Problem Formulation & Resolution in Online Problem-based Learning Rick Kenny, Athabasca University Mark Bullen, British Columbia Institute of Technology
Dec 04, 2014
Problem Formulation & Resolution in Online Problem-based LearningRick Kenny, Athabasca UniversityMark Bullen, British Columbia Institute of Technology
Introduction
• E-learning pedagogies must be defensible
• E-learning pedagogies are evolving• E-learning instructional design must be guided by research and theory
• Examination of problem-based learning in an online course
Authentic PBL Characteristics
• Problem-based• Problem-solving• Student – centred• Self-directed learning• Reflection
Effectiveness of PBL
• Meta-analyses examining use of PBL in Medical Education
• Conventional curricula outperformed PBL on measures of basic science
• PBL students scored higher on clinical examinations
• PBL most positive effects when constructs assessed at level of understanding principles that link concepts.
Methodology
Research Questions– What evidence is there that PBL fosters problem-solving behaviours and skills in undergraduate Agricultural Sciences students?
– What is the nature of the problem-solving process which students apply when engaged in PBL activities?
Methodology
Research Setting– Undergraduate Agroecology course– Fully online, WebCT
Participants– 11 students– Two PBL groups
Methodology
Methodology
Context
• PBL work took place in asynchronous discussion forums
• Instructor participated by monitoring, guiding, clarifying
Analysis
• Content analysis based on Murphy’s OAD instrument (2004, 2005)
• Based on Jonassen’s (1997) conceptual framework
• Two main categories– Problem formulation– Problem resolution
Methodology – Modified InstrumentProblem formulation Indicator
Defining PBL Space Agreeing with problem as presented in OAD
Specifying ways that the problem manifests itself
Redefining problem within problem space
Minimizing and/or denying problem
Identifying extent of problem
Identifying causes of problem
Articulating a problem outside problem space
Building knowledge Identifying unknowns in knowledge
Seeking information to resolve lack of knowledge
Clarifying (meaning, importance, accuracy of) information
Accessing and reporting on sources of information
Identifying value of information
Reflecting on one’s thinking
Methodology – Modified Instrument
Problem resolution
Indicator
Identifying solutions
Proposing solutions
Hypothesizing about solutions
Evaluating solutions
Agreeing with solutions proposed by others
Weighing and comparing alternative solutions
Critiquing solutions
Rejecting/eliminating solutions judged unworkable
Reaching conclusions
Coming to agreement about solutions
Acting on solutions
Planning to take action to resolve the problem
Results - Pass 1
Code Coder 2 Coder 1 Count % Count %
F 372 71.0 345 65.8 R 124 23.7 171 32.6
Other 28 5.3 8 1.5
Results - Pass 2
Process Coder 1 Coder 3
Cases % Cases %
Problem Formulation
Defining problem space
11 2.9 44 11.7
Building knowledge 218 57.8 191 50.7
Problem Resolution
Identifying solutions
54 14.3 37 9.8
Evaluating solutions
52 13.8 39 10.3
Reaching conclusions
16 4.2 0 0
Acting on solutions
0 0 0 0
Other 26 6.9 66 17.5
Results
• Only coded two levels: category, process
• Cohen’s kappa used for inter-coder agreement (Cohen, 1960)
• Categories– Case 2, Group 1: 0.449– Case 2, Group 2: 0.593
• Processes– Case 2, Group 1: 0.344
Issues
• The PFR process and PBL• Unit of analysis• Representing the PFR process in a PBL context
• Training
Contact Information
Rick KennyAssociate ProfessorCentre for Distance EducationAthabasca [email protected]
Mark BullenAssociate DeanLearning & Teaching CentreBC Institute of [email protected]