tempat kontrol internal (orang-orang yang sukses dan kegagalan atribut pada tugas untuk perilaku pribadi dan upaya) yang lebih besar untuk mencapai keberhasilan (menerima nilai C atau lebih baik) dan bertahan (menyelesaikan telecourse) dalam telecourse selain itu siswa dengan eksternal dari tempat kontrol (atribut orang-orang yang sukses dan kegagalan pada tugas ke tak terkendali atau faktor eksternal seperti keberuntungan atau tugas kesulitan).
Beberapa studi lainnya diperiksa siswa sikap, karakteristik kepribadian, belajar praktek, harga saja selesai, dan akademis, psikologis, dan integrasi sosial untuk mengidentifikasi variabel hambatan untuk kegigihan dalam pendidikan jarak jauh dan untuk menentukan predictors prestasi saja berhasil (misalnya, Bernt & Bugbee, Biner , Bink, Huffman & Dean, 1995; Fjortoff, 1995; Garland, 1993; Laube, 1992; Pugliese, 1994; Stone, 1992; 1993;). Semuanya hasil dari studi menunjukkan bahwa pd hakekatnya peserta didik memiliki motivasi yang tinggi dari tempat kontrol internal, digabungkan dengan sikap yang positif terhadap instruktur dan harapan yang tinggi untuk menyelesaikan gelar dan nilai yang lebih besar untuk berhasil dalam jarak pendidikan saja. Menariknya, gaya belajar individu tidak membuktikan menjadi tukang ramal yang cukup sukses, yang menjadi alasan bahwa pendidikan jarak jauh adalah inherently accommodating untuk berbagai cara belajar (Dille & Mezack, 1991). Temuan ini konsisten dengan karakteristik pedagogi didukung teknologi lingkungan belajar, dan khususnya, berbasis web atau online lingkungan belajar yang menekankan interaksi dan kolaborasi. Seperti lingkungan yang multimodal (dukungan audio, video, dan teks), individu dan kelompok menyediakan ruang interaksi di sinkronis dan asynchronous format, dukungan linear dan nonlinear keterwakilan konten, dan menyediakan berbagai alat untuk belajar untuk memenuhi berbagai cara belajar individu . Sebagai Brown (2000) dinyatakan,
"The Web memberikan pertandingan antara kami membutuhkan media dan cara belajar orang tertentu" (hal 12).
Alam yang Mengubah dari Jarak Pendidikan Learner
Penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa meskipun jarak pendidikan bagi peserta didik yang luas dan berubah karakteristik demografi, tidak ada bukti nyata bahwa kelompok ini adalah homogen atau unchanging (Thompson, 1998). Bahkan, profil yang sedang online jarak peserta didik dapat muncul sebagai ciri, responsif terhadap inovasi teknologi yang cepat dan paradigma baru belajar, dan progresif termasuk golongan usia muda. Dalam terakhir Sloan Consortium melaporkan status online belajar di Amerika Serikat, Allen dan Seaman (2006) melaporkan bahwa undergraduates mewakili 82,4% dari total populasi mahasiswa perguruan tinggi mengambil minimal satu saja online. Penelitian juga menunjukkan bahwa pemuda hari ini, yang semakin berkembang dengan Internet dan Web berbasis teknologi seperti mesin pencari, olahpesan cepat, besar-besaran
multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG), Podcasting, vodcasting, sosial bookmark dan folksonomies, baik yang siap untuk terlibat dalam kegiatan belajar secara online yang mendukung interaksi dan kolaborasi (Dabbagh & Bannan-Ritland, 2005). Selain itu, didistribusikan online penyampaian model pembelajaran seperti itu, karena ilmu jaringan, belajar masyarakat, asynchronous belajar jaringan, dan pengetahuan portal, dirancang untuk secara efektif memenuhi karakteristik ini muncul learner penduduk.
Model ini mendukung interaksi dengan rekan-rekan di ruang virtual pada tim proyek, terlibat dalam wacana online, meneliti kertas menggunakan istilah Web berbasis sumber daya, dan pengembangan situs web dan produk digital untuk menunjukkan belajar. Meskipun Xers Generation (lahir 1960-1980) terus mewakili sebagian besar peserta didik pendidikan jarak jauh online, generasi Nexters (lahir 1980-2000) akan segera mewakili cukup besar dari populasi ini, dengan membawa mereka baru teknologi komunikasi dan keahlian. Jarak pendidikan penduduk secara keseluruhan juga semakin heterogen atau beraneka ragam, meliputi mahasiswa dari berbagai budaya dan latar belakang pendidikan (Dabbagh & Bannan-Ritland, 2005). Globalisasi dari pendidikan jarak jauh memungkinkan siswa dari seluruh dunia untuk berpartisipasi dalam kegiatan belajar-mengajar secara online, seperti bergabung dengan moderator listservs, berpartisipasi dalam seminar online, dan berbagi informasi melalui
pengetahuan portal. Selain itu, pendidikan jarak jauh peserta didik menjadi kurang terikat lokasi. Thompson (1998) pada titik ini dijabarkan sebagai berikut: "semakin, siswa di dekat institusi pendidikan tradisional yang memilih belajar jarak tidak karena merupakan satu-satunya alternatif, tetapi karena ia adalah pilihan alternatif" (hal. 13). Atraksi ke-teknologi inovatif mediated lingkungan belajar dan fleksibel saja jadwal pengiriman adalah dua alasan yang tercantum pada keinginan untuk berada di luar arus utama pendidikan.
The Emerging Online Learner
Konsep independen, tempat-terikat, dewasa, memotivasi diri, berdisiplin selfstarter, tujuan dan berorientasi learner, yang sebagian besar ciri klasik pendidikan jarak jauh peserta didik, sekarang sedang cacat sosial mediated online dengan kegiatan belajar-mengajar yang menekankan independen de-learning dan menekankan interaksi sosial dan kolaborasi. Seperti yang dinyatakan oleh Anderson dan Garrison (1998), "The kemerdekaan isolasi dan karakteristik dari era industri pendidikan jarak sedang terlawan oleh kolaborasi pendekatan belajar dimungkinkan oleh jaringan belajar" (hal. 100). Oleh karena itu, online peserta didik harus siap untuk berbagi pekerjaan mereka, berinteraksi dalam kelompok kecil dan besar di virtual pengaturan, dan berkolaborasi pada proyek online atau risiko isolasi dalam masyarakat berkembang semakin tergantung pada konektivitas dan interaksi. Diberikan konteks baru ini, apa yang dianggap karakteristik dan keterampilan yang muncul online learner?
Penelitian menunjukkan bahwa kemampuan komunikasi dan interpersonal dan kelancaran dalam penggunaan teknologi kolaboratif online belajar sangat penting untuk kompetensi online learner (Dabbagh & Bannan-Ritland, 2005). Williams (2003) menemukan bahwa interpersonal dan komunikasi yang berhubungan dengan keterampilan (termasuk keterampilan menulis) didominasi atas 10 kompetensi umum di semua peran dalam program pendidikan jarak didukung oleh Internet.
Powell (2000) dijelaskan online learner sebagai seseorang yang "sangat nyaman dengan komunikasi tertulis, yang mengerti dengan teknologi web, dan ahli dengan komputer." Selain itu, Cheurprakobkit, Hale, dan Olson (2002) melaporkan bahwa kurangnya pengetahuan dan keterampilan di penggunaan online belajar teknologi, khususnya teknologi komunikasi dan kolaborasi, dapat hadir hambatan untuk pembelajaran bagi siswa dalam pembelajaran pengaturan online. Karakteristik penting lain dari online learner yang membawa maju dari profil klasik jarak learner adalah diri diarahkan belajar. Cukup diarahkan belajar dapat digambarkan sebagai keterampilan "belajar cara belajar," atau makhluk metacognitively sadar sendiri belajar (Olgren, 1998, hal 82). Cheurprakobkit dkk. (2002) melaporkan bahwa siswa belajar dalam lingkungan online harus memiliki "diri" perilaku seperti selfdiscipline, pemantauan diri, inisiatif sendiri, dan swakelola yang karakteristik sendiri-sendiri diatur atau diarahkan belajar. Mengingat fisik tanpa instruktur dalam pembelajaran online, kemampuan peserta didik untuk memonitor dan mengatur pembelajaran mereka sendiri sangat penting.
Selain itu, online peserta didik harus memahami dan menghargai kesempatan belajar afforded oleh teknologi komunikasi dan kolaborasi untuk terlibat secara konstruktif dan aktif dalam belajar. Beberapa peserta didik adalah inherently diambil ke rekan interaksi atau kolaborasi, sedangkan yang lain harus memahami nilai pendidikan ini constructs pedagogis. Being inherently diambil untuk interaksi dapat dicirikan sebagai individu yang disebut dalam sastra sebagai kebutuhan afiliasi. Online di lingkungan belajar yang diperlukan untuk afiliasi dapat diinterpretasikan sebagai harus terhubung atau milik kelompok pendukung (MacKeracher, 1996). Sebuah komunitas praktik (COP) sebagai contoh bagaimana kebutuhan afiliasi nyata dapat belajar sendiri dalam lingkungan online. Anggota dari COP memahami sosial yang ada di pikiran yang bekerja dan berbagi pengetahuan adalah modal intelektual. COP adalah model pedagogis beralasan dalam teori belajar sebagai suatu proses sosial dan dilaksanakan secara online melalui pengetahuan konteks jaringan, asynchronous belajar jaringan, dan lainnya Internet dan Web berbasis teknologi komunikasi dan kolaborasi (Wenger & Snyder, 2000).
Walaupun masih perlu online peserta didik untuk (a) bertindak competently pada mereka sendiri, (b) memiliki keyakinan mereka dalam pengetahuan, keterampilan, dan kinerja, dan (c) mempelajari cara membuat dan mengatur keberadaan pribadi; sensing atau Exhibiting perlu afiliasi adalah kunci untuk sukses dan bermakna online pengalaman belajar (Dabbagh & Bannan-Ritland,2005).
Karakteristik Online Learner
Secara ringkas, berikut ini karakteristik dan keterampilan yang dianggap penting untuk keberhasilan belajar online:
• Memiliki kuat akademik mandiri konsep.
• Exhibiting kelancaran dalam penggunaan teknologi pembelajaran online.
• Memiliki interpersonal dan kemampuan komunikasi.
• Memahami dan valuing interaksi kolaboratif dan belajar.
• Memiliki internal dari tempat kontrol.
• Exhibiting diri diarahkan belajar keterampilan.
• Exhibiting perlu afiliasi.
Kompetensi dalam penggunaan online belajar teknologi, khususnya teknologi komunikasi dan kolaborasi, tidak menjamin bermakna interaksi, kolaborasi, dan pengetahuan dalam membangun lingkungan belajar online (Lindblom-Ylanne & Pihlajamaki, 2003). Oleh karena itu, di samping sebelumnya tercantum karakteristik dan keterampilan, peserta didik harus memiliki online atau mengembangkan kemampuan belajar kolaboratif independen dari teknologi ini. Ini termasuk kemampuan belajar keterampilan sosial, atau tdk dialogical keterampilan, evaluasi diri dan kelompok keterampilan, dan kemampuan refleksi (Comeaux, Huber, Kasprzak, & Nixon, 1998; Spector, 1999). Setiap keahlian yang sebentar dijelaskan dalam bagian berikut.
Sosial Keterampilan Belajar
Belajar keterampilan sosial yang mendukung pengambilan keputusan, komunikasi, membangun kepercayaan, dan manajemen konflik, semua komponen yang penting untuk kerjasama efektif. Belajar keterampilan sosial yang diperlukan untuk mengambil peran kepemimpinan serta lainnya biasanya peran yang ditugaskan di tim.
Melompat-lompat atau Dialogical Keterampilan
Melompat-lompat atau dialogical keterampilan termasuk kemampuan untuk mendiskusikan masalah-masalah (yang melompat-lompat), perdebatan dan berbagi ide, negosiasi makna, menunjukkan sikap ke beberapa sudut pandang, baik dan memiliki artikulasi dan keterampilan mendengarkan.
Kelompok Evaluasi diri dan Keterampilan
Evaluasi diri sendiri dan kelompok keterampilan termasuk cara belajar yang akan bertanggung jawab secara individu untuk (a) yang aktif dan terlibat dalam kegiatan kelompok (b) melakukan adil berbagi kerja dan (c) membantu anggota kelompok lainnya untuk menunjukkan kompetensi dan prestasi belajar (yakni, promotive interaksi).
Refleksi Keterampilan
Refleksi keterampilan termasuk kemampuan untuk menerapkan dan sering substantif pertimbangan dan penilaian sendiri belajar proses dan produk dan proses belajar grup dan produk. Peserta didik harus terampil dalam manajemen waktu dan strategi yang orienting membantu mereka mempersiapkan diri untuk belajar, kognitif dan strategi pembelajaran yang dapat membantu mereka berinteraksi dengan belajar meaningfully konten. Selain itu, keterampilan manajemen waktu dan strategi orienting memiliki dampak langsung pada kolaborasi dalam hal belajar efektif dan efisien melaksanakan tanggung jawab yang aktif dan akuntabel anggota grup. Cognitive strategi pembelajaran, di sisi lain, yang dikatakan paling relevan untuk setiap kemampuan untuk mencerminkan atas, memantau, dan menilai sendiri bila melaksanakan suatu tugas pembelajaran. Untuk meringkas, sukses online learner harus
1. Jadi terampil dalam penggunaan online belajar teknologi, khususnya teknologi komunikasi dan kolaborasi.
2. Ada yang kuat akademik mandiri konsep dan interpersonal yang baik dan kemampuan komunikasi.
3. Memiliki dasar pemahaman dan apresiasi dari pembelajaran dan kolaborasi dalam mengembangkan kompetensi yang berkaitan dengan keterampilan.
4. Mendapatkan diri diarahkan belajar keterampilan melalui penyebaran dari manajemen waktu dan strategi pembelajaran kognitif.
Implikasi pedagogis
Untuk mengakomodasi secara efektif, dukungan, dan mempromosikan karakteristik dan keterampilan peserta didik yang berhasil online seperti dibahas dalam makalah ini, online belajar developer, instruktur, dan guru harus mempertimbangkan dua model pedagogis saat mereka merancang dan kursus online belajar interaksi: penyelidikan dan dialogical.
Penyelidikan Pedagogical Model
Penyelidikan model pembelajaran didasarkan pada teori membangun dari discovery atau inquiry-based learning, di mana peserta didik diberikan dengan penyelidikan ilmiah seperti asli atau masalah yang ada pada konten daerah dan diminta untuk membuat hipotesa, mengumpulkan informasi yang relevan dengan berbagai sumber daya, dan memberikan solusi, rencana aksi, rekomendasi, dan interpretasi terhadap situasi (Dabbagh & Bannan-Ritland, 2005). Contoh-contoh dari model termasuk Microworlds, simulasi, WebQuests, kognitif magang, terletak belajar, dan problem-based learning. Ini mendukung model pembelajaran kolaboratif, interpersonal dan kemampuan komunikasi, belajar keterampilan sosial, evaluasi diri sendiri dan kelompok keahlian, kemampuan refleksi, dan mandiri diarahkan belajar keterampilan, yang semuanya adalah ciri-ciri yang berhasil online learner. Penyelidikan atau pengalaman dengan modus belajar online disediakan dalam pembelajaran melalui penggunaan beberapa online belajar teknologi, termasuk hypermedia, multimedia, mesin pencari, digital audio dan video, gambar, dan self-modul instruksional yang dikembangkan dengan menggunakan berbagai peralatan authoring. Contoh bagaimana penyelidikan model dapat diterapkan dalam pembelajaran online adalah sebagai berikut:
• Menggunakan Web-based authoring tools dan bahasa scripting untuk mengembangkan modul instruksional selfcontained seperti simulasi Microworlds dan siswa yang terlibat dalam penyelidikan-jenis kegiatan.
• Menyediakan sumber daya berbasis web dan multimedia hypermedia menggunakan link untuk mendukung siswa kegiatan penyelidikan.
• Memberikan link ke mesin pencari di situs saja memungkinkan siswa untuk mencari sumber-sumber berbasis web untuk mempromosikan eksplorasi.
• Memberikan link ke database online dan pengetahuan repositori yang menyediakan real time data seperti up-to-date informasi cuaca dan lainnya dan data ilmiah
statistik.
• Memberikan siswa dengan Web postingan daerah dan alat-alat yang tepat untuk mempublikasikan pekerjaan mereka (misalnya, konsep kertas, solusi masalah, dll). Siswa dapat terlibat dalam pelaksanaan evaluasi setiap rekan kerja lainnya, gerak reflektif berpikir. Ketika merancang online belajar berdasarkan penyelidikan model pedagogis, keputusan sebagai yang belajar atau kombinasi dari teknologi pembelajaran akan menggunakan teknologi untuk istirahat akhirnya pada keahlian belajar online pengembang, sumber daya yang tersedia dan teknologi, karakteristik dari para penonton, dan instruksional karakteristik dari model pedagogis dilaksanakan (Dabbagh & Bannan-Ritland, 2005). J populer dengan aktivitas online belajar K-12 guru yang mendukung banyak dari penyelidikan instruksional karakteristik model pembelajaran adalah WebQuest. J WebQuest merupakan penyelidikan berorientasi pada kegiatan yang sebagian besar atau semua informasi yang digunakan oleh peserta didik yang diambil dari Web. WebQuests dirancang untuk digunakan peserta didik 'waktu untuk membantu mereka fokus pada menggunakan informasi daripada mencari, dan untuk mendukung peserta didik' berpikir di tingkat analisis, sintesis dan evaluasi. (Dodge, n.d.)
Dialogical Pedagogical Model
Dialogical model pembelajaran menekankan interaksi sosial melalui dialog dan percakapan. Intinya adalah untuk membantu peserta didik dalam membangun pengetahuan baru terutama melalui dialog sebagai satu bentuk interaksi. Internet dan Web berbasis teknologi menyediakan berbagai mekanisme untuk mendukung dialog yang berkaitan dengan baik formal dan informal situasi belajar. Misalnya, sebuah web berbasis forum kelompok (diskusi board) dapat mendukung formal bertukar percakapan yang terjadi dalam mendukung tujuan-tujuan instruksional khusus atau informal percakapan pertukaran konten berdasarkan minat (Dabbagh & Bannan-Ritland, 2005). Kedua bursa angkat bicara rasa dan milik masyarakat. Contoh dialogical pedagogis model pembelajaran termasuk masyarakat, membangun pengetahuan masyarakat, dan masyarakat dari praktek. Model ini menekankan atau tdk dialogical keterampilan seperti artikulasi, refleksi, kerjasama, negosiasi dan sosial, serta evaluasi diri dan kelompok keterampilan yang mendukung karakteristik
peserta didik yang berhasil online. Online teknologi pembelajaran yang mendukung pelaksanaan model pedagogis dialogical termasuk asynchronous sinkronis dan alat-alat, seperti email, papan buletin atau forum diskusi, listservs, komputer conferencing, groupware, berbagi dokumen, virtual chat, dan video conferencing. Contoh cara dialogical pedagogis model dapat dilaksanakan dalam belajar online meliputi:
• Menyiapkan online diskusi kelompok terfokus di sekitar wilayah topik atau aktivitas spesifik, tujuan, atau proyek, seperti studi kasus, menggunakan asynchronous dalam forum diskusi untuk meningkatkan kerjasama dan sosial negosiasi. Beberapa kelompok diskusi daerah bisa buka dan berakhir unmoderated, memungkinkan siswa untuk mengumpulkan informasi dari satu sama lain, sedangkan yang lain dapat mengambil bentuk struktur diskusi online.
• Merancang kegiatan yang memungkinkan anggota kelompok untuk berbagi dokumen-dokumen yang berhubungan dengan salah satu grup proyek. Berbagi dokumen secara online adalah sebuah kolaborasi dalam berbagai kegiatan dan dapat dari sekadar menampilkan dokumen di Web yang posting ke daerah yang memiliki anggota kelompok bekerja secara bersamaan pada sebuah dokumen menggunakan groupware (aplikasi berbagi alat). Bila dokumen ditampilkan, anggota kelompok dapat membahas isinya melalui email, videoconferencing, atau chatting. Groupware ketika digunakan, anggota kelompok dapat bersama-sama mengedit dokumen online dan dokumen catatan jika groupware memiliki built-in penjelasan sistem.
• Terlibat siswa sinkronis komunikasi menggunakan virtual chatting dan videoconferencing. Real-time kolaboratif kegiatan untuk membolehkan kelompok brainstorming ide, perdebatan masalah, dan mengembangkan rencana aksi yang terbatas dan dalam waktu singkat.
Tambahan contoh aplikasi online belajar yang mendukung dialogical pedagogis adalah model MUDs dan MOOs (Dabbagh & Bannan-Ritland, 2005). MUDs dan pengetahuan MOOs adalah jaringan yang menekankan interaksi sosial dan negosiasi melalui Roleplaying. J MUD (Pengguna Multiple Dungeon atau Multiple Pengguna Dimensi) adalah "lengkap di dunia maya yang menjadi tubuh karakter Anda untuk navigasi yang mengadopsi dunia" (Hall, 2001, hal 55). User menjelajahi dunia maya secara real time dan biasanya bersamaan dengan pengguna lain yang juga mengendalikan karakter. Pengguna dapat berbicara dengan satu sama lain dan membentuk tim. Tema, isi, dan gaya MUD bervariasi dari satu ke yang berikutnya. MUDs berasal dari permainan bernama Dungeons Dragons dan dikembangkan untuk multi-pengguna di Internet. Pengaturan dalam pendidikan, MUDs digunakan sebagai alat untuk kolaborasi siswa. "Dalam pembelajaran berbasis web, simulasi peran memerankan dapat difasilitasi melalui Multi-User Dialog (MUD) lingkungan, dimana instruktur membuat multi-user ruang dengan pusat tema, karakter dan seni" (Khan, 2001, p.81)
.
J Moo (Multi-User Berorientasi Objek lingkungan) adalah jenis MUD yang memberikan pengguna kesempatan untuk mengalami dunia maya sebagai pemain dari permainan atau penjelajah dari tema atau kursus. Sebuah perbedaan penting antara MOOs dan MUDs adalah bahwa MOOs menggunakan multimedia, sedangkan MUDs terutama yang berbasis teks. Selain itu, MOOs berkembang menjadi ruang-ruang sosial, pinjaman itu sendiri lebih siap untuk digunakan sebagai ruang kelas virtual atau sebagai ruang untuk konferensi dan pertemuan (Pusat Pengajaran Enhancement Workshop sinkronis Komunikasi, 1997). Sebagai contoh, adalah Tapped Dalam COP yang mendukung pelaksanaan MOOs dalam konteks kelas. Untuk melihat contoh bagaimana MUDs dan MOOs digunakan di dalam kelas, pergi ke http://ti2data.sri.com/info/teachers/mare.html.
Kesimpulan
Profil online learner penduduk berubah dari satu yang lama, kebanyakan bekerja, tempat terikat, berorientasi tujuan, dan motivasi pd hakekatnya, untuk satu yang beragam, dinamis, sementara, muda, dan responsif terhadap perubahan teknologi yang cepat. Perubahan ini di profil poses pedagogis banyak tantangan yang dapat diatasi melalui pemahaman yang lebih baik dari munculnya online learner. Yang muncul online learner dapat digambarkan sebagai seseorang yang kuat memiliki konsep diri akademik; yang kompeten dalam penggunaan online belajar teknologi, khususnya teknologi komunikasi dan kolaborasi; mengerti, nilai, dan melakukan interaksi sosial dan kolaborasi pembelajaran; memiliki kuat antar dan kemampuan komunikasi, dan yang diarahkan sendiri. Untuk mendukung dan meningkatkan kemampuan dan karakteristik ini lebih efektif, online saja pengembang, instruktur, atau guru harus fokus pada online merancang lingkungan belajar yang mendukung penyelidikan dialogical dan belajar. Penyelidikan dan dialogical lingkungan belajar peserta didik terlibat dalam kegiatan belajar online yang membutuhkan kerjasama, komunikasi, interaksi sosial, refleksi, evaluasi, dan mandiri diarahkan belajar. Karena karakteristik dan keterampilan online learner populasi terus muncul di generasi masa depan dan teknologi, lebih immersive pedagogis akan mengembangkan model, transformasi desain online belajar lingkungan.
Referensi
Allen, I.E., & Seaman, J. (2006, November). Membuat grade: Online pendidikan di Amerika Serikat. Sloan Consortium dan Babson Survey Research Group. Diperoleh http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/index.asp
Anderson, T.D., & Garrison, D.R. (1998). Belajar dalam jaringan dunia: Baru peran dan tanggung jawab. Dalam C.C. Gibson (ed.), Jarak peserta didik dalam pendidikan tinggi (pp. 97-112). Madison, WI: Atwood Publishing.
Bernt, F.L., & Bugbee, A.C. (1993). Belajar praktek dan sikap yang berkaitan dengan akademik sukses dalam program pembelajaran jarak jauh. Pendidikan jarak, 14 (1), 97-112.
Biner, AM, Bink, ML, Huffman, ML, & Dean, RS (1995). Differentiating kepribadian dan karakteristik yang predicting pencapaian televised-kursus dan tradisional siswa-siswa saja. American Journal of Distance Education, 9 (2), 46-60.
Brown, J.S. (2000). Growing up digital: Bagaimana Web perubahan pekerjaan, pendidikan, dan cara orang belajar. Diperoleh Jul 27, 2007, dari http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/FEB02_Issue/article01.html
Cheurprakobkit, S., Hale, D.F., & Olson, J.N. (2002). Teknisi 'persepsi tentang program-program berbasis web: The University of Texas sistem pengalaman. American Journal of Distance Education, 16 (4), 245-258.
Comeaux, P., Huber, R., Kasprzak, J., & Nixon, MA (1998). Kolaboratif dalam pembelajaran berbasis web instruksi. Kertas disajikan di 3. WebNet 98 Konferensi Dunia di WWW, Internet, dan Intranet, Orlando, FL.
Dabbagh, N., & Bannan-Ritland, B. (2005). Online learning: Konsep, strategi, dan aplikasi. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Dille, B., & Mezack, M. (1991). Mengidentifikasi predictors yang berisiko tinggi di kalangan masyarakat kampus telecourse siswa. American Journal of Distance Education, 2 (1), 25-37.
Dodge, B. (n.d.). Apa yang dimaksud dengan WebQuest? Diperoleh Jul 27, 2007, dari rumah WebQuest halaman: http://webquest.org
Fjortoff, N.F. (1995, Oktober). Predicting kegigihan dalam program pembelajaran jarak jauh. Kertas disajikan di Mid-Western Pendidikan Penelitian Rapat, Chicago. (ERIC
Dilarang memperbanyak dokumen Layanan No ED 387 620). Galusha, J. M. (1997). Hambatan untuk belajar dalam pendidikan jarak jauh. Interpersonal Komputasi dan Teknologi, 5 (3-4), 6-14.
Garland, M. R. (1993). Siswa persepsi yang berubah, kelembagaan, dispositional, epistemological dan hambatan untuk kegigihan. Pendidikan jarak, 14 (2), 181-198.
Hall, B. (1997). Pelatihan berbasis web masak. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc
Hanson, D., Maushak, NJ, Schlosser, CA, Anderson, ML, Sorensen, C., & Simonson, M. (1997). Jarak Pendidikan: Tinjauan Literatur yang (2nd ed.). Bloomington, Indiana: Asosiasi untuk Pendidikan Komunikasi dan Teknologi.
Khan, B.H. (2001). Kerangka kerja untuk pelatihan berbasis Web. Dalam B.H. Khan (ed.), Web-based pelatihan (pp. 75-97). Englewood tebing, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Lambert, M.P. (2000). Rumah belajar warisan. Dalam M.G. Moore & N. Shin (Eds.), Berbicara tentang jarak pribadi pendidikan dasar-dasar praktek kontemporer (pp. 7-11). University Park, PA: The American Pusat Kajian untuk Pendidikan Jarak di Pennsylvania State University.
Laube, M.R. (1992). Akademik dan sosial integrasi variabel dan sekunder kegigihan mahasiswa dalam pendidikan jarak jauh. Penelitian dalam Pendidikan Jarak, 4 (1), 2-5.
Lindblom-Ylanne, S., & Pihlajamaki, H. (2003). Yang dapat meningkatkan kolaborasi jaringan lingkungan menulis esei-proses? British Journal of Educational Technology, 34 (1), 17 - 30.
MacKeracher, D. (1996). Membuat rasa dewasa belajar. Toronto: Budaya Concepts.
Olgren, C.H. (1998). Meningkatkan hasil pembelajaran: Dampak dari strategi dan motivasi belajar. Dalam C.C. Gibson (ed.), Jarak peserta didik dalam pendidikan tinggi (pp. 77-96). Madison, WI: Atwood Publishing.
Powell, G.C. (2000). Apakah Anda siap untuk WBT? (Kertas No. 39). Diperoleh Jul 27, 2007, dari instruksional Teknologi Forum Web site: http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper39/paper39.html
Pugliese, R.R. (1994). Telecourse kegigihan dan variabel psikologis. American Journal of Distance Education, 8 (3), 22-39.
Spector, J. M. (1999, Februari-Maret). Guru sebagai desainer kolaboratif dari jarak jauh. Kertas 10. Dipresentasikan pada pertemuan tahunan dari Masyarakat Informasi Teknologi Pendidikan Guru International Conference, San Antonio, TX. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No ED 432 259)
Batu, T. E. (1992). Baru melihat peran dari tempat di dalam menyelesaikan tingkat pendidikan jarak jauh. Penelitian dalam Pendidikan Jarak, 4 (2), 6-9.
Thompson, M.M. (1998). Jarak peserta didik dalam pendidikan tinggi. Dalam C.C. Gibson (ed.), Jarak peserta didik dalam pendidikan tinggi (pp. 9-24). Madison, WI: Atwood Publishing.
Wenger, E.C., & Snyder, W.M. (2000, Januari-Februari). Masyarakat dari praktek: The organisasi perbatasan. Harvard Business Review, 139-145.
Williams, P.E. (2003). Peran dan kompetensi dari jarak program pendidikan di institusi pendidikan tinggi. American Journal of Distance Education, 17 (1), 45-57.
Catatan penulis:
Nada Dabbagh
College of Education and Human Development George Mason University ndabbagh@gmu.edu Isu Kontemporer di Teknologi dan Pendidikan Guru merupakan jurnal online. Semua teks, tabel, dan tokoh-tokoh dalam versi cetak dari artikel ini adalah tepat pernyataan yang asli. However, the original article may also include video and audio files, which can be accessed on the World Wide Web at http://www.citejournal.org
Senin, 27 April 2009
The Online Learner: Characteristics and Pedagogical Implications
Abstract
Globalization has stretched the scope of the online learner population from a homogeneous profile of mostly adult, mostly employed, place-bound, goaloriented, and intrinsically motivated to one that is heterogeneous, younger, dynamic, and responsive to rapid technological innovations. This paper describes the emerging characteristics of the online learner and ensuing pedagogical implications and suggests that exploratory and dialogical online learning pedagogical models are most effective for supporting and promoting these characteristics. The research to date has not converged on an archetypal profile of the online learner. Although some situational, affective, and demographic characteristics may cut across this learner population, what seems to be more prevalent is the changing or emerging nature of the online learner and the multiplicity of learning styles and generational differences represented. This situation carries considerable pedagogical implications for the design of online learning environments and necessitates a review of the research to determine the characteristics and skills of the emerging online learner. Determining the characteristics and educational needs of the online learner may not necessarily guarantee success in a distance education course or program (Galusha, 1997). It could, however, significantly help administrators, teachers, and instructional designers understand (a) who is likely to participate in online learning, (b) what factors or motivators contribute to a successful online learning experience, and (c) the potential barriers detering some students from participating in or successfully completing an online course. In order to better understand the characteristics and perceived skills of the online learner and the underlying motivations and barriers that impact successful online learning experiences, a review of the characteristics of the traditional or classic distance education learner is essential.
The Classic Distance Education Learner
Earlier profiles of the online learner can be traced to classic distance education settings (e.g., correspondence or home study) where most learners were adults with occupational, social, and family commitments (Hanson et al., 1997). The National Home Study Council (NHSC) founded in 1926 collected information about its students and created the following demographic profile for home study students (Lambert, 2000): “Average age is 34 years; 66% are male; 25% have a college degree; over 50% have had some college education; and over 75% are married” (p. 11). Home study students were also described as self-motivated, goal-oriented, and disciplined self-starters.
A student’s academic self-concept was also shown to be a key predictor for success in a distance education setting. Dille and Mezack (1991) studied the profile of students who enrolled in telecourses (courses delivered through television) focusing on locus of control (internal/external attribution of success and failure) and learning style (e.g., verbal, visual, or kinesthetic) as predictors of success among college distance education students. They found that locus of control is a significant predictor of success and persistence in distance education courses. Specifically, students with an internal locus of control (those who attribute success and failure on tasks to personal behaviors and efforts) were more likely to succeed (receive a grade of C or better) and persevere (complete a telecourse) in a telecourse than did students with an external locus of control (those who attribute success and failure on tasks to external or uncontrollable factors such as luck or task difficulty).
Several other studies examined student attitudes, personality characteristics, study practices, course completion rates, and other academic, psychological, and social integration variables to identify barriers to persistence in distance education and determine predictors for successful course achievement (e.g., Bernt & Bugbee, Biner, Bink, Huffman & Dean, 1995; Fjortoff, 1995; Garland, 1993; Laube, 1992; Pugliese, 1994; Stone, 1992; 1993;). Overall results of such studies indicated that intrinsically motivated learners possessing a high internal locus of control, coupled with a positive attitude toward the instructor and a high expectation for grades and degree completion were more likely to succeed in a distance education course. Interestingly, individual learning style did not prove to be a significant predictor of success, the rationale being that distance education is inherently accommodating for a variety of learning styles (Dille & Mezack, 1991). This finding is consistent with the pedagogical characteristics of technology supported learning environments and, in particular, Web-based or online learning environments that emphasize interaction and collaboration. Such environments are multimodal (support audio, video, and text), provide individual and group interaction spaces in synchronous and asynchronous formats, support linear and nonlinear representation of content, and provide a variety of learning tools to cater to a variety of individual learning styles. As Brown (2000) stated,
“The Web affords the match we need between a medium and how a particular person learns” (p. 12).
The Changing Nature of the Distance Education Learner
This research demonstrates that although distance education learners share broad demographic and situational characteristics, no concrete evidence indicates that this group is homogeneous or unchanging (Thompson, 1998). In fact, the current profile of the online distance learner can be characterized as emerging, responsive to rapid technological innovations and new learning paradigms, and progressively including a younger age bracket. In a recent Sloan Consortium report on the state of online learning in the United States, Allen and Seaman (2006) reported that undergraduates represented 82.4% of the total population of higher education students taking at least one course online. Research also suggests that today’s youth, who are increasingly growing up with Internet and Web-based technologies such as search engines, instant messaging, massive
multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPG), podcasting, vodcasting, social bookmarking and folksonomies, are well prepared to engage in online learning activities that support interaction and collaboration (Dabbagh & Bannan-Ritland, 2005). In addition, distributed online learning delivery models such, as knowledge networks, learning communities, asynchronous learning networks, and knowledge portals, are designed to effectively meet the characteristics of this emerging learner population.
These models support interacting with peers in virtual spaces on team projects, engaging in online discourse, researching term papers using Web-based resources, and developing Web sites and digital products to demonstrate learning. Although Generation Xers (born 1960-1980) continue to represent the majority of online distance education learners, generation Nexters (born 1980-2000) will soon represent a sizable portion of this population, bringing with them new communication and technological skill sets. The distance education population as a whole is also becoming more heterogeneous or diverse, encompassing students from a variety of cultural and educational backgrounds (Dabbagh & Bannan-Ritland, 2005). Globalization of distance education has enabled students from across the globe to participate in online learning activities, such as joining moderated listservs, participating in online seminars, and sharing information through
knowledge portals. Additionally, distance education learners are becoming less location bound. Thompson (1998) elaborated on this point as follows: “Increasingly, students in close proximity to traditional educational institutions are choosing distance study not because it is the only alternative, but rather because it is the preferred alternative” (p. 13). Attraction to innovative technology-mediated learning environments and flexible course delivery schedules are two of the reasons listed for the desire to be outside the educational mainstream.
The Emerging Online Learner
The concept of the independent, place-bound, adult, self-motivated, disciplined selfstarter, and goal-oriented learner, which largely characterized the classic distance education learner, is now being challenged with socially mediated online learning activities that de-emphasize independent learning and emphasize social interaction and collaboration. As stated by Anderson and Garrison (1998), “The independence and isolation characteristic of the industrial era of distance education is being challenged by the collaborative approaches to learning made possible by learning networks” (p. 100). Therefore, online learners must be ready to share their work, interact within small and large groups in virtual settings, and collaborate on projects online or otherwise risk isolation in a community growing increasingly dependent on connectivity and interaction. Given this new context, what are the perceived characteristics and skills of the emerging online learner?
Research indicates that interpersonal and communication skills and fluency in the use of collaborative online learning technologies are critical competencies for the online learner (Dabbagh & Bannan-Ritland, 2005). Williams (2003) found that interpersonal- and communication-related skills (which include writing skills) dominated the top 10 general competencies across all roles in distance education programs supported by the Internet.
Powell (2000) described the online learner as someone who is “very comfortable with written communications, somewhat savvy with Web technologies, and proficient with computers.” Additionally, Cheurprakobkit, Hale, and Olson (2002) reported that lack of knowledge and skill in the use of online learning technologies, particularly communication and collaborative technologies, could present barriers to learning for students in online learning settings. Another important characteristic of the online learner that carries forward from the profile of the classic distance learner is self-directed learning. Self-directed learning can be described as the skill of “learning how to learn,” or being metacognitively aware of one’s own learning (Olgren, 1998, p. 82). Cheurprakobkit et al. (2002) reported that students in online learning environments must possess “self” behaviors such as selfdiscipline, self-monitoring, self-initiative, and self-management, which are characteristics of self-regulated or self-directed learning. Given the physical absence of an instructor in online learning, the ability of learners to monitor and regulate their own learning is critical.
Furthermore, online learners must understand and value the learning opportunities afforded by collaborative and communication technologies in order to engage actively and constructively in learning. Some learners are inherently drawn to peer interaction or collaboration, while others need to understand the educational value of these pedagogical constructs. Being inherently drawn to interaction can be characterized as an individual difference referred to in the literature as the need for affiliation. In online learning environments the need for affiliation can be interpreted as the need to be connected or to belong to supportive groups (MacKeracher, 1996). A community of practice (COP) is an example of how the need for affiliation can manifest itself in online learning environments. Members of a COP understand that a social mind is at work and that knowledge is a shared intellectual capital. COP is a pedagogical model grounded in a theory of learning as a social process and implemented in an online context through knowledge networks, asynchronous learning networks, and other Internet and Web-based collaborative and communication technologies (Wenger & Snyder, 2000).
Although online learners still need to (a) act competently on their own; (b) have confidence in their knowledge, skills, and performance; and (c) learn how to create and manage a personal presence; sensing or exhibiting a need for affiliation is key to a successful and meaningful online learning experience (Dabbagh & Bannan-Ritland,
2005).
Characteristics of the Online Learner
In summary, the following characteristics and skills are perceived as critical to the success of the online learner:
• Having a strong academic self-concept.
• Exhibiting fluency in the use of online learning technologies.
• Possessing interpersonal and communication skills.
• Understanding and valuing interaction and collaborative learning.
• Possessing an internal locus of control.
• Exhibiting self-directed learning skills.
• Exhibiting a need for affiliation.
Competency in the use of online learning technologies, particularly communication and collaborative technologies, does not guarantee meaningful interaction, collaboration, and knowledge building in online learning environments (Lindblom-Ylanne & Pihlajamaki, 2003). Therefore, in addition to the previously listed characteristics and skills, online learners should possess or develop collaborative learning skills independent of these technologies. These skills include social learning skills, discursive or dialogical skills, self and group evaluation skills, and reflection skills (Comeaux, Huber, Kasprzak, & Nixon, 1998; Spector, 1999). Each of these skill sets are briefly described in the following section.
Social Learning Skills
Social learning skills support decision-making, communication, trust building, and conflict management, all of which are important components for effective collaboration. Social learning skills are needed to assume leadership roles as well as other roles typically assigned in teamwork.
Discursive or Dialogical Skills
Discursive or dialogical skills include the ability to discuss issues (being discursive), share and debate ideas, negotiate meaning, demonstrate openness to multiple perspectives, and possess good articulation and listening skills.
Self and Group Evaluation Skills
Self and group evaluation skills include learning how to be individually accountable for (a) being active and engaged in group activity (b) doing a fair share of the work and (c) helping other group members to demonstrate competence and learning achievement (i.e., promotive interaction).
Reflection Skills
Reflection skills include the ability to apply frequent and substantive consideration and assessment of one’s own learning process and products and the group's learning process and products. Learners must be skilled in time management and orienting strategies that help them prepare to learn, and in cognitive learning strategies that help them interact meaningfully with the learning content. In addition, time-management skills and orienting strategies have a direct impact on collaborative learning in terms of effectively and efficiently carrying out the responsibilities of being an active and accountable member of a group. Cognitive learning strategies, on the other hand, are perceived to be most relevant to an individual’s ability to reflect upon, monitor, and assess one’s own learning when carrying out a learning task. To summarize, a successful online learner should
1. Be skilled in the use of online learning technologies, particularly communication and collaborative technologies.
2. Have a strong academic self-concept and good interpersonal and communication skills.
3. Have a basic understanding and appreciation of collaborative learning and develop competencies in related skills.
4. Acquire self-directed learning skills through the deployment of time management and cognitive learning strategies.
Pedagogical Implications
To effectively accommodate, support, and promote the characteristics and skills of the successful online learner as discussed in this paper, online learning developers, instructors, and teachers should consider two pedagogical models when designing their online courses and learning interactions: exploratory and dialogical.
Exploratory Pedagogical Models
Exploratory learning models are based on the theoretical construct of discovery or inquiry-based learning, in which learners are provided with a scientific-like inquiry or authentic problem in a given content area and asked to generate a hypothesis, gather relevant information using a variety of resources, and provide solutions, action plans, recommendations, and interpretations of the situations (Dabbagh & Bannan-Ritland, 2005). Examples of such models include Microworlds, simulations, WebQuests, cognitive apprenticeships, situated learning, and problem-based learning. These models support collaborative learning, interpersonal and communication skills, social learning skills, self and group evaluation skills, reflection skills, and self-directed learning skills, all of which are characteristics of the successful online learner. The exploratory or experiential mode of learning is provided within online learning through the use of several online learning technologies, including hypermedia, multimedia, search engines, digital audio and video, graphics, and self-contained instructional modules developed using a variety of authoring tools. Examples of how exploratory models can be implemented in online learning include the following:
• Using Web-based authoring tools and scripting languages to develop selfcontained instructional modules such as Microworlds and simulations that engage students in exploratory-type activities.
• Providing Web-based resources using hypermedia and multimedia links to support students’ exploratory activities.
• Providing a link to a search engine in the course site enabling students to search for Web-based resources to promote exploration.
• Providing links to online databases and knowledge repositories that provide real time data such as up-to-date weather information and other scientific data and
statistics.
• Providing students with a Web posting area and appropriate tools to publish their work (e.g., draft papers, problem solutions, etc.). Students can then engage in an exercise of peer evaluation of each other’s work, prompting reflective thinking. When designing online learning based on exploratory pedagogical models, the decision as to which learning technologies or combination of learning technologies to use will rest ultimately on the expertise of the online learning developer, the available resources and technologies, the characteristics of the audience, and the instructional characteristics of the pedagogical model implemented (Dabbagh & Bannan-Ritland, 2005). A popular online learning activity with K-12 teachers that supports many of the instructional characteristics of exploratory learning models is a WebQuest. A WebQuest is an inquiry-oriented activity in which most or all of the information used by learners is drawn from the Web. WebQuests are designed to use learners’ time to help them focus on using information rather than looking for it, and to support learners’ thinking at the levels of analysis, synthesis and evaluation. (Dodge, n.d.)
Dialogical Pedagogical Models
Dialogical learning models emphasize social interaction through dialogue and conversation. The idea is to assist learners in constructing new knowledge primarily through dialogue as a form of interaction. Internet and Web-based technologies provide various mechanisms for supporting dialogue related to both informal and formal learning situations. For example, a Web-based group forum (discussion board) can support a formal conversational exchange that occurs in support of specific instructional objectives or an informal conversational exchange based on content interest (Dabbagh & Bannan- Ritland, 2005). Both of these conversational exchanges foster a sense of community and belonging. Examples of dialogical pedagogical models include learning communities, knowledge building communities, and communities of practice. These models emphasize discursive or dialogical skills such as articulation, reflection, collaboration, and social negotiation, as well as self and group evaluation skills, which support the characteristics
of successful online learners. Online learning technologies supporting the implementation of dialogical pedagogical models include asynchronous and synchronous tools, such as email, bulletin boards or discussion forums, listservs, computer conferencing, groupware, document sharing, virtual chat, and video conferencing. Examples of ways dialogical pedagogical models can
be implemented in online learning include the following:
• Setting up online group discussion areas focused around a topic or specific activity, goal, or project, such as a case study, using asynchronous discussion forums to promote collaboration and social negotiation. Some group discussion areas can be open ended and unmoderated, allowing students to solicit information from each other, while others can take the form of a structured online discussion.
• Designing activities that allow group members to share documents related to a group project. Sharing documents online is a collaborative activity and can range from simply displaying the document in a designated Web posting area to having group members work simultaneously on a document using groupware (an application sharing tool). When the document is displayed, group members can discuss its contents via email, videoconferencing, or chat. When groupware is used, group members can co-edit the document online and annotate the document if the groupware has built-in annotation systems.
• Engaging students in synchronous communication activities using virtual chat and videoconferencing. Real-time collaborative activities allow groups to brainstorm ideas, debate problems, and develop action plans in a finite and short period of time.
Additional examples of online learning applications that support dialogical pedagogical models are MUDs and MOOs (Dabbagh & Bannan-Ritland, 2005). MUDs and MOOs are knowledge networks that emphasize social interaction and negotiation through roleplaying. A MUD (Multiple User Dungeon or Multiple User Dimension) is a "complete virtual world in which you become the body of a character you adopt to navigate that world" (Hall, 2001, p. 55). Users explore the virtual world in real time and typically at the same time as other users who are also controlling characters. Users can talk to each other and form teams. Theme, content, and style vary from one MUD to the next. MUDs originated in a game called Dungeons and Dragons developed for multi-users on the Internet. In educational settings, MUDs are being used as a collaborative tool for students. “In Web-based learning, simulated role portrayal can be facilitated through Multi-User Dialogue (MUD) environments, in which instructors create a multi-user space with a central theme, characters and artifacts” (Khan, 2001, p.81).
A MOO (Multi-User Object Oriented environment) is a type of MUD that gives users the opportunity to experience virtual worlds as players of a game or explorers of a theme or course. An essential difference between MOOs and MUDs is that MOOs make use of multimedia, whereas MUDs are primarily text based. Additionally, MOOs developed into social spaces, lending themselves more readily for use as a virtual classroom or as spaces for conferences and meetings (Center for Teaching Enhancement Workshop on Synchronous Communication, 1997). For example, Tapped In is a COP that supports the implementation of MOOs in classroom contexts. To see an example of how MUDs and MOOs are used in the classroom, go to http://ti2data.sri.com/info/teachers/mare.html.
Conclusion
The profile of the online learner population is changing from one that is older, mostly employed, place bound, goal oriented, and intrinsically motivated, to one that is diverse, dynamic, tentative, younger, and responsive to rapid technological changes. This change in profile poses considerable pedagogical challenges that can be addressed through a better understanding of the emerging online learner. The emerging online learner can be described as someone who has a strong academic self-concept; is competent in the use of online learning technologies, particularly communication and collaborative technologies; understands, values, and engages in social interaction and collaborative learning; possesses strong interpersonal and communication skills; and is self-directed. In order to support and promote these characteristics and skills more effectively, the online course developer, instructor, or teacher should focus on designing online learning environments that support exploratory and dialogical learning. Exploratory and dialogical learning environments engage learners in online learning activities that require collaboration, communication, social interaction, reflection, evaluation, and self-directed learning. As the characteristics and skills of the online learner population continue to emerge across generations and future technologies, more immersive pedagogical models will develop, transforming the design of online learning environments.
References
Allen, I.E., & Seaman, J. (2006, November). Making the grade: Online education in the United States. Sloan Consortium and Babson Survey Research Group. Retrieved http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/index.asp
Anderson, T.D., & Garrison, D.R. (1998). Learning in a networked world: New roles and responsibilities. In C.C. Gibson (Ed.), Distance learners in higher education (pp. 97-112). Madison, WI: Atwood Publishing.
Bernt, F.L., & Bugbee, A.C. (1993). Study practices and attitudes related to academic success in a distance learning programme. Distance Education, 14(1), 97-112.
Biner, P.M., Bink, M.L., Huffman, M.L., & Dean, R.S. (1995). Personality characteristics differentiating and predicting the achievement of televised-course students and traditional-course students. The American Journal of Distance Education, 9(2), 46-60.
Brown, J.S. (2000). Growing up digital: How the Web changes work, education, and the ways people learn. Retrieved July 27, 2007, from http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/FEB02_Issue/article01.html
Cheurprakobkit, S., Hale, D.F., & Olson, J.N. (2002). Technicians' perceptions about Web-based courses: The University of Texas system experience. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(4), 245-258.
Comeaux, P., Huber, R., Kasprzak, J., & Nixon, M.A. (1998). Collaborative learning in Web-based instruction. Paper presented at the 3rd WebNet 98 World Conference on the WWW, Internet, and Intranet, Orlando, FL.
Dabbagh, N., & Bannan-Ritland, B. (2005). Online learning: Concepts, strategies, and application. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Dille, B., & Mezack, M. (1991). Identifying predictors of high risk among community college telecourse students. The American Journal of Distance Education, 2(1), 25-37.
Dodge, B. (n.d.). What is a WebQuest? Retrieved July 27, 2007, from the WebQuest home page: http://webquest.org
Fjortoff, N.F. (1995, October). Predicting persistence in distance learning programs. Paper presented at the Mid-Western Educational Research Meeting, Chicago. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 387 620). Galusha, J. M. (1997). Barriers to learning in distance education. Interpersonal Computing and Technology, 5(3-4), 6-14.
Garland, M. R. (1993). Student perceptions of the situational, institutional, dispositional, and epistemological barriers to persistence. Distance Education, 14(2), 181-198.
Hall, B. (1997). Web-based training cookbook. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Hanson, D., Maushak, N. J., Schlosser, C. A., Anderson, M. L., Sorensen, C., & Simonson, M. (1997). Distance Education: Review of the Literature (2nd ed.). Bloomington, Indiana: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.
Khan, B.H. (2001). A framework for Web-based training. In B.H. Khan (Ed.), Web-based training ( pp. 75-97). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Lambert, M.P. (2000). The home study inheritance. In M.G. Moore & N. Shin (Eds.), Speaking personally about distance education foundations of contemporary practice (pp. 7-11). University Park, PA: The American Center for the Study of Distance Education at The Pennsylvania State University.
Laube, M.R. (1992). Academic and social integration variables and secondary student persistence in distance education. Research in Distance Education, 4(1), 2-5.
Lindblom-Ylanne, S., & Pihlajamaki, H. (2003). Can a collaborative network environment enhance essay-writing processes? British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(1), 17- 30.
MacKeracher, D. (1996). Making sense of adult learning. Toronto: Culture Concepts.
Olgren, C.H. (1998). Improving learning outcomes: The effects of learning strategies and motivation. In C.C. Gibson (Ed.), Distance learners in higher education (pp. 77-96).Madison, WI: Atwood Publishing.
Powell, G.C. (2000). Are you ready for WBT? (Paper No. 39). Retrieved July 27, 2007, from the Instructional Technology Forum Web site: http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper39/paper39.html
Pugliese, R.R. (1994). Telecourse persistence and psychological variables. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(3), 22-39.
Spector, J. M. (1999, February-March). Teachers as designers of collaborative distance learning. Paper presented at the 10th annual meeting of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, San Antonio, TX. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 432 259)
Stone, T. E. (1992). A new look at the role of locus of control in completion rates in distance education. Research in Distance Education, 4(2), 6-9.
Thompson, M.M. (1998). Distance learners in higher education. In C.C. Gibson (Ed.), Distance learners in higher education (pp. 9-24). Madison, WI: Atwood Publishing.
Wenger, E.C., & Snyder, W.M. (2000, January-February). Communities of practice: The organizational frontier. Harvard Business Review, 139-145.
Williams, P.E. (2003). Roles and competencies of distance education programs in higher education institutions. The American Journal of Distance Education, 17(1), 45-57.
Globalization has stretched the scope of the online learner population from a homogeneous profile of mostly adult, mostly employed, place-bound, goaloriented, and intrinsically motivated to one that is heterogeneous, younger, dynamic, and responsive to rapid technological innovations. This paper describes the emerging characteristics of the online learner and ensuing pedagogical implications and suggests that exploratory and dialogical online learning pedagogical models are most effective for supporting and promoting these characteristics. The research to date has not converged on an archetypal profile of the online learner. Although some situational, affective, and demographic characteristics may cut across this learner population, what seems to be more prevalent is the changing or emerging nature of the online learner and the multiplicity of learning styles and generational differences represented. This situation carries considerable pedagogical implications for the design of online learning environments and necessitates a review of the research to determine the characteristics and skills of the emerging online learner. Determining the characteristics and educational needs of the online learner may not necessarily guarantee success in a distance education course or program (Galusha, 1997). It could, however, significantly help administrators, teachers, and instructional designers understand (a) who is likely to participate in online learning, (b) what factors or motivators contribute to a successful online learning experience, and (c) the potential barriers detering some students from participating in or successfully completing an online course. In order to better understand the characteristics and perceived skills of the online learner and the underlying motivations and barriers that impact successful online learning experiences, a review of the characteristics of the traditional or classic distance education learner is essential.
The Classic Distance Education Learner
Earlier profiles of the online learner can be traced to classic distance education settings (e.g., correspondence or home study) where most learners were adults with occupational, social, and family commitments (Hanson et al., 1997). The National Home Study Council (NHSC) founded in 1926 collected information about its students and created the following demographic profile for home study students (Lambert, 2000): “Average age is 34 years; 66% are male; 25% have a college degree; over 50% have had some college education; and over 75% are married” (p. 11). Home study students were also described as self-motivated, goal-oriented, and disciplined self-starters.
A student’s academic self-concept was also shown to be a key predictor for success in a distance education setting. Dille and Mezack (1991) studied the profile of students who enrolled in telecourses (courses delivered through television) focusing on locus of control (internal/external attribution of success and failure) and learning style (e.g., verbal, visual, or kinesthetic) as predictors of success among college distance education students. They found that locus of control is a significant predictor of success and persistence in distance education courses. Specifically, students with an internal locus of control (those who attribute success and failure on tasks to personal behaviors and efforts) were more likely to succeed (receive a grade of C or better) and persevere (complete a telecourse) in a telecourse than did students with an external locus of control (those who attribute success and failure on tasks to external or uncontrollable factors such as luck or task difficulty).
Several other studies examined student attitudes, personality characteristics, study practices, course completion rates, and other academic, psychological, and social integration variables to identify barriers to persistence in distance education and determine predictors for successful course achievement (e.g., Bernt & Bugbee, Biner, Bink, Huffman & Dean, 1995; Fjortoff, 1995; Garland, 1993; Laube, 1992; Pugliese, 1994; Stone, 1992; 1993;). Overall results of such studies indicated that intrinsically motivated learners possessing a high internal locus of control, coupled with a positive attitude toward the instructor and a high expectation for grades and degree completion were more likely to succeed in a distance education course. Interestingly, individual learning style did not prove to be a significant predictor of success, the rationale being that distance education is inherently accommodating for a variety of learning styles (Dille & Mezack, 1991). This finding is consistent with the pedagogical characteristics of technology supported learning environments and, in particular, Web-based or online learning environments that emphasize interaction and collaboration. Such environments are multimodal (support audio, video, and text), provide individual and group interaction spaces in synchronous and asynchronous formats, support linear and nonlinear representation of content, and provide a variety of learning tools to cater to a variety of individual learning styles. As Brown (2000) stated,
“The Web affords the match we need between a medium and how a particular person learns” (p. 12).
The Changing Nature of the Distance Education Learner
This research demonstrates that although distance education learners share broad demographic and situational characteristics, no concrete evidence indicates that this group is homogeneous or unchanging (Thompson, 1998). In fact, the current profile of the online distance learner can be characterized as emerging, responsive to rapid technological innovations and new learning paradigms, and progressively including a younger age bracket. In a recent Sloan Consortium report on the state of online learning in the United States, Allen and Seaman (2006) reported that undergraduates represented 82.4% of the total population of higher education students taking at least one course online. Research also suggests that today’s youth, who are increasingly growing up with Internet and Web-based technologies such as search engines, instant messaging, massive
multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPG), podcasting, vodcasting, social bookmarking and folksonomies, are well prepared to engage in online learning activities that support interaction and collaboration (Dabbagh & Bannan-Ritland, 2005). In addition, distributed online learning delivery models such, as knowledge networks, learning communities, asynchronous learning networks, and knowledge portals, are designed to effectively meet the characteristics of this emerging learner population.
These models support interacting with peers in virtual spaces on team projects, engaging in online discourse, researching term papers using Web-based resources, and developing Web sites and digital products to demonstrate learning. Although Generation Xers (born 1960-1980) continue to represent the majority of online distance education learners, generation Nexters (born 1980-2000) will soon represent a sizable portion of this population, bringing with them new communication and technological skill sets. The distance education population as a whole is also becoming more heterogeneous or diverse, encompassing students from a variety of cultural and educational backgrounds (Dabbagh & Bannan-Ritland, 2005). Globalization of distance education has enabled students from across the globe to participate in online learning activities, such as joining moderated listservs, participating in online seminars, and sharing information through
knowledge portals. Additionally, distance education learners are becoming less location bound. Thompson (1998) elaborated on this point as follows: “Increasingly, students in close proximity to traditional educational institutions are choosing distance study not because it is the only alternative, but rather because it is the preferred alternative” (p. 13). Attraction to innovative technology-mediated learning environments and flexible course delivery schedules are two of the reasons listed for the desire to be outside the educational mainstream.
The Emerging Online Learner
The concept of the independent, place-bound, adult, self-motivated, disciplined selfstarter, and goal-oriented learner, which largely characterized the classic distance education learner, is now being challenged with socially mediated online learning activities that de-emphasize independent learning and emphasize social interaction and collaboration. As stated by Anderson and Garrison (1998), “The independence and isolation characteristic of the industrial era of distance education is being challenged by the collaborative approaches to learning made possible by learning networks” (p. 100). Therefore, online learners must be ready to share their work, interact within small and large groups in virtual settings, and collaborate on projects online or otherwise risk isolation in a community growing increasingly dependent on connectivity and interaction. Given this new context, what are the perceived characteristics and skills of the emerging online learner?
Research indicates that interpersonal and communication skills and fluency in the use of collaborative online learning technologies are critical competencies for the online learner (Dabbagh & Bannan-Ritland, 2005). Williams (2003) found that interpersonal- and communication-related skills (which include writing skills) dominated the top 10 general competencies across all roles in distance education programs supported by the Internet.
Powell (2000) described the online learner as someone who is “very comfortable with written communications, somewhat savvy with Web technologies, and proficient with computers.” Additionally, Cheurprakobkit, Hale, and Olson (2002) reported that lack of knowledge and skill in the use of online learning technologies, particularly communication and collaborative technologies, could present barriers to learning for students in online learning settings. Another important characteristic of the online learner that carries forward from the profile of the classic distance learner is self-directed learning. Self-directed learning can be described as the skill of “learning how to learn,” or being metacognitively aware of one’s own learning (Olgren, 1998, p. 82). Cheurprakobkit et al. (2002) reported that students in online learning environments must possess “self” behaviors such as selfdiscipline, self-monitoring, self-initiative, and self-management, which are characteristics of self-regulated or self-directed learning. Given the physical absence of an instructor in online learning, the ability of learners to monitor and regulate their own learning is critical.
Furthermore, online learners must understand and value the learning opportunities afforded by collaborative and communication technologies in order to engage actively and constructively in learning. Some learners are inherently drawn to peer interaction or collaboration, while others need to understand the educational value of these pedagogical constructs. Being inherently drawn to interaction can be characterized as an individual difference referred to in the literature as the need for affiliation. In online learning environments the need for affiliation can be interpreted as the need to be connected or to belong to supportive groups (MacKeracher, 1996). A community of practice (COP) is an example of how the need for affiliation can manifest itself in online learning environments. Members of a COP understand that a social mind is at work and that knowledge is a shared intellectual capital. COP is a pedagogical model grounded in a theory of learning as a social process and implemented in an online context through knowledge networks, asynchronous learning networks, and other Internet and Web-based collaborative and communication technologies (Wenger & Snyder, 2000).
Although online learners still need to (a) act competently on their own; (b) have confidence in their knowledge, skills, and performance; and (c) learn how to create and manage a personal presence; sensing or exhibiting a need for affiliation is key to a successful and meaningful online learning experience (Dabbagh & Bannan-Ritland,
2005).
Characteristics of the Online Learner
In summary, the following characteristics and skills are perceived as critical to the success of the online learner:
• Having a strong academic self-concept.
• Exhibiting fluency in the use of online learning technologies.
• Possessing interpersonal and communication skills.
• Understanding and valuing interaction and collaborative learning.
• Possessing an internal locus of control.
• Exhibiting self-directed learning skills.
• Exhibiting a need for affiliation.
Competency in the use of online learning technologies, particularly communication and collaborative technologies, does not guarantee meaningful interaction, collaboration, and knowledge building in online learning environments (Lindblom-Ylanne & Pihlajamaki, 2003). Therefore, in addition to the previously listed characteristics and skills, online learners should possess or develop collaborative learning skills independent of these technologies. These skills include social learning skills, discursive or dialogical skills, self and group evaluation skills, and reflection skills (Comeaux, Huber, Kasprzak, & Nixon, 1998; Spector, 1999). Each of these skill sets are briefly described in the following section.
Social Learning Skills
Social learning skills support decision-making, communication, trust building, and conflict management, all of which are important components for effective collaboration. Social learning skills are needed to assume leadership roles as well as other roles typically assigned in teamwork.
Discursive or Dialogical Skills
Discursive or dialogical skills include the ability to discuss issues (being discursive), share and debate ideas, negotiate meaning, demonstrate openness to multiple perspectives, and possess good articulation and listening skills.
Self and Group Evaluation Skills
Self and group evaluation skills include learning how to be individually accountable for (a) being active and engaged in group activity (b) doing a fair share of the work and (c) helping other group members to demonstrate competence and learning achievement (i.e., promotive interaction).
Reflection Skills
Reflection skills include the ability to apply frequent and substantive consideration and assessment of one’s own learning process and products and the group's learning process and products. Learners must be skilled in time management and orienting strategies that help them prepare to learn, and in cognitive learning strategies that help them interact meaningfully with the learning content. In addition, time-management skills and orienting strategies have a direct impact on collaborative learning in terms of effectively and efficiently carrying out the responsibilities of being an active and accountable member of a group. Cognitive learning strategies, on the other hand, are perceived to be most relevant to an individual’s ability to reflect upon, monitor, and assess one’s own learning when carrying out a learning task. To summarize, a successful online learner should
1. Be skilled in the use of online learning technologies, particularly communication and collaborative technologies.
2. Have a strong academic self-concept and good interpersonal and communication skills.
3. Have a basic understanding and appreciation of collaborative learning and develop competencies in related skills.
4. Acquire self-directed learning skills through the deployment of time management and cognitive learning strategies.
Pedagogical Implications
To effectively accommodate, support, and promote the characteristics and skills of the successful online learner as discussed in this paper, online learning developers, instructors, and teachers should consider two pedagogical models when designing their online courses and learning interactions: exploratory and dialogical.
Exploratory Pedagogical Models
Exploratory learning models are based on the theoretical construct of discovery or inquiry-based learning, in which learners are provided with a scientific-like inquiry or authentic problem in a given content area and asked to generate a hypothesis, gather relevant information using a variety of resources, and provide solutions, action plans, recommendations, and interpretations of the situations (Dabbagh & Bannan-Ritland, 2005). Examples of such models include Microworlds, simulations, WebQuests, cognitive apprenticeships, situated learning, and problem-based learning. These models support collaborative learning, interpersonal and communication skills, social learning skills, self and group evaluation skills, reflection skills, and self-directed learning skills, all of which are characteristics of the successful online learner. The exploratory or experiential mode of learning is provided within online learning through the use of several online learning technologies, including hypermedia, multimedia, search engines, digital audio and video, graphics, and self-contained instructional modules developed using a variety of authoring tools. Examples of how exploratory models can be implemented in online learning include the following:
• Using Web-based authoring tools and scripting languages to develop selfcontained instructional modules such as Microworlds and simulations that engage students in exploratory-type activities.
• Providing Web-based resources using hypermedia and multimedia links to support students’ exploratory activities.
• Providing a link to a search engine in the course site enabling students to search for Web-based resources to promote exploration.
• Providing links to online databases and knowledge repositories that provide real time data such as up-to-date weather information and other scientific data and
statistics.
• Providing students with a Web posting area and appropriate tools to publish their work (e.g., draft papers, problem solutions, etc.). Students can then engage in an exercise of peer evaluation of each other’s work, prompting reflective thinking. When designing online learning based on exploratory pedagogical models, the decision as to which learning technologies or combination of learning technologies to use will rest ultimately on the expertise of the online learning developer, the available resources and technologies, the characteristics of the audience, and the instructional characteristics of the pedagogical model implemented (Dabbagh & Bannan-Ritland, 2005). A popular online learning activity with K-12 teachers that supports many of the instructional characteristics of exploratory learning models is a WebQuest. A WebQuest is an inquiry-oriented activity in which most or all of the information used by learners is drawn from the Web. WebQuests are designed to use learners’ time to help them focus on using information rather than looking for it, and to support learners’ thinking at the levels of analysis, synthesis and evaluation. (Dodge, n.d.)
Dialogical Pedagogical Models
Dialogical learning models emphasize social interaction through dialogue and conversation. The idea is to assist learners in constructing new knowledge primarily through dialogue as a form of interaction. Internet and Web-based technologies provide various mechanisms for supporting dialogue related to both informal and formal learning situations. For example, a Web-based group forum (discussion board) can support a formal conversational exchange that occurs in support of specific instructional objectives or an informal conversational exchange based on content interest (Dabbagh & Bannan- Ritland, 2005). Both of these conversational exchanges foster a sense of community and belonging. Examples of dialogical pedagogical models include learning communities, knowledge building communities, and communities of practice. These models emphasize discursive or dialogical skills such as articulation, reflection, collaboration, and social negotiation, as well as self and group evaluation skills, which support the characteristics
of successful online learners. Online learning technologies supporting the implementation of dialogical pedagogical models include asynchronous and synchronous tools, such as email, bulletin boards or discussion forums, listservs, computer conferencing, groupware, document sharing, virtual chat, and video conferencing. Examples of ways dialogical pedagogical models can
be implemented in online learning include the following:
• Setting up online group discussion areas focused around a topic or specific activity, goal, or project, such as a case study, using asynchronous discussion forums to promote collaboration and social negotiation. Some group discussion areas can be open ended and unmoderated, allowing students to solicit information from each other, while others can take the form of a structured online discussion.
• Designing activities that allow group members to share documents related to a group project. Sharing documents online is a collaborative activity and can range from simply displaying the document in a designated Web posting area to having group members work simultaneously on a document using groupware (an application sharing tool). When the document is displayed, group members can discuss its contents via email, videoconferencing, or chat. When groupware is used, group members can co-edit the document online and annotate the document if the groupware has built-in annotation systems.
• Engaging students in synchronous communication activities using virtual chat and videoconferencing. Real-time collaborative activities allow groups to brainstorm ideas, debate problems, and develop action plans in a finite and short period of time.
Additional examples of online learning applications that support dialogical pedagogical models are MUDs and MOOs (Dabbagh & Bannan-Ritland, 2005). MUDs and MOOs are knowledge networks that emphasize social interaction and negotiation through roleplaying. A MUD (Multiple User Dungeon or Multiple User Dimension) is a "complete virtual world in which you become the body of a character you adopt to navigate that world" (Hall, 2001, p. 55). Users explore the virtual world in real time and typically at the same time as other users who are also controlling characters. Users can talk to each other and form teams. Theme, content, and style vary from one MUD to the next. MUDs originated in a game called Dungeons and Dragons developed for multi-users on the Internet. In educational settings, MUDs are being used as a collaborative tool for students. “In Web-based learning, simulated role portrayal can be facilitated through Multi-User Dialogue (MUD) environments, in which instructors create a multi-user space with a central theme, characters and artifacts” (Khan, 2001, p.81).
A MOO (Multi-User Object Oriented environment) is a type of MUD that gives users the opportunity to experience virtual worlds as players of a game or explorers of a theme or course. An essential difference between MOOs and MUDs is that MOOs make use of multimedia, whereas MUDs are primarily text based. Additionally, MOOs developed into social spaces, lending themselves more readily for use as a virtual classroom or as spaces for conferences and meetings (Center for Teaching Enhancement Workshop on Synchronous Communication, 1997). For example, Tapped In is a COP that supports the implementation of MOOs in classroom contexts. To see an example of how MUDs and MOOs are used in the classroom, go to http://ti2data.sri.com/info/teachers/mare.html.
Conclusion
The profile of the online learner population is changing from one that is older, mostly employed, place bound, goal oriented, and intrinsically motivated, to one that is diverse, dynamic, tentative, younger, and responsive to rapid technological changes. This change in profile poses considerable pedagogical challenges that can be addressed through a better understanding of the emerging online learner. The emerging online learner can be described as someone who has a strong academic self-concept; is competent in the use of online learning technologies, particularly communication and collaborative technologies; understands, values, and engages in social interaction and collaborative learning; possesses strong interpersonal and communication skills; and is self-directed. In order to support and promote these characteristics and skills more effectively, the online course developer, instructor, or teacher should focus on designing online learning environments that support exploratory and dialogical learning. Exploratory and dialogical learning environments engage learners in online learning activities that require collaboration, communication, social interaction, reflection, evaluation, and self-directed learning. As the characteristics and skills of the online learner population continue to emerge across generations and future technologies, more immersive pedagogical models will develop, transforming the design of online learning environments.
References
Allen, I.E., & Seaman, J. (2006, November). Making the grade: Online education in the United States. Sloan Consortium and Babson Survey Research Group. Retrieved http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/index.asp
Anderson, T.D., & Garrison, D.R. (1998). Learning in a networked world: New roles and responsibilities. In C.C. Gibson (Ed.), Distance learners in higher education (pp. 97-112). Madison, WI: Atwood Publishing.
Bernt, F.L., & Bugbee, A.C. (1993). Study practices and attitudes related to academic success in a distance learning programme. Distance Education, 14(1), 97-112.
Biner, P.M., Bink, M.L., Huffman, M.L., & Dean, R.S. (1995). Personality characteristics differentiating and predicting the achievement of televised-course students and traditional-course students. The American Journal of Distance Education, 9(2), 46-60.
Brown, J.S. (2000). Growing up digital: How the Web changes work, education, and the ways people learn. Retrieved July 27, 2007, from http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/FEB02_Issue/article01.html
Cheurprakobkit, S., Hale, D.F., & Olson, J.N. (2002). Technicians' perceptions about Web-based courses: The University of Texas system experience. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(4), 245-258.
Comeaux, P., Huber, R., Kasprzak, J., & Nixon, M.A. (1998). Collaborative learning in Web-based instruction. Paper presented at the 3rd WebNet 98 World Conference on the WWW, Internet, and Intranet, Orlando, FL.
Dabbagh, N., & Bannan-Ritland, B. (2005). Online learning: Concepts, strategies, and application. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Dille, B., & Mezack, M. (1991). Identifying predictors of high risk among community college telecourse students. The American Journal of Distance Education, 2(1), 25-37.
Dodge, B. (n.d.). What is a WebQuest? Retrieved July 27, 2007, from the WebQuest home page: http://webquest.org
Fjortoff, N.F. (1995, October). Predicting persistence in distance learning programs. Paper presented at the Mid-Western Educational Research Meeting, Chicago. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 387 620). Galusha, J. M. (1997). Barriers to learning in distance education. Interpersonal Computing and Technology, 5(3-4), 6-14.
Garland, M. R. (1993). Student perceptions of the situational, institutional, dispositional, and epistemological barriers to persistence. Distance Education, 14(2), 181-198.
Hall, B. (1997). Web-based training cookbook. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Hanson, D., Maushak, N. J., Schlosser, C. A., Anderson, M. L., Sorensen, C., & Simonson, M. (1997). Distance Education: Review of the Literature (2nd ed.). Bloomington, Indiana: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.
Khan, B.H. (2001). A framework for Web-based training. In B.H. Khan (Ed.), Web-based training ( pp. 75-97). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Lambert, M.P. (2000). The home study inheritance. In M.G. Moore & N. Shin (Eds.), Speaking personally about distance education foundations of contemporary practice (pp. 7-11). University Park, PA: The American Center for the Study of Distance Education at The Pennsylvania State University.
Laube, M.R. (1992). Academic and social integration variables and secondary student persistence in distance education. Research in Distance Education, 4(1), 2-5.
Lindblom-Ylanne, S., & Pihlajamaki, H. (2003). Can a collaborative network environment enhance essay-writing processes? British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(1), 17- 30.
MacKeracher, D. (1996). Making sense of adult learning. Toronto: Culture Concepts.
Olgren, C.H. (1998). Improving learning outcomes: The effects of learning strategies and motivation. In C.C. Gibson (Ed.), Distance learners in higher education (pp. 77-96).Madison, WI: Atwood Publishing.
Powell, G.C. (2000). Are you ready for WBT? (Paper No. 39). Retrieved July 27, 2007, from the Instructional Technology Forum Web site: http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper39/paper39.html
Pugliese, R.R. (1994). Telecourse persistence and psychological variables. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(3), 22-39.
Spector, J. M. (1999, February-March). Teachers as designers of collaborative distance learning. Paper presented at the 10th annual meeting of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, San Antonio, TX. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 432 259)
Stone, T. E. (1992). A new look at the role of locus of control in completion rates in distance education. Research in Distance Education, 4(2), 6-9.
Thompson, M.M. (1998). Distance learners in higher education. In C.C. Gibson (Ed.), Distance learners in higher education (pp. 9-24). Madison, WI: Atwood Publishing.
Wenger, E.C., & Snyder, W.M. (2000, January-February). Communities of practice: The organizational frontier. Harvard Business Review, 139-145.
Williams, P.E. (2003). Roles and competencies of distance education programs in higher education institutions. The American Journal of Distance Education, 17(1), 45-57.
UNDERSTANDING PROBLEM -BASED LEARNING
Handbook of Enquiry & Problem Based Learning. Barrett, T., Mac Labhrainn, I., Fallon, H. (Eds). Galway: CELT,
2005. Released under Creative Commons licence. Attribution Non-Commercial 2.0. Some rights reserved.
http://www.nuigalway.ie/celt/pblbook/
2. UNDERSTANDING PROBLEM -BASED LEARNING
Terry Barrett
UCD
INTRODUCTION
This chapter focuses on Problem-based Learning (PBL). Enquiry-based Learning is defined in
the first chapter as “a broad umbrella term used to describe approaches to learning that are
driven by a process of enquiry,” O’Rourke and Kahn (2005:1). Within this context Problembased
Learning is seen as a set of approaches under the broader category of Enquiry-based
Learning. One of the main defining characteristics of Problem-based Learning, which
distinguishes it from some other forms of Enquiry-based Learning, is that the problem is
presented to the students first at the start of the learning process, before other curriculum inputs.
Another defining characteristic of PBL is that in PBL tutorials students define their own
learning issues, what they need to research and learn to work on the problem and are responsible
themselves for searching appropriate sources of information.
I understand Problem-based Learning not as a mere teaching and learning technique but as a
total education strategy. Four components of Problem-based Learning, as a total education
strategy, are:
PBL curriculum design
PBL tutorials
PBL compatible assessments
Philosophical principles underpinning PBL
These are discussed in turn. The chapter ends by highlighting some of the starting points and
success factors to consider when starting a PBL initiative. I draw on my experiences as a
Problem-based Learning course co-ordinator, tutor and researcher, together with my experiences
of working as a PBL education development consultant with PBL initiatives in different
universities and Institutes of Technology. I base this practical introduction to PBL on theory,
research and practical experience. An important part of this chapter is the voices of PBL tutors.
Quotations from PBL tutors are from my current doctoral research unless otherwise stated.
DEFINING PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING
Since the first humans were on this earth there have been forms of Problem-based Learning as
people tackled problems including the basic issues of survival, finding food and shelter and
protecting themselves against enemies. What is being discussed in this chapter is a particular
set of approaches of Problem-based Learning (PBL) in higher education. This Problem-based
Learning follows the research of Barrows and Tamblyn (1980) and was first implemented in
medical education in McMaster University in Canada in the 60’s. The rationale for this strategy
centred on the argument that, based on their research on clinical reasoning, it was more effective
to teach medical students through them solving problems than through the established
traditional methods of medical education. Barrows (2000: vii) outlines the original motivation
for the change to PBL:
They [medical students] were bored and disenchanted when medical education
should have been exciting. The committee noted that medical education didn’t
Terry Barrett
14
become exciting for students until residency training, when they were working with
patients trying to solve their problems. They decided that from the beginning of
school, learning would occur around a series of biomedical problems presented in
small groups with the faculty functioning as “tutors or guides of education.”
Having started with medicine in Canada, PBL has spread across the globe and across the
disciplines. In exploring the issue of defining Problem-based Learning I consider:
Barrows classical definition of Problem-based Learning
Essential features of PBL
My operational definition of PBL
A web-based definition of PBL
Barrows defines it as:
The learning that results from the process of working towards the understanding of
a resolution of a problem. The problem is encountered first in the learning process
(Barrows 1980:1 my emphasis)
That does not mean that there cannot be other curriculum inputs e.g. lectures, labs etc, rather,
the students are presented with the problem or trigger first and other curriculum inputs follow
later and may take a different format than traditionally in order to complement/enhance the
work on the problems in the PBL tutorials.
Problem-based Learning is part of the shift from the teaching paradigm to the learning
paradigm (Barr and Tagg, 1995). The focus is on what students are learning rather than what
the teacher is teaching. Lloyd-Jones, Margeston and Bligh (1998: 494) reconsider the “essential
features of Problem-based Learning”. They argue that:
Three shared elements stand out from the current picture of PBL in action: the
initiating trigger, the learning that students undertake by researching the learning
issues identified in the first tutorial, and the use of knowledge in furthering their
understanding of the trigger situation particularly in the final tutorial. (emphases
my own)
The following definition is also pertinent as it highlights PBL as a way of replicating problemsolving
processes used at work and in life generally:
PBL is both a curriculum and a process. The curriculum consists of carefully
selected and designed problems that demand from the learner acquisition of critical
knowledge, problem-solving proficiency, self-directed learning strategies and team
participation skills. The process replicates the common used systemic approach to
resolving problems or meeting challenges that are encountered in life and career
(Maricopa Community Colleges, Centre for Learning and Instruction:
http://www.mcli.dist.maricopa.edu/pbl/info/)
But what exactly do students do in Problem-based Learning? My operational definition of
Problem-based Learning is as follows:
Terry Barrett
15
Figure 1: Operational definition of PBL
1) First students are presented with a problem
2) Students discuss the problem in a small group PBL tutorial. They clarify the facts of the
case. They define what the problem is. They brainstorm ideas based on the prior knowledge.
They identify what they need to learn to work on the problem, what they do not know
(learning issues). They reason through the problem. They specify an action plan for working
on the problem
3) Students engage in independent study on their learning issues outside the tutorial. This can
include: library, databases, the web, resource people and observations
4) They come back to the PBL tutorial(s) sharing information, peer teaching and working
together on the problem
5) They present their solution to the problem
6) They review what they have learned from working on the problem. All who participated in
the process engage in self, peer and tutor review of the PBL process and reflections on each
person’s contribution to that process
When beginning a PBL initiative it is important to have a starting point definition of PBL.
However it would be a contradiction in terms not to treat PBL itself as a problem (Barrett 2001)
and I would encourage people to redefine what PBL means in their specific contexts. The PBL
case studies in this handbook have elements in common but also other elements that were
developed in relation to organisational and discipline needs, local constraints and the critical and
creative thinking of the curriculum designers.
PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING AS A TOTAL EDUCATION STRATEGY
I consider that PBL is not merely a teaching and learning technique, but a total approach to
education. I would advise people starting a PBL initiative to consider four important
components of PBL, namely: PBL curriculum design, PBL tutorials, PBL compatible
assessments and philosophical principles underpinning PBL.
Figure 2: Problem-based Learning as a Total Education Strategy
Curriculum
Design PBL Tutorials
PBL
Compatible
Assessments
Philosophical
Principles
Terry Barrett
16
Problem-based Learning curriculum design
Starting to develop a framework for curriculum design of any type including PBL provokes us
to asking some basic questions. These questions include:
What are the fundamental ideas, knowledge, skills and attitudes which should
be developed through the programme?
What are the internal and external drivers for curriculum change?
Who do we need to involve in the curriculum design process?
What are the stakeholders (including students, academic staff, employers,
professional bodies) saying about current educational needs?
What are our beliefs about higher education generally and our
profession/discipline in particular?
How are these beliefs and values translated into action in our curriculum
design?
How should the course be structured?
How will students learn on the course?
What prior knowledge, skills and attitudes do we consider as entry
requirements?
What kinds of assessment will be appropriate for the kinds of learning we are
trying to encourage?
Do we have a unique selling point?
How do we plan to market this course?
(Toohey, 1999)
At the core of PBL curriculum design is a set of well designed, ill-structured or open-ended,
real-life, engaging problems. Problems are not always about difficulties that need to be sorted
out. Challenges, dilemmas, and triggers are problems. Understanding a puzzling phenomenon
or a difficult concept can be a problem. How to find a better, more ethical or cheaper way of
doing something is a problem. How to design or create something is a problem.
There are different ways of getting involved in a Problem-based Learning curriculum. Some
people decide to have only one or two modules on the course as PBL modules. Others decide
that the full course will be PBL. As an implementation strategy some start with first years and
others with final years.
Designing a PBL curriculum means reconceptualising our curriculum in ways that emphasise:
Selection of content from practice
Concepts as the organising structure of the curriculum [and expressed as
learning outcomes for the whole unit]
Process as content
Graduate outcomes not subject-based outcomes
(Conway and Little, 2000)
Clarifying the learning outcomes for the unit/module of the curriculum is a very important stage
of curriculum design. The next step is to write problems that will stimulate student learning in
relation to these outcomes. A curriculum matrix where the problems are plotted against the
learning outcomes is helpful in designing a PBL curriculum ensuring that all learning outcomes
will be addressed at least once.
Terry Barrett
17
Figure 3: PBL curriculum matrix
Problems⇒ Name of P1 Name of P2 Name of P3
Learning
outcomes⇓
L.O. 1
L.O. 2
L.O. 3
L.O. 4
Variety and challenge are very important in designing PBL problems
…a measure of the quality of a problem is the degree to which it stimulates the
students’ desire to learn. The two features highlighted by the study were the levels
of variety and challenge perceived by students.
(Mauffette, Kandlibinder and Soucisse 2004:11)
Problems can vary in size in terms of length of study. Some problems are designed to be
resolved in two tutorials. Others are designed to last weeks or months. Sometimes problems
can be presented in a progressive disclosure mode. This means giving students the initial trigger
at the outset and then giving them further information at later stages. This mirrors real life e.g.
results of a report arriving, a new phone or e-mail message received in relation to the problem
etc. Another option is that one problem can be a follow-up to another problem. The following
are some ideas for providing variety in problem formats
Figure 4: Some Different problem formats
Scenarios Video clips Physical Objects
Dialogues Photographs Letters
Cartoons Poems Metaphors
Diagrams Limericks Requests
Set of Playing cards Audio-tape recordings Posters
Dilemmas E-mails Briefs
Progressive disclosure Follow-ups Quotations
Newspaper articles T.V. Shows Literature
Writing PBL problems combines critical thinking with creative thinking and is best carried out
in small teams. For more discussion and examples of PBL curriculum design see chapters 4, 5
and 6 of this handbook. For more examples of PBL problems see the University of Delaware
website: www.udel.edu/pbl/
PBL tutorials
The students work on resolving these problems in PBL tutorials. In a PBL tutorial a small
group of students (usually 5-8) work together on a problem. Often there is a tutor per group.
Where this is not possible there is a roving tutor(s). The role of the tutor is not to give
information or a mini-lecture on the problem but rather to facilitate the PBL process and
students reasoning through the problem. Different students act as chairperson, scribe,
Terry Barrett
18
timekeeper and reader of the problem. Sometimes students decide to assign other additional
roles, e.g. presentation editor.
Students brainstorm ideas for solving the problem, review the facts of the problem, name things
they need to learn about and make an action plan. In practice, learning issues are handled in a
variety of ways in different PBL initiatives. Some initiatives get all students to research all the
learning issues. Other initiatives encourage students to divide out the learning issues to
different group members. A middle stance is to get the group to divide the learning issues into
major and minor learning issues. All students research the major learning issues and the minor
ones are divided between the group members. Whichever approach is used it is important that
students develop their information skills, which is discussed in chapter 17 of this handbook.
There are different PBL tutorial models that act as a scaffold rather than a straightjacket for the
process. The central part of the Barrows model (Barrows, 1989) following setting the climate
and defining the problem is summarising the discussion of the PBL tutorial under the following
headings.
Figure 5: Barrows PBL tutorial model
Ideas/Hypotheses Facts Learning issues Action Plan
Students using this model may summarise their discussion under these headings on one shared
learning environment, which may be a whiteboard or flipchart. In addition students will have a
second shared learning environment for other work on the problem.
Another model for scaffolding the PBL process is the seven jump approach
Figure 6: Seven jump approach
1. Clarify unknown terms and concepts in the problem description
2. Define the problem: that is list the phenomena to be explained
3. Analyse the problem: “brainstorm”: try to produce as many different
explanations for the phenomenon as you can. Use prior knowledge and
common sense
4. Criticise the explanations proposed and try to produce a coherent
description of the processes that, according to what you think, underlie the
phenomena
5. Formulate learning issues for SDL[self-directed learning]
6. Fill in the gaps in your knowledge through self-study
7. Share your findings with your group and try to integrate the knowledge
acquired into a comprehensive explanation of the phenomena. Check
whether you know enough now.
(Schmidt and Moust, 2000: 23)
The following quotations reflect two PBL tutors’ perspectives on models for PBL tutorials
There has always been independent learning but PBL puts a process on it. It gets
them to think how they think. There is a metacognitive level.
It’s a structure but you have a lot of freedom. It’s a light structure, scaffold
Terry Barrett
19
In PBL tutorials there is a move to more democratic social relations than a traditional committee
meeting (Barrett, 2004a). PBL differs from individual research or project work as it is a
question of “our knowledge and control,” rather than “my knowledge and control” (Barrett,
2004b). In a PBL tutorial, students co-elaborate and co-construct their knowledge together.
Staff and students need induction, time and practice to adjust to their new roles.
The role of the tutor includes listening attentively, facilitating the learning process and asking
stimulating questions appropriately. Schmidt and Moust (2000) highlight the importance of
“cognitive congruence,” the tutor being able to express her or him self at the students level of
understanding:
If a tutor is not able to frame his or her contribution in a language that is adapted to
the level of understanding of the subject matter being studied, these contributions
will go unnoticed. In addition, cognitive congruence assumes sensitivity of the
tutor concerning the difficulties of students may come across while dealing with a
problem or with subject matter relevant to that problem.
(Schmidt and Moust, 2000:43)
They argue that “social congruence,” an interest in students and their learning is required in
tandem with cognitive congruence for effective PBL tutoring: Poikela (2005) has researched
learning to work as a tutor and discusses how tutors view their role change. The following
quotation from a tutor is a striking metaphor:
In earlier days, the teacher was sitting alone in a fully loaded boat almost sinking,
and the poor teacher was trying to row with the last energy/he had. After PBL the
tutor is sitting in a boat with a group and guiding while others are rowing and
eagerly looking ahead.
(Poikela, 2005: 189)
A new website gives some very practical advice on ways to be an effective PBL tutor that
includes the following:
Figure 7: Ways to be a great PBL facilitator
Be interested and enthusiastic
Forget lecturing
Tolerate silence
Get students talking to each other and not to you
Make sure the group agree on learning issues before the group ends
Promote the use of accurate current information resources as students
research their learning issues
Remember the learning outcomes of the case and course
Establish a good learning environment for the group
Be yourself
( Catchum PBL users guide www.catchum.utub.edu)
The following quotations show two PBL tutors’ perspectives on PBL tutorials:
They break into groups and work on the problem. I am not good at getting them to
reflect. I am directive and not good at staying out and letting them be confused. I
am absolutely fascinated by the way they are doing it. Yesterday one of the girls
Terry Barrett
20
produced a cardboard box with a face painted on it and said let’s use this to get a
handle on Mary, on whom the problem is based.
We are trying to get them to focus on the process. If we don’t get them to develop
their own systems and processes, ways of working, I think we are wasting our time.
And I do think my thinking has changed because of PBL.
In Problem-based Learning academic staff are involved in curriculum design, writing problems,
the facilitation of PBL tutorials, and in assessment of learning.
PBL compatible assessments
I agree with the assertion in the first chapter of this handbook that assessment drives learning. If
you really want to see what a curriculum is about, look at the reality of its assessment system. I
argue that it is important to design assessments that are not only aligned with learning outcomes
but that are also compatible with the Problem-based Learning process. For helpful advice and
an introduction to a range of appropriate and effective assessment methods see Section 4 of this
handbook.
Philosophical principles underpinning Problem-based Learning
I agree that PBL is essentially a philosophical position in relation to knowledge in higher
education, (Margeston, 1997) and with the assertion that there is “nothing as practical as a good
theory.” (Lewin, 1943: 35) For these two reasons, I argue that it is essential to understand and
develop philosophical principles which underpin PBL. This helps us to address the essential
questions “What is learning in higher education?” “What is teaching in higher education?”
“What is PBL?” “Why are we using PBL?” “What are my roles as an academic in PBL?”
“What are the roles of students in PBL?” If you are too preoccupied with the spray of the wave,
you fail to realise its underlying swell, which in the case of PBL is philosophies of PBL. These
are challenging questions for members of a team starting a PBL initiative to ask themselves.
I argue that Margeston’s primary contribution is his elaboration of a post-modern philosophy of
PBL. Margeston (1997) highlights that PBL is not a mere superficial educational technique, but
rather it is a deep philosophical position in relation to knowledge, understanding and education.
His philosophical position underpinning PBL is:
A conception of knowledge, understanding and education profoundly different from
the more usual conceptions underlying subject-based learning. The difference can
be seen in the notion of expertise (Margeston, 1997: 37-38)
He develops this by discussing how subject-based expertise is expertise in terms of knowing a
lot of content. This is propositional knowledge - knowing that. In contrast, expertise in a
Problem-based Learning context presupposes propositional knowledge. It stresses the
importance of knowing how to work with problems. He argues that Problem-based Learning
“requires a much greater integration of knowing that with knowing how.” (Margeston, 1997:
38) Problem-based Learning, considered as a philosophical position, has huge implications for
all stages of PBL implementation and for staff development, student induction and change
management in particular.
I consider that Freirian philosophy (Freire, 1972; 1985) provides philosophical principles to
underpin Problem-based Learning (Barrett, 2001). Freire’s concepts of problematisation and
dialogue are particularly relevant. Why should anyone learn anything? It is important to
Terry Barrett
21
problematise learning. Then the only way of working on resolving a problem is to learn more.
From Freire’s perspective the concept of dialogue is much more than a technique, it is an
epistemological position that sees knowledge not as something static but rather something that
is made and remade through dialogue:
What is dialogue in this way of knowing? Precisely this connection, this
epistemological relationship, the object to be known in one place links the cognitive
subjects leading them to reflect together on the object. Dialogue is the bringing
together of the teacher and the student in the joint act of knowing and reknowing
the object of study. Then instead of transferring the knowledge statically, as a fixed
possession of the teacher, dialogue demands a dynamic proximation towards the
object. (Shor and Freire, 1987: 100)
This dialogue is the means by which people together create and recreate acts of knowledge.
Cognitivism, social constructivism and postmodernism provide theoretical foundations for
understanding PBL. Cognitivism means that Problem-based Learning is an active mental
process of accessing prior knowledge, making connections between old and new concepts and
using the elaboration of relationships to engage in theory construction (Schmidt, 2004). In PBL
the learners are constructing their knowledge together in PBL tutorials. PBL has a social
constructivist view of learning. It sees learning as something that results from the learner’s
actions and the role of the PBL tutor is to enable and encourage learners to construct their
knowledge together. A key point in the connection between PBL and postmodernism is that
there is a fit between PBL and changing postmodern concepts of knowledge. I agree with
Cowdroy’s argument that to exploit the full potential of PBL it is vital that it is underpinned by
post modern concepts of knowledge. On the other hand PBL underpinned by “modernist,
structural thinking” is in danger of “slipping back into mediocrity” (Cowdroy 1994: 45).
Cowdroy summarise the link between PBL and postmodern concepts of knowledge as follows:
Changes in professional practice and in technology and society alter the relevance
of particular sets of knowledge. This state of change of relevance is the basis of
Heidegger’s concept of the changing meaning of “knowledge” which challenges
Cartesian concepts of finite knowledge and thought. By adherence to the principle
of relevance. Problem-based Learning accepts Heidegger’s concept of indefinite
knowledge and eschews the Cartesian certainty of thought and knowledge…
It is important to explore these philosophical principles underpinning PBL not only when
starting a PBL initiative, but on an ongoing basis.
GETTING STARTED WITH PBL
When starting to design a PBL initiative it is very important to be aware of the research
evidence about success factors in PBL implementation (Figure 8) and to plan with this
awareness in mind.
In addition to gathering information about PBL generally and about PBL in a specific discipline,
there is a range of effective strategies for starting a PBL initiative. These include attending PBL
staff development workshops in your own institution or a major PBL university such as
Maastricht or McMaster. Visiting a university that is implementing PBL and listening to the
perspectives of academics and students can be very helpful. Working with an internal/external
PBL consultant to design, implement and continuously evaluate a PBL initiative is another
effective strategy. Framing the PBL initiative as a major action –research project or having a
research project linked to the PBL initiative are ways of combining teaching and research.
Terry Barrett
22
Figure 8: Success factors for implementing PBL
CONCLUSION
My main argument is that PBL is best understood not as a mere learning and teaching technique
but as a total education strategy underpinned by philosophical principles. Currently there are
some interesting developments in Problem-based Learning including using technology to
support Problem-based Learning, which is discussed in chapter 16 of this handbook, and the use
of PBL in the workplace, a case study of which is presented in chapter 15. Dolmans et al (2005:
741), in a paper entitled “Problem-based Learning: future challenges for educational practice
and research,” argues that the future challenges for educational practice and research include the
need for:
Research that bridges theory and practice and extends knowledge about developing
and improving PBL in everyday practice.
That is the rationale for the PBL chapters in this handbook.
Philosophical factors
An understanding of the philosophical principles underpinning PBL
A commitment to the philosophy of PBL ( Little, 1997; Margeston, 1991; Barrett,
2001)
Design factors
Comprehensive curriculum design (Conway and Little, 2000)
Well designed problems (Gijselaers and Schmidt, 1990; Schmidt and Moust, 2000)
Assessment compatible with PBL and the specific discipline/profession (Savin-
Baden, 2004; Raine and Symons, 2005)
Scheduled independent study time (Fincham and Schuler, 2001)
PBL tutoring factors
Small group size (Wilkerson, 1996)
A realistic acceptance of the role change (Little, 1997)
Effective tutoring skills (Poikela, 2005)
The ability to model process skills (Little, 1977)
Frequent opportunities for students to gain feedback (Little, 1997)
Staff and student induction factors
An acceptance of the importance of student induction to PBL and that students will
take time to develop PBL process skills and may need to change their assumptions
about learning (Little, 1997)
Substantial appropriate staff development (Conway and Little, 2000; Murray and
Savin-Baden, 2000; Richardson, 2005)
Management factors
A pragmatic and realistic approach (Little, 1997)
Institutional and management support (Little, 1997)
A PBL co-ordinator and administrative support (McLoughlin, 2005)
Terry Barrett
23
REFERENCES:
Barr,R.J. and Tagg, J. (1995) “From Teaching to Learning: A New Paradigm for Understanding
Education,” Change 27, 6, 12-25.
Barrett, T. (2001) “Philosophical Principles for Problem Based Learning: Freire’s Concepts of
Personal Development and Social Empowerment,” in P. Little and P. Kandlbinder (eds.)
The Power of Problem-based Learning, Refereed Proceedings of the 3rd Asia Pacific
Conference on PBL, 9-12 December, Newcastle, Australia: Problarc.
Barrett T. (2004a) “Researching the Dialogue of PBL Tutorials: a Critical Discourse Analysis
Approach,” in M. Savin-Baden and K. Wilkie (eds.) Challenging Research into Problembased
Learning. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Barrett, T. (2004b) “My Knowledge and My Control Versus Our Knowledge and Our Control:
Lecturers as Problem-Based Learners Talking about the PBL Tutorial,” Problem-based
Learning 2004: A Quality experience? 15-17 September, University of Salford.
Barrows, H. and Tamblyn, R. (1980) Problem-based Learning: An Approach to Medical
Education. New York: Springer.
Barrows, H. 1989) The Tutorial Process. Springfield Illinois: Southern Illinois University
School of Medicine.
Barrows, H (2000) Foreword, in D. Evenson and C. Hmelo (eds.) Problem-based Learning: A
Research Perspective on Learning Interaction. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Conway, J. and Little, P. (2000) “From Practice to Theory: Reconceptualising Curriculum
Development for Problem-based Learning,” in Problem-based Learning: Educational
Innovations across Disciplines. Selected papers from the Second Asia-Pacific Conference
on Problem-based Learning, Singapore.
Cowdroy, R.M. (1994) “Concepts, Constructs and Insights: The Essence of Problem-based
Learning,” In Reflections on Problem Based Learning. Campbeltown, NSW: Australian
PBL Network, 45-56
Dolmans, H.J.M., De Grave, W., Wolfhagen, I.H.A.P., and Van der Vleuten, C.P.M. (2005)
“Problem-based Learning: Future Challenges for Educational Practice and Research,”
Medical Education, 39: 732-741.
Fincham, A.G. and Schuler, C.F. (2001) “The Changing Face of Dental Education: The impact
of PBL,” Journal of Dental Education 65, 5, 406-421.
Freire, P. (1972) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Freire, P. (1985) The Politics of Education. London: Macmillan.
Gijselaers, W.H and Schmidt, H.G. 1990) “Towards a Causal Model of Student Learning
Within the Context of Problem-based Curriculum,” in Z.N. Nooman, H.G. Schmidt and
E.S. Ezzat (eds.), Innovation in Medical Education: An Evaluation of its Present Status.
New York: Springer.
Terry Barrett
24
Lewin, K. (1943) “Forces Behind Food Habits and Methods of Change, Bulletin of the National
Research Council 108, 35-65.
Little, S. (1997) “Preparing Tertiary Teachers for Problem-based Learning,” in D. Boud and
G.E. Feletti, The Challenge of Problem-based Learning. London: Kogan Page.
Lloyd-Jones, G. Margeston, D. and Bligh, J. (1998) “Problem-based Learning: A Coat of Many
Colours,” Medical Education, 32, 492-494.
Margeston, D. (1997) “Why is Problem-based Learning a Challenge?” in D. Boud, and G.
Feletti, The Challenge of Problem-based Learning. London: Kogan Page.
Mauffette, Y., Kandlibinder, P., and Soucisse, A. (2004) “The Problem in Problem-based
Learning is the Problems: But do they motivate students?” in M. Savin-Baden and K.
Wilkie, Challenging Rsearch into Problem-based Learning. Buckingham: SRHE/Open
University Press.
McLoughlin, J. (2005) “Co-ordinating and Managing PBL Programmes: Challenges and
Strategies,” in T. Barrett, I. Mac Labhrainn, and H. Fallon (eds.) Handbook of Enquiry and
Problem-based Learning; Irish Case Studies and International Perspectives, Galway:
AISHE and NUI Galway.
Murray, I and Savin-Baden, M. (2000) “Staff Development in Problem-based Learning,”
Teaching in Higher Education, 5, 1, 107-126.
O’Rourke, K. and Kahn, P. (2005) “Understanding Enquiry-based Learning,” in T. Barrett, I.
Mac Labhrainn, and H. Fallon (eds.) Handbook of Enquiry and Problem-based Learning;
Irish Case Studies and International perspectives, Galway: AISHE and NUI Galway.
Poikela, S. (2005) “Learning at Work as a Tutor: The Processes of Producing, Creating and
Sharing Knowledge in a Work Community,” in E. Poikela and S. Poikela (eds), PBL in
context: Bridging Work and Education. Tampere: Tampere University Press.
Raine, D and Symons, S. (2005) “Experiences of PBL in Physics in UK Higher Education,” in
Poikela, E. and Poikela, S. (eds.), PBL in context: Bridging Work and Education. Tampere:
Tampere University Press.
Richardson, J.T.E. (2005) “The Future of Research in Problem-based Learning,” Problem-based
Learning 2004 A Quality Experience? University of Salford 15-17 September.
Savin-Baden, M. (2004a ) “Understanding the Impact of Assessment on Students in Problembased
Learning,” Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41, 2, 221-233.
Schmidt, H. and Moust, J. (2000) “Factors Affecting Small Group Tutorial Learning: A review
of Research,” in D. Evenson and C. Hmelo (eds.), Problem-based Learning: A Research
Perspective on Learning Interactions. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schmidt, H. (2004) “The Current State of Problem-based Learning,” Keynote paper presented at
the Problem-based Learning 2004, A Quality Experience. University of Salford, 15-17th
September.
Shor, I. and Freire, P. (1987) “A Pedagogy for Liberation.” London: Bergin and Garvey.
Terry Barrett
25
Toohey, S. (1999) Designing Courses for Higher Education. Buckingham: SRHE/Open
University Press.
Wilkerson, L. (1996) “Tutors and Small Groups in Problem-based Learning: Lessons from the
Literature,” New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 68, Winter 23-32.
Online resources
Websites:
Catchum PBL users guide: This has some very practical advice for implementing PBL
www.catchum.utub.edu
Coventry website: Very good list of resources including: web resources, books, research
papers, PBL consultants and PBL conferences
www.hss.coventry.ac.uk/pbl/
McMaster University, where PBL began
www-fhs.mcmaster.ca/mhsi/problem-.htm
Maricopa Community Colleges, Centre for Learning and Instruction
www.mcli.dist.maricopa.edu/pbl/info/htm
PBL Clearinghouse
www.mis4.udel.edu/PBL/Index.jsp
Republic Polytechnic Singapore
All the institution uses PBL. They have developed the 1 day 1 problem process
http://discovery.rp.edu.sg.home/ced
University of Adelaide’s Advisory Centre for University Education: hosts the ‘Leap into PBL’
website. This is a very informative site and is a good staring point for lecturers who are new to
PBL and are considering implementing it. www.adelaide.edu.au/ltdu/leap
University of Delaware site on PBL: Comprehensive introduction to PBL with lots of sample
problems
www.udel.edu/pbl/
University of Maastricht: A European Centre for PBL. Runs staff development workshops and
producing a range of resources including videos
www.unimaas.nl/pbl/mission/mission001.htm
Discussion List:
JISC PBL Mailing List New members can join by visiting the following website
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa.exe?SUBED1=pbl&A=1
2005. Released under Creative Commons licence. Attribution Non-Commercial 2.0. Some rights reserved.
http://www.nuigalway.ie/celt/pblbook/
2. UNDERSTANDING PROBLEM -BASED LEARNING
Terry Barrett
UCD
INTRODUCTION
This chapter focuses on Problem-based Learning (PBL). Enquiry-based Learning is defined in
the first chapter as “a broad umbrella term used to describe approaches to learning that are
driven by a process of enquiry,” O’Rourke and Kahn (2005:1). Within this context Problembased
Learning is seen as a set of approaches under the broader category of Enquiry-based
Learning. One of the main defining characteristics of Problem-based Learning, which
distinguishes it from some other forms of Enquiry-based Learning, is that the problem is
presented to the students first at the start of the learning process, before other curriculum inputs.
Another defining characteristic of PBL is that in PBL tutorials students define their own
learning issues, what they need to research and learn to work on the problem and are responsible
themselves for searching appropriate sources of information.
I understand Problem-based Learning not as a mere teaching and learning technique but as a
total education strategy. Four components of Problem-based Learning, as a total education
strategy, are:
PBL curriculum design
PBL tutorials
PBL compatible assessments
Philosophical principles underpinning PBL
These are discussed in turn. The chapter ends by highlighting some of the starting points and
success factors to consider when starting a PBL initiative. I draw on my experiences as a
Problem-based Learning course co-ordinator, tutor and researcher, together with my experiences
of working as a PBL education development consultant with PBL initiatives in different
universities and Institutes of Technology. I base this practical introduction to PBL on theory,
research and practical experience. An important part of this chapter is the voices of PBL tutors.
Quotations from PBL tutors are from my current doctoral research unless otherwise stated.
DEFINING PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING
Since the first humans were on this earth there have been forms of Problem-based Learning as
people tackled problems including the basic issues of survival, finding food and shelter and
protecting themselves against enemies. What is being discussed in this chapter is a particular
set of approaches of Problem-based Learning (PBL) in higher education. This Problem-based
Learning follows the research of Barrows and Tamblyn (1980) and was first implemented in
medical education in McMaster University in Canada in the 60’s. The rationale for this strategy
centred on the argument that, based on their research on clinical reasoning, it was more effective
to teach medical students through them solving problems than through the established
traditional methods of medical education. Barrows (2000: vii) outlines the original motivation
for the change to PBL:
They [medical students] were bored and disenchanted when medical education
should have been exciting. The committee noted that medical education didn’t
Terry Barrett
14
become exciting for students until residency training, when they were working with
patients trying to solve their problems. They decided that from the beginning of
school, learning would occur around a series of biomedical problems presented in
small groups with the faculty functioning as “tutors or guides of education.”
Having started with medicine in Canada, PBL has spread across the globe and across the
disciplines. In exploring the issue of defining Problem-based Learning I consider:
Barrows classical definition of Problem-based Learning
Essential features of PBL
My operational definition of PBL
A web-based definition of PBL
Barrows defines it as:
The learning that results from the process of working towards the understanding of
a resolution of a problem. The problem is encountered first in the learning process
(Barrows 1980:1 my emphasis)
That does not mean that there cannot be other curriculum inputs e.g. lectures, labs etc, rather,
the students are presented with the problem or trigger first and other curriculum inputs follow
later and may take a different format than traditionally in order to complement/enhance the
work on the problems in the PBL tutorials.
Problem-based Learning is part of the shift from the teaching paradigm to the learning
paradigm (Barr and Tagg, 1995). The focus is on what students are learning rather than what
the teacher is teaching. Lloyd-Jones, Margeston and Bligh (1998: 494) reconsider the “essential
features of Problem-based Learning”. They argue that:
Three shared elements stand out from the current picture of PBL in action: the
initiating trigger, the learning that students undertake by researching the learning
issues identified in the first tutorial, and the use of knowledge in furthering their
understanding of the trigger situation particularly in the final tutorial. (emphases
my own)
The following definition is also pertinent as it highlights PBL as a way of replicating problemsolving
processes used at work and in life generally:
PBL is both a curriculum and a process. The curriculum consists of carefully
selected and designed problems that demand from the learner acquisition of critical
knowledge, problem-solving proficiency, self-directed learning strategies and team
participation skills. The process replicates the common used systemic approach to
resolving problems or meeting challenges that are encountered in life and career
(Maricopa Community Colleges, Centre for Learning and Instruction:
http://www.mcli.dist.maricopa.edu/pbl/info/)
But what exactly do students do in Problem-based Learning? My operational definition of
Problem-based Learning is as follows:
Terry Barrett
15
Figure 1: Operational definition of PBL
1) First students are presented with a problem
2) Students discuss the problem in a small group PBL tutorial. They clarify the facts of the
case. They define what the problem is. They brainstorm ideas based on the prior knowledge.
They identify what they need to learn to work on the problem, what they do not know
(learning issues). They reason through the problem. They specify an action plan for working
on the problem
3) Students engage in independent study on their learning issues outside the tutorial. This can
include: library, databases, the web, resource people and observations
4) They come back to the PBL tutorial(s) sharing information, peer teaching and working
together on the problem
5) They present their solution to the problem
6) They review what they have learned from working on the problem. All who participated in
the process engage in self, peer and tutor review of the PBL process and reflections on each
person’s contribution to that process
When beginning a PBL initiative it is important to have a starting point definition of PBL.
However it would be a contradiction in terms not to treat PBL itself as a problem (Barrett 2001)
and I would encourage people to redefine what PBL means in their specific contexts. The PBL
case studies in this handbook have elements in common but also other elements that were
developed in relation to organisational and discipline needs, local constraints and the critical and
creative thinking of the curriculum designers.
PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING AS A TOTAL EDUCATION STRATEGY
I consider that PBL is not merely a teaching and learning technique, but a total approach to
education. I would advise people starting a PBL initiative to consider four important
components of PBL, namely: PBL curriculum design, PBL tutorials, PBL compatible
assessments and philosophical principles underpinning PBL.
Figure 2: Problem-based Learning as a Total Education Strategy
Curriculum
Design PBL Tutorials
PBL
Compatible
Assessments
Philosophical
Principles
Terry Barrett
16
Problem-based Learning curriculum design
Starting to develop a framework for curriculum design of any type including PBL provokes us
to asking some basic questions. These questions include:
What are the fundamental ideas, knowledge, skills and attitudes which should
be developed through the programme?
What are the internal and external drivers for curriculum change?
Who do we need to involve in the curriculum design process?
What are the stakeholders (including students, academic staff, employers,
professional bodies) saying about current educational needs?
What are our beliefs about higher education generally and our
profession/discipline in particular?
How are these beliefs and values translated into action in our curriculum
design?
How should the course be structured?
How will students learn on the course?
What prior knowledge, skills and attitudes do we consider as entry
requirements?
What kinds of assessment will be appropriate for the kinds of learning we are
trying to encourage?
Do we have a unique selling point?
How do we plan to market this course?
(Toohey, 1999)
At the core of PBL curriculum design is a set of well designed, ill-structured or open-ended,
real-life, engaging problems. Problems are not always about difficulties that need to be sorted
out. Challenges, dilemmas, and triggers are problems. Understanding a puzzling phenomenon
or a difficult concept can be a problem. How to find a better, more ethical or cheaper way of
doing something is a problem. How to design or create something is a problem.
There are different ways of getting involved in a Problem-based Learning curriculum. Some
people decide to have only one or two modules on the course as PBL modules. Others decide
that the full course will be PBL. As an implementation strategy some start with first years and
others with final years.
Designing a PBL curriculum means reconceptualising our curriculum in ways that emphasise:
Selection of content from practice
Concepts as the organising structure of the curriculum [and expressed as
learning outcomes for the whole unit]
Process as content
Graduate outcomes not subject-based outcomes
(Conway and Little, 2000)
Clarifying the learning outcomes for the unit/module of the curriculum is a very important stage
of curriculum design. The next step is to write problems that will stimulate student learning in
relation to these outcomes. A curriculum matrix where the problems are plotted against the
learning outcomes is helpful in designing a PBL curriculum ensuring that all learning outcomes
will be addressed at least once.
Terry Barrett
17
Figure 3: PBL curriculum matrix
Problems⇒ Name of P1 Name of P2 Name of P3
Learning
outcomes⇓
L.O. 1
L.O. 2
L.O. 3
L.O. 4
Variety and challenge are very important in designing PBL problems
…a measure of the quality of a problem is the degree to which it stimulates the
students’ desire to learn. The two features highlighted by the study were the levels
of variety and challenge perceived by students.
(Mauffette, Kandlibinder and Soucisse 2004:11)
Problems can vary in size in terms of length of study. Some problems are designed to be
resolved in two tutorials. Others are designed to last weeks or months. Sometimes problems
can be presented in a progressive disclosure mode. This means giving students the initial trigger
at the outset and then giving them further information at later stages. This mirrors real life e.g.
results of a report arriving, a new phone or e-mail message received in relation to the problem
etc. Another option is that one problem can be a follow-up to another problem. The following
are some ideas for providing variety in problem formats
Figure 4: Some Different problem formats
Scenarios Video clips Physical Objects
Dialogues Photographs Letters
Cartoons Poems Metaphors
Diagrams Limericks Requests
Set of Playing cards Audio-tape recordings Posters
Dilemmas E-mails Briefs
Progressive disclosure Follow-ups Quotations
Newspaper articles T.V. Shows Literature
Writing PBL problems combines critical thinking with creative thinking and is best carried out
in small teams. For more discussion and examples of PBL curriculum design see chapters 4, 5
and 6 of this handbook. For more examples of PBL problems see the University of Delaware
website: www.udel.edu/pbl/
PBL tutorials
The students work on resolving these problems in PBL tutorials. In a PBL tutorial a small
group of students (usually 5-8) work together on a problem. Often there is a tutor per group.
Where this is not possible there is a roving tutor(s). The role of the tutor is not to give
information or a mini-lecture on the problem but rather to facilitate the PBL process and
students reasoning through the problem. Different students act as chairperson, scribe,
Terry Barrett
18
timekeeper and reader of the problem. Sometimes students decide to assign other additional
roles, e.g. presentation editor.
Students brainstorm ideas for solving the problem, review the facts of the problem, name things
they need to learn about and make an action plan. In practice, learning issues are handled in a
variety of ways in different PBL initiatives. Some initiatives get all students to research all the
learning issues. Other initiatives encourage students to divide out the learning issues to
different group members. A middle stance is to get the group to divide the learning issues into
major and minor learning issues. All students research the major learning issues and the minor
ones are divided between the group members. Whichever approach is used it is important that
students develop their information skills, which is discussed in chapter 17 of this handbook.
There are different PBL tutorial models that act as a scaffold rather than a straightjacket for the
process. The central part of the Barrows model (Barrows, 1989) following setting the climate
and defining the problem is summarising the discussion of the PBL tutorial under the following
headings.
Figure 5: Barrows PBL tutorial model
Ideas/Hypotheses Facts Learning issues Action Plan
Students using this model may summarise their discussion under these headings on one shared
learning environment, which may be a whiteboard or flipchart. In addition students will have a
second shared learning environment for other work on the problem.
Another model for scaffolding the PBL process is the seven jump approach
Figure 6: Seven jump approach
1. Clarify unknown terms and concepts in the problem description
2. Define the problem: that is list the phenomena to be explained
3. Analyse the problem: “brainstorm”: try to produce as many different
explanations for the phenomenon as you can. Use prior knowledge and
common sense
4. Criticise the explanations proposed and try to produce a coherent
description of the processes that, according to what you think, underlie the
phenomena
5. Formulate learning issues for SDL[self-directed learning]
6. Fill in the gaps in your knowledge through self-study
7. Share your findings with your group and try to integrate the knowledge
acquired into a comprehensive explanation of the phenomena. Check
whether you know enough now.
(Schmidt and Moust, 2000: 23)
The following quotations reflect two PBL tutors’ perspectives on models for PBL tutorials
There has always been independent learning but PBL puts a process on it. It gets
them to think how they think. There is a metacognitive level.
It’s a structure but you have a lot of freedom. It’s a light structure, scaffold
Terry Barrett
19
In PBL tutorials there is a move to more democratic social relations than a traditional committee
meeting (Barrett, 2004a). PBL differs from individual research or project work as it is a
question of “our knowledge and control,” rather than “my knowledge and control” (Barrett,
2004b). In a PBL tutorial, students co-elaborate and co-construct their knowledge together.
Staff and students need induction, time and practice to adjust to their new roles.
The role of the tutor includes listening attentively, facilitating the learning process and asking
stimulating questions appropriately. Schmidt and Moust (2000) highlight the importance of
“cognitive congruence,” the tutor being able to express her or him self at the students level of
understanding:
If a tutor is not able to frame his or her contribution in a language that is adapted to
the level of understanding of the subject matter being studied, these contributions
will go unnoticed. In addition, cognitive congruence assumes sensitivity of the
tutor concerning the difficulties of students may come across while dealing with a
problem or with subject matter relevant to that problem.
(Schmidt and Moust, 2000:43)
They argue that “social congruence,” an interest in students and their learning is required in
tandem with cognitive congruence for effective PBL tutoring: Poikela (2005) has researched
learning to work as a tutor and discusses how tutors view their role change. The following
quotation from a tutor is a striking metaphor:
In earlier days, the teacher was sitting alone in a fully loaded boat almost sinking,
and the poor teacher was trying to row with the last energy/he had. After PBL the
tutor is sitting in a boat with a group and guiding while others are rowing and
eagerly looking ahead.
(Poikela, 2005: 189)
A new website gives some very practical advice on ways to be an effective PBL tutor that
includes the following:
Figure 7: Ways to be a great PBL facilitator
Be interested and enthusiastic
Forget lecturing
Tolerate silence
Get students talking to each other and not to you
Make sure the group agree on learning issues before the group ends
Promote the use of accurate current information resources as students
research their learning issues
Remember the learning outcomes of the case and course
Establish a good learning environment for the group
Be yourself
( Catchum PBL users guide www.catchum.utub.edu)
The following quotations show two PBL tutors’ perspectives on PBL tutorials:
They break into groups and work on the problem. I am not good at getting them to
reflect. I am directive and not good at staying out and letting them be confused. I
am absolutely fascinated by the way they are doing it. Yesterday one of the girls
Terry Barrett
20
produced a cardboard box with a face painted on it and said let’s use this to get a
handle on Mary, on whom the problem is based.
We are trying to get them to focus on the process. If we don’t get them to develop
their own systems and processes, ways of working, I think we are wasting our time.
And I do think my thinking has changed because of PBL.
In Problem-based Learning academic staff are involved in curriculum design, writing problems,
the facilitation of PBL tutorials, and in assessment of learning.
PBL compatible assessments
I agree with the assertion in the first chapter of this handbook that assessment drives learning. If
you really want to see what a curriculum is about, look at the reality of its assessment system. I
argue that it is important to design assessments that are not only aligned with learning outcomes
but that are also compatible with the Problem-based Learning process. For helpful advice and
an introduction to a range of appropriate and effective assessment methods see Section 4 of this
handbook.
Philosophical principles underpinning Problem-based Learning
I agree that PBL is essentially a philosophical position in relation to knowledge in higher
education, (Margeston, 1997) and with the assertion that there is “nothing as practical as a good
theory.” (Lewin, 1943: 35) For these two reasons, I argue that it is essential to understand and
develop philosophical principles which underpin PBL. This helps us to address the essential
questions “What is learning in higher education?” “What is teaching in higher education?”
“What is PBL?” “Why are we using PBL?” “What are my roles as an academic in PBL?”
“What are the roles of students in PBL?” If you are too preoccupied with the spray of the wave,
you fail to realise its underlying swell, which in the case of PBL is philosophies of PBL. These
are challenging questions for members of a team starting a PBL initiative to ask themselves.
I argue that Margeston’s primary contribution is his elaboration of a post-modern philosophy of
PBL. Margeston (1997) highlights that PBL is not a mere superficial educational technique, but
rather it is a deep philosophical position in relation to knowledge, understanding and education.
His philosophical position underpinning PBL is:
A conception of knowledge, understanding and education profoundly different from
the more usual conceptions underlying subject-based learning. The difference can
be seen in the notion of expertise (Margeston, 1997: 37-38)
He develops this by discussing how subject-based expertise is expertise in terms of knowing a
lot of content. This is propositional knowledge - knowing that. In contrast, expertise in a
Problem-based Learning context presupposes propositional knowledge. It stresses the
importance of knowing how to work with problems. He argues that Problem-based Learning
“requires a much greater integration of knowing that with knowing how.” (Margeston, 1997:
38) Problem-based Learning, considered as a philosophical position, has huge implications for
all stages of PBL implementation and for staff development, student induction and change
management in particular.
I consider that Freirian philosophy (Freire, 1972; 1985) provides philosophical principles to
underpin Problem-based Learning (Barrett, 2001). Freire’s concepts of problematisation and
dialogue are particularly relevant. Why should anyone learn anything? It is important to
Terry Barrett
21
problematise learning. Then the only way of working on resolving a problem is to learn more.
From Freire’s perspective the concept of dialogue is much more than a technique, it is an
epistemological position that sees knowledge not as something static but rather something that
is made and remade through dialogue:
What is dialogue in this way of knowing? Precisely this connection, this
epistemological relationship, the object to be known in one place links the cognitive
subjects leading them to reflect together on the object. Dialogue is the bringing
together of the teacher and the student in the joint act of knowing and reknowing
the object of study. Then instead of transferring the knowledge statically, as a fixed
possession of the teacher, dialogue demands a dynamic proximation towards the
object. (Shor and Freire, 1987: 100)
This dialogue is the means by which people together create and recreate acts of knowledge.
Cognitivism, social constructivism and postmodernism provide theoretical foundations for
understanding PBL. Cognitivism means that Problem-based Learning is an active mental
process of accessing prior knowledge, making connections between old and new concepts and
using the elaboration of relationships to engage in theory construction (Schmidt, 2004). In PBL
the learners are constructing their knowledge together in PBL tutorials. PBL has a social
constructivist view of learning. It sees learning as something that results from the learner’s
actions and the role of the PBL tutor is to enable and encourage learners to construct their
knowledge together. A key point in the connection between PBL and postmodernism is that
there is a fit between PBL and changing postmodern concepts of knowledge. I agree with
Cowdroy’s argument that to exploit the full potential of PBL it is vital that it is underpinned by
post modern concepts of knowledge. On the other hand PBL underpinned by “modernist,
structural thinking” is in danger of “slipping back into mediocrity” (Cowdroy 1994: 45).
Cowdroy summarise the link between PBL and postmodern concepts of knowledge as follows:
Changes in professional practice and in technology and society alter the relevance
of particular sets of knowledge. This state of change of relevance is the basis of
Heidegger’s concept of the changing meaning of “knowledge” which challenges
Cartesian concepts of finite knowledge and thought. By adherence to the principle
of relevance. Problem-based Learning accepts Heidegger’s concept of indefinite
knowledge and eschews the Cartesian certainty of thought and knowledge…
It is important to explore these philosophical principles underpinning PBL not only when
starting a PBL initiative, but on an ongoing basis.
GETTING STARTED WITH PBL
When starting to design a PBL initiative it is very important to be aware of the research
evidence about success factors in PBL implementation (Figure 8) and to plan with this
awareness in mind.
In addition to gathering information about PBL generally and about PBL in a specific discipline,
there is a range of effective strategies for starting a PBL initiative. These include attending PBL
staff development workshops in your own institution or a major PBL university such as
Maastricht or McMaster. Visiting a university that is implementing PBL and listening to the
perspectives of academics and students can be very helpful. Working with an internal/external
PBL consultant to design, implement and continuously evaluate a PBL initiative is another
effective strategy. Framing the PBL initiative as a major action –research project or having a
research project linked to the PBL initiative are ways of combining teaching and research.
Terry Barrett
22
Figure 8: Success factors for implementing PBL
CONCLUSION
My main argument is that PBL is best understood not as a mere learning and teaching technique
but as a total education strategy underpinned by philosophical principles. Currently there are
some interesting developments in Problem-based Learning including using technology to
support Problem-based Learning, which is discussed in chapter 16 of this handbook, and the use
of PBL in the workplace, a case study of which is presented in chapter 15. Dolmans et al (2005:
741), in a paper entitled “Problem-based Learning: future challenges for educational practice
and research,” argues that the future challenges for educational practice and research include the
need for:
Research that bridges theory and practice and extends knowledge about developing
and improving PBL in everyday practice.
That is the rationale for the PBL chapters in this handbook.
Philosophical factors
An understanding of the philosophical principles underpinning PBL
A commitment to the philosophy of PBL ( Little, 1997; Margeston, 1991; Barrett,
2001)
Design factors
Comprehensive curriculum design (Conway and Little, 2000)
Well designed problems (Gijselaers and Schmidt, 1990; Schmidt and Moust, 2000)
Assessment compatible with PBL and the specific discipline/profession (Savin-
Baden, 2004; Raine and Symons, 2005)
Scheduled independent study time (Fincham and Schuler, 2001)
PBL tutoring factors
Small group size (Wilkerson, 1996)
A realistic acceptance of the role change (Little, 1997)
Effective tutoring skills (Poikela, 2005)
The ability to model process skills (Little, 1977)
Frequent opportunities for students to gain feedback (Little, 1997)
Staff and student induction factors
An acceptance of the importance of student induction to PBL and that students will
take time to develop PBL process skills and may need to change their assumptions
about learning (Little, 1997)
Substantial appropriate staff development (Conway and Little, 2000; Murray and
Savin-Baden, 2000; Richardson, 2005)
Management factors
A pragmatic and realistic approach (Little, 1997)
Institutional and management support (Little, 1997)
A PBL co-ordinator and administrative support (McLoughlin, 2005)
Terry Barrett
23
REFERENCES:
Barr,R.J. and Tagg, J. (1995) “From Teaching to Learning: A New Paradigm for Understanding
Education,” Change 27, 6, 12-25.
Barrett, T. (2001) “Philosophical Principles for Problem Based Learning: Freire’s Concepts of
Personal Development and Social Empowerment,” in P. Little and P. Kandlbinder (eds.)
The Power of Problem-based Learning, Refereed Proceedings of the 3rd Asia Pacific
Conference on PBL, 9-12 December, Newcastle, Australia: Problarc.
Barrett T. (2004a) “Researching the Dialogue of PBL Tutorials: a Critical Discourse Analysis
Approach,” in M. Savin-Baden and K. Wilkie (eds.) Challenging Research into Problembased
Learning. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Barrett, T. (2004b) “My Knowledge and My Control Versus Our Knowledge and Our Control:
Lecturers as Problem-Based Learners Talking about the PBL Tutorial,” Problem-based
Learning 2004: A Quality experience? 15-17 September, University of Salford.
Barrows, H. and Tamblyn, R. (1980) Problem-based Learning: An Approach to Medical
Education. New York: Springer.
Barrows, H. 1989) The Tutorial Process. Springfield Illinois: Southern Illinois University
School of Medicine.
Barrows, H (2000) Foreword, in D. Evenson and C. Hmelo (eds.) Problem-based Learning: A
Research Perspective on Learning Interaction. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Conway, J. and Little, P. (2000) “From Practice to Theory: Reconceptualising Curriculum
Development for Problem-based Learning,” in Problem-based Learning: Educational
Innovations across Disciplines. Selected papers from the Second Asia-Pacific Conference
on Problem-based Learning, Singapore.
Cowdroy, R.M. (1994) “Concepts, Constructs and Insights: The Essence of Problem-based
Learning,” In Reflections on Problem Based Learning. Campbeltown, NSW: Australian
PBL Network, 45-56
Dolmans, H.J.M., De Grave, W., Wolfhagen, I.H.A.P., and Van der Vleuten, C.P.M. (2005)
“Problem-based Learning: Future Challenges for Educational Practice and Research,”
Medical Education, 39: 732-741.
Fincham, A.G. and Schuler, C.F. (2001) “The Changing Face of Dental Education: The impact
of PBL,” Journal of Dental Education 65, 5, 406-421.
Freire, P. (1972) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Freire, P. (1985) The Politics of Education. London: Macmillan.
Gijselaers, W.H and Schmidt, H.G. 1990) “Towards a Causal Model of Student Learning
Within the Context of Problem-based Curriculum,” in Z.N. Nooman, H.G. Schmidt and
E.S. Ezzat (eds.), Innovation in Medical Education: An Evaluation of its Present Status.
New York: Springer.
Terry Barrett
24
Lewin, K. (1943) “Forces Behind Food Habits and Methods of Change, Bulletin of the National
Research Council 108, 35-65.
Little, S. (1997) “Preparing Tertiary Teachers for Problem-based Learning,” in D. Boud and
G.E. Feletti, The Challenge of Problem-based Learning. London: Kogan Page.
Lloyd-Jones, G. Margeston, D. and Bligh, J. (1998) “Problem-based Learning: A Coat of Many
Colours,” Medical Education, 32, 492-494.
Margeston, D. (1997) “Why is Problem-based Learning a Challenge?” in D. Boud, and G.
Feletti, The Challenge of Problem-based Learning. London: Kogan Page.
Mauffette, Y., Kandlibinder, P., and Soucisse, A. (2004) “The Problem in Problem-based
Learning is the Problems: But do they motivate students?” in M. Savin-Baden and K.
Wilkie, Challenging Rsearch into Problem-based Learning. Buckingham: SRHE/Open
University Press.
McLoughlin, J. (2005) “Co-ordinating and Managing PBL Programmes: Challenges and
Strategies,” in T. Barrett, I. Mac Labhrainn, and H. Fallon (eds.) Handbook of Enquiry and
Problem-based Learning; Irish Case Studies and International Perspectives, Galway:
AISHE and NUI Galway.
Murray, I and Savin-Baden, M. (2000) “Staff Development in Problem-based Learning,”
Teaching in Higher Education, 5, 1, 107-126.
O’Rourke, K. and Kahn, P. (2005) “Understanding Enquiry-based Learning,” in T. Barrett, I.
Mac Labhrainn, and H. Fallon (eds.) Handbook of Enquiry and Problem-based Learning;
Irish Case Studies and International perspectives, Galway: AISHE and NUI Galway.
Poikela, S. (2005) “Learning at Work as a Tutor: The Processes of Producing, Creating and
Sharing Knowledge in a Work Community,” in E. Poikela and S. Poikela (eds), PBL in
context: Bridging Work and Education. Tampere: Tampere University Press.
Raine, D and Symons, S. (2005) “Experiences of PBL in Physics in UK Higher Education,” in
Poikela, E. and Poikela, S. (eds.), PBL in context: Bridging Work and Education. Tampere:
Tampere University Press.
Richardson, J.T.E. (2005) “The Future of Research in Problem-based Learning,” Problem-based
Learning 2004 A Quality Experience? University of Salford 15-17 September.
Savin-Baden, M. (2004a ) “Understanding the Impact of Assessment on Students in Problembased
Learning,” Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41, 2, 221-233.
Schmidt, H. and Moust, J. (2000) “Factors Affecting Small Group Tutorial Learning: A review
of Research,” in D. Evenson and C. Hmelo (eds.), Problem-based Learning: A Research
Perspective on Learning Interactions. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schmidt, H. (2004) “The Current State of Problem-based Learning,” Keynote paper presented at
the Problem-based Learning 2004, A Quality Experience. University of Salford, 15-17th
September.
Shor, I. and Freire, P. (1987) “A Pedagogy for Liberation.” London: Bergin and Garvey.
Terry Barrett
25
Toohey, S. (1999) Designing Courses for Higher Education. Buckingham: SRHE/Open
University Press.
Wilkerson, L. (1996) “Tutors and Small Groups in Problem-based Learning: Lessons from the
Literature,” New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 68, Winter 23-32.
Online resources
Websites:
Catchum PBL users guide: This has some very practical advice for implementing PBL
www.catchum.utub.edu
Coventry website: Very good list of resources including: web resources, books, research
papers, PBL consultants and PBL conferences
www.hss.coventry.ac.uk/pbl/
McMaster University, where PBL began
www-fhs.mcmaster.ca/mhsi/problem-.htm
Maricopa Community Colleges, Centre for Learning and Instruction
www.mcli.dist.maricopa.edu/pbl/info/htm
PBL Clearinghouse
www.mis4.udel.edu/PBL/Index.jsp
Republic Polytechnic Singapore
All the institution uses PBL. They have developed the 1 day 1 problem process
http://discovery.rp.edu.sg.home/ced
University of Adelaide’s Advisory Centre for University Education: hosts the ‘Leap into PBL’
website. This is a very informative site and is a good staring point for lecturers who are new to
PBL and are considering implementing it. www.adelaide.edu.au/ltdu/leap
University of Delaware site on PBL: Comprehensive introduction to PBL with lots of sample
problems
www.udel.edu/pbl/
University of Maastricht: A European Centre for PBL. Runs staff development workshops and
producing a range of resources including videos
www.unimaas.nl/pbl/mission/mission001.htm
Discussion List:
JISC PBL Mailing List New members can join by visiting the following website
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa.exe?SUBED1=pbl&A=1
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)