This article was downloaded by: [Washburn University]On: 02 November 2014, At: 00:21Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

The Law TeacherPublication details, including instructions for authorsand subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ralt20

Online enhanced problem-basedlearning: assessing a blendedlearning frameworkIan McCall aa Associate Professor of Law, Director, ProfessionalLegal Training Program, Faculty of Law , University ofWollongong , NSW, AustraliaPublished online: 12 Feb 2010.

To cite this article: Ian McCall (2010) Online enhanced problem-based learning:assessing a blended learning framework, The Law Teacher, 44:1, 42-58, DOI:10.1080/03069400903541336

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03069400903541336

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressedin this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content shouldnot be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions,claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly

forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

21 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

The Law TeacherVol. 44, No. 1, March 2010, 42–58

ISSN 0306-9400 print/ISSN 1943-0353 online© 2010 The Association of Law TeachersDOI: 10.1080/03069400903541336http://www.informaworld.com

RALT0306-94001943-0353The Law Teacher, Vol. 44, No. 1, dec 2009: pp. 0–0The Law TeacherOnline enhanced problem-based learning: assessing a blended learning framework

The Law TeacherIan McCall Ian McCall*

Associate Professor of Law, Director, Professional Legal Training Program, Faculty of Law, University of Wollongong, NSW, Australia

Learning Management Systems (LMSs) provide learning and teachingtechnological tools and are employed in many education institutions inAustralia and internationally. This paper describes a project in which ageneric, institutionally adopted, online LMS was adapted to a postgradu-ate professional legal education course to blend the online elements withother existing methods of delivery. The rationale of the project was to addto the existing flexible learning mode and create an enhanced student-centred learning environment as well as improved learning outcomes. Itexplores some of the potential advantages of incorporating onlinecomponents within a flexibly delivered course which relies heavily on aproblem-based learning format. These include opportunities to create“real-life” learning experiences and promote student collaboration whilethey acquire and strengthen skills of independence, self-reliance and self-management – among the skills students need for lifelong learning whichthey can apply across disciplines and global legal environments.

Introduction

Most Australian higher education institutions employ at least one LearningManagement System (LMS) for online student and course management and toassist with the provision of learning and teaching.1 If the LMS adopted by aninstitution is generically available across teaching disciplines, subject coordina-tors, if they embrace the system, must then decide how it might enhance learn-ing and teaching delivery in their subjects and, perhaps, how to adapt it toachieve their needs. For this they will most likely need assistance to understand,navigate and manage the LMS and to learn new skills to get the best from it. If

*Email: imccall@uow.edu.au1A. Ellis and R. Byrnes, “The Distribution and Features of Learning Management Systems inAustralian Universities and Their Role in Student Assessment”, Southern Cross University (2004).Available at: http://ausweb.scu.edu.au/aw04/papers/refereed/byrnes/paper.html (accessed 21September 2008). This article reports on a survey, in 2004, of the various LMSs in use in 44 Australianuniversities and other degree granting institutions. Of those surveyed, 40 employed a primaryLMS, mostly WebCT (50%) and Blackboard (35%) with the third largest user group comprising in-house developed systems (13%). WebCT and Blackboard merged in 2005/06. The LMS employedby the University of Wollongong is Blackboard Vista 4.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

21 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

The Law Teacher 43

they are fortunate, there will be an institutional learning development organi-sation or online tutorials (or both) available to provide this assistance.

This article reports on a project to implement the technology offered by ageneric institutional LMS in a course leading to entry level professional qualifi-cations. The principal aims of the project were to deploy online learning toolsin the existing course to enhance its flexibility, produce high quality learningexperiences for students and retain an appropriate level of face-to-face sup-port and assessment.2 In this context, key research questions examined are:

• What is the appropriate blend of face-to-face and online technology thatneeds to be implemented in the course to assist in producing a high qual-ity flexibly delivered learning environment in the context of a problem-based learning approach?

• How effective are the online components of the generic LMS in support-ing students’ learning within such a blended environment and, in par-ticular, what is the extent to which students used the online discussionforum to support their learning?

The research methodology employed two indicators:

(1) The application of a “Resources – Tasks – Support” framework to theblended learning settings in the main transactional case study assess-ment tasks in business and litigation practice. The framework was basedon a model developed by an Australian University Teaching Councilproject.3 It facilitated our careful reflection on the students’ problem-based learning tasks as well as the resources, facilitation and supportthat should be offered within the proposed blended programme.

(2) Student evaluation surveys. The course is delivered in both Autumnand Spring semesters and the student evaluations are administered atthe conclusion of each course. The evaluations employ a six-point Lik-ert scale and include questions about the students’ perceptions of thevalue of aspects of the LMS in their learning, including the discussionforum.

The article begins with a literature review of problem-based and blendedlearning approaches and explores the main strategies and influences

2The author gratefully acknowledges the work of the UOW Centre for Educational Developmentand Interactive Resources (CEDIR) in the planning and design stages of the project.3In December 2002, the Australian Universities Teaching Council (AUTC) sponsored a major inter-national conference focusing on reusability of learning resources which have been developedusing information and communication technologies. The focus of the conference was to dissemi-nate the outcomes of the AUTC-funded project Information and Communication Technologies forFlexible Learning. The outcomes of the conference include a series of reusable learning designs inthe form of templates with the object of enabling academics to create high quality, flexible learn-ing experiences for students.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

21 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

44 Ian McCall

involved in the learning design and implementation aspects of the project. Itthen applies an exemplar to reflect on and assess important stages of thetechnology assisted problem-based learning settings and discusses some ofthe outcomes as evidenced by student course evaluations, touching onworkload implications for staff in implementing and working with the LMStechnology.

Problem method and problem-based learning (PBL)

Problem solving or the problem method is a learning and teaching methodol-ogy employed by many law schools.4 This approach broadly equates to a pro-cess of presentation of a problem scenario to students, their researching therelevant law, acquiring sufficient knowledge to produce a solution, followedby class discussion about the “answer”. The advantages of the problemmethod can be to test students’ knowledge, to develop their ability to analyseand value and to encourage the development of lawyerly skills and profes-sional judgement.5

As is by now widely known, problem-based learning employs some of thesame attributes as the problem method but has a different learning approachin that the focus is on the learning process rather than knowledge acquisition:students learn not just knowledge but the important skills they need to grap-ple with authentic problems “in general and in their discipline”.6

The PBL approach involves encouraging students to take an active part intheir own learning and “requires learners to construct and develop their ownknowledge through researching and developing solutions to open-ended,real-life problems”.7 This approach requires students to work on an issue ora problem, identifying not only its nature but the information they need to“synthesise a solution”.8 Even though a PBL approach involves a focus onlearning strategy and not solely on knowledge acquisition, students stillhave the opportunity to acquire relevant knowledge by using the strategy torecognise what they already know, identify what they need to know to tacklethe issues or problem and then seek the information, relevant to theirneeds.9

4M. Le Brun and R. Johnstone, The Quiet (R)evolution – Improving Student Learning in Law (Law BookCompany, 1994), p. 93.5Le Brun and Johnstone, supra n. 4, citing G.L. Ogden “The Problem Method in Legal Education”(1984) 34 Journal of Legal Education 654.6M. Kiley, G. Mullins, R. Peterson and T. Rogers, “Leap into Problem-based Learning”, Centre forLearning & Professional Development, University of Adelaide, p. 15. Available at: http://www.adelaide.edu.au/clpd/resources/leap/leapinto/ProblemBasedLearning.pdf (accessed 29 May2009).7T.J. Clouston, “Facilitating Tutorials in Problem-based Learning: Students’ Perspectives”, inP. Hartley, A. Woods and M. Pill (eds), Enhancing Teaching in Higher Education: New Approaches forImproving Student Learning (London, Taylor & Francis, 2005), p. 52.8P. Ramsden, Learning to Teach in Higher Education (London, Routledge, 1992), p. 141.9Supra n. 5, Le Brun and Johnstone, p. 93.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

21 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

The Law Teacher 45

PBL is a strongly supported method for promoting student-centredlearning.10 This student-centred approach and, therefore, the value of thestudents’ learning experiences, can be enhanced if the “problem” is sodesigned that they will be able to link the issues to reality.11 The experience oftrying to resolve “real-world” problems can enhance students’ learning out-comes and PBL can be a valuable addition to course development.12 Indeed,the form of “student-centredness” that PBL promotes means the learningprocess itself is the focus for students: they need to consider what they knowabout the problem and develop skills to assist them to complete gaps in theirknowledge and acquire the skills and attitudes to solve authentic problems.13

Kurtz, Wylie and Gold14 propose seven student-centred stages in designing aPBL programme:

• identifying the objects of the session;• interacting with the issue or the problems to be solved (for example by

means of a simulated client interview);• formulating the “learning questions” raised by the problem (for example

students can determine whether they have sufficient knowledge toanswer the problem and, if not, identify areas for research);

• engaging in self-directed study to answer learning questions, which isshared with others;

• applying information to solve the problem in a more meaningful andsophisticated way;

• reflecting on the process (reviewing and evaluating approaches used,new knowledge acquired and so on); and

• evaluating their own performance to see whether the educational objec-tives and outcomes have been met.

The issues or problems themselves need to be designed with care so that stu-dents can effectively take part in the exercise and, therefore, “contribute mean-ingfully”.15 Further, their contributions and learning outcomes are likely to be

10B. Allen, A. Crosky, I. McAlpine, M. Hoffman and P. Munroe, “A Blended Approach to CollaborativeLearning: Can it Make Large Group Teaching More Student-centred?”, in L. Markauskaite, P. Good-year and P. Reimann (eds), Proceedings of the 23rd ASCILITE Conference: Who’s Learning? WhoseTechnology? (Sydney, Sydney University Press, 2006).11D. Boud and G.I. Feletti (eds), The Challenge of Problem Based Learning, 2nd edn (London, KoganPage, 1997).12K. Snepvangers and I. McAlpine, “Student Learning Processes Using an Online PBL Module in anArt and Design Education Course”, in L. Markauskaite, P. Goodyear and P. Reimann (eds), Proceed-ings of the 23rd ASCILITE Conference: Who’s Learning? Whose Technology? (Sydney, Sydney Univer-sity Press, 2006).13Kiley et al., supra n. 6, p. 19.14S. Kurtz, M. Wylie and N. Gold, “Problem-Based Learning: An Alternative Approach to LegalEducation” (1990) 13 Dalhousie Law Journal 797, cited in Le Brun and Johnstone, supra n. 4, p. 94. 15Le Brun and Johnstone, supra n. 4, p. 96.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

21 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

46 Ian McCall

more meaningful if they have some grounding and generic skills associatedwith the problem-solving process.16

Generally, the learning methodology on the value of PBL is that it has thepotential to encourage students to take responsibility for their own learning,be independent learners, to have less reliance on their teacher as their learn-ing progresses and thus improve the quality and depth of their learning.Indeed, as Le Brun and Johnstone note: “to be successful, teachers involved inPBL might need to take a ‘back seat’ to the learning activities so that studentsare fully engaged in the process”.17 Even so, teachers need to exercise care ingauging the level of guidance, support or facilitation to be provided by staffand the amount of self-reliance expected of students, since the PBL approachis not without its risks for students, as noted by Kenley18 and Kajewski,19

including:

• students’ loss of direction due to a perceived lack of guidance;• students’ lack of progress as they are used to teacher structured

programmes;• students resent the workload in seeking information;• “good” students thrive on PBL whereas the “poor” students expect to be

taught and fail to achieve;• quality belongs to the teacher and not the student; accordingly lack of

student achievement is caused by the lack of teaching.

Boud and Felitti20 also caution that there can be problems for staff in imple-menting PBL:

• confusing PBL with teaching problem-solving;• insufficient commitment of staff;• lack of research and development of the problem;• insufficient resourcing, particularly at start-up phase;• insufficient staff induction and development;• inappropriate assessment methods.

On balance, the literature suggests that, although some caution is necessary inusing a PBL approach, it can produce positive learning and teaching

16K. Gooding, “Problem Based Learning Online”, in S. McNamara and E. Stacey (eds), Untangling theWeb: Establishing Learning Links, Proceedings of the ASET Conference, Melbourne, 7–10 July 2002.Available at: http://www.aset.org.au/confs/2002/gooding.html (accessed 21 September 2008).17Le Brun and Johnstone, supra n. 4, p. 96.18R. Kenley, “Problem Based Learning within a Traditional Teaching Environment”, in AUBEA Con-ference Proceedings, AUBEA, Sydney, 1995.19S.L. Kajewski, “PBL and Construction Management Education: An Independent Learning CaseStudy” (1996) Australian Institute of Building Papers: Education for Construction Management, Vol. 1,pp. 20–31.20Boud and Feletti, supra n. 11.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

21 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

The Law Teacher 47

outcomes. In particular, such an approach, if deployed appropriately, can con-tribute to developing students’ skills of self-reliance and lifelong learning,21

which are likely to have a longer shelf life and be of more value to them acrossdisciplines and jurisdictions than mere knowledge.

Blended learning

While the literature contains various definitions and descriptions of “blendedlearning”, there seems to be general agreement among writers that the labelmeans a mix of face-to-face and online learning and teaching modes whichare delivered in the best balance of active and engaging face-to-face andonline learning experiences.22 Other specific descriptions appearing in the lit-erature include:

• “finding a harmonious balance between online access to knowledge andface to face human interaction”;23

• “the thoughtful integration of face to face learning experiences withonline experiences”;24

• “a systematic mix of eLearning and learning in face-to-face contexts, inwhich coherence across the two contexts from a student perspective isachieved by focusing on the same intended learning outcomes”;25 and

• “systematic combinations of e-learning and face-to-face learning”.26

Where institutions have adopted a blended approach, the proportion of face-to-face and online elements varies among subjects and the mix needs to bedesigned for a variety of audiences.27 Integration of the right balance of face-to-face and online elements is challenging, as Garrison and Kanuka caution:

21R. Oliver and A. Omari, “Using Online Technologies to Support Problem Based Learning:Learner’s Responses and Perceptions” (1999) 15(1) Australian Journal of Educational Technology58–79. Available at: http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet15/oliver.html (accessed 12 January 2010). 22C.R. Graham, “Blended Learning Systems: Definition, Current Trends and Future Directions”, inC.J. Bonk and C.R. Graham (eds), The Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspective, LocalDesigns (San Francisco, 2006), pp. 3–21.23R.T. Osguthorpe and C.R. Graham, “Blended Learning Environments: Definitions and Directions”(2003) 4(3) Quarterly Review of Distance Education 227–33, at 230. 24D.R. Garrison and H. Kanuka, Blended Learning: Uncovering its Transformative Potential in HigherEducation (2004), doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.01 (accessed 12 January 2010). 25R.A. Ellis and R.A. Calvo “Learning through Discussions in Blended Environments” (2004) 40(1)Educational Media International 263–74, at 268. 26R.A. Ellis, A.F. Steed and A.C. Applebee, “Teacher Conceptions of Blended Learning, BlendedTeaching and Associations with Approaches to Design” (2006) 22(3) Australasian Journal of Educa-tional Technology 312–35, at 318. Available at: http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet22/ellis.html(accessed 15 September 2008).27M. McSporran and S. Young “Critical Skills for Online Teaching” (2004) 2(3) Bulletin of AppliedComputing and Information Technology. Available at: http://www.naccq.ac.nz/bacit/0203/2004McSporran_OnlineSkills.htm (accessed 20 September 2008).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

21 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

48 Ian McCall

Blended learning is both simple and complex. At its simplest, blended learn-ing is the thoughtful integration of classroom face-to-face learning experi-ences with online learning experiences. There is considerable intuitive appealto the concept of integrating the strengths of synchronous (face-to-face) andasynchronous (text-based Internet) learning activities. At the same time, thereis considerable complexity in its implementation with the challenge of virtu-ally limitless design possibilities and applicability to so many contexts.28

Using the online technology feature of the “blend” can be useful for develop-ing not only subject knowledge but key skills for practice, such as those identi-fied by Candy and Crebert:29

• making reasoned decisions in problematic situations;• adapting to change;• reasoning and thinking critically;• collaborating productively in groups or teams;• self-directed learning; and• understanding issues from multiple perspectives.

In the past, some criticism has been levelled at the online component ofblended learning principally because its dominant function was perceived bysome teachers to be limited to the electronic delivery of content and informa-tion such as course materials, lecture notes and slides.30 However, morerecently it has been seen as a way to foster critical thinking as well as facilitat-ing collaborative learning and increased interaction between students andstaff through discussion forums and email contact.31 And, as Bloxham,Maharg and McKellar note, in a blended learning environment, onlineresources can provide much more than information and materials to supportlearning:

. . . the online infrastructure can be used to provide a variety of both text-basedand multi-media learning resources to supplement traditional f2f classroomteaching, discussion forums to enable student-to-student and/or student-to-tutor communications, noticeboards for course administration, facilities for the

28D.R. Garrison and H. Kanuka, “Blended Learning: Uncovering its Transformative Potential inHigher Education” (2004) 7(2) The Internet and Higher Education 95–105, at 98.29P.C. Candy and R.G. Crebert, “Teaching Now for Learning Later: The Transfer of Learning Skillsfrom the Academy to the Workplace”. Paper presented at the 8th Australasian and LanguageConference, Brisbane, 1990, cited in R. Oliver and C. McLoughlin, “Using Web and Problem-based Learning Environments to Support the Development of Key Skills” (1999). Available at:http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/brisbane99/papers/olivermcloughlin.pdf (accessed 20September 2008).30See e.g. Oliver and Omari (1999), supra n. 21.31C. Dziuban, P. Moskal and J. Hartman, “Higher Education, Blended Learning & the Generations:Knowledge is Power – No More” (2005). Available at: http://tlc.ucalgary.ca/documents/chuck.doc(accessed 20 September 2008).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

21 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

The Law Teacher 49

e-submission of coursework and for the provision of feedback on learning tasksas well as providing a mechanism for tracking student progress.32

The setting: developing the blended learning course

The University of Wollongong Professional Legal Training Course (the Course)prepares law students for admission to legal practice, delivering a core curricu-lum that must comply with the National Competency Standards for EntryLevel Lawyers: a series of benchmarks specifying the skills, practice areas andvalues that must be included in all pre-admission training programmes. Theoriginal UOW Course was delivered flexibly combining on-campus trainingand off-campus coursework, with virtually no reliance on online technology.All Course support materials were in hard copy and all coursework needed tobe submitted in hard copy.

The University learning development centre initiated the learning design pro-cess for the blended Course by suggesting a framework which was a product of anAustralian Universities Teaching Committee’s (AUTC) funded project, the results ofwhich were disseminated at its 2002 conference, “Reusable Learning Design:Opportunities and Challenges”.33 This framework employed a “Resource – Task –Support” structure to propose generic face-to-face and online learning activi-ties. As non-experts in the field of online learning and teaching, we wereassisted in implementing this learning framework by the work of other educa-tors in design and implementation of technology-driven programmes.34

Implementation of online enhanced PBL

PBL requires students to be active learners, to investigate the issues and relev-ant information and engage in analytical techniques required to reach aresolution.35 These characteristics suggest a PBL approach is useful in the

32S. Bloxham, P. Maharg and P. McKellar, “Summary Report on the UKCLE/BILETA VLE Project” JILT2007 (1). Available at: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/2007_1/vle_report (accessed16 September 2008).33In December 2002, the AUTC sponsored a major international conference focusing onreusability of learning resources which have been developed using information and communica-tion technologies. The focus of the conference was to disseminate the outcomes of the AUTC-funded project “Information and Communication Technologies for Flexible Learning”. The out-comes of the conference include a series of reusable learning designs in the form of templateswhich will enable academics to create high quality, flexible learning experiences for students.34Ron Oliver and Jan Herrington, in their helpful article “Online Learning Design for Dummies: Pro-fessional Development Strategies for Beginning Online Designers”, Edith Cowan University, pro-pose that much of the online learning settings are being developed by “academics with little or noexperience or expertise in the field”. They also suggest that because teachers may have developedskills and understandings in their face-to-face teaching, those skills might not necessarily transfereasily to online learning.35B.J. Duch, S.E. Groh and D.E. Allen (eds), The Power of Problem Based Learning: A Practical ‘How To’for Teaching Undergraduate Courses in Any Discipline (Sterling, VA, Stylus, 2001), cited in K.Snepvangers and I. McAlpine, Student Learning Processes Using an Online PBL Module in Art andDesign Education Course (2004).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

21 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

50 Ian McCall

preparation of students for a professional environment.36 Where the “prob-lems” emulate those the students are likely to experience in real life, they aremore likely to adopt a “deep” as opposed to “surface” approach to theirlearning.37 In our Course, we were preparing people for admission to practiselaw and the PBL approaches are the strategies many lawyers employ in real lifeto handle issues in their clients’ cases. This was foremost among the reasonswe adopted the PBL method especially in the students’ authentic transactionalor case study coursework and assessment tasks. So, one of our important aimswas to incorporate online technology to enhance this “real-life” learningatmosphere, not only to introduce the problem but also to scaffold the learn-ing experiences in the subsequent stages of the PBL case study.38

When we examined the main components of the LMS we were applying toour overall PBL approach, we identified a number of valuable elements:

• the opportunity to provide a substantial and valuable research databasefor students including learning materials and resources such as coursestudy guides, commentary and readings, as well as web links to onlineresources such as the University library, the courts, NSW ParliamentaryCounsel’s Office, the NSW Law Society Journal, webcast lectures andother media;

• a “selective release” facility that can be used to programme in advancethe release of:– material, information or anything else capable of online transmission

to selected students on pre-determined dates;– generic feedback or examples of documents on students completing

nominated tasks in their coursework;– authentic “client concern” memos to students in their case studies

prompting them to examine their files, reflect on the actions they havetaken to that point and promptly respond to their clients’ concerns; and

– instructions and materials to selected groups of students on eitherside of a case study;

• a calendar tool to record selected events in a subject such as assign-ments, face-to-face facilitated sessions and assessments, with direct linksto each assignment;

• a strong communications capability outside the institutional studentand staff email that allows email exchanges among students and staffeither individually or in selected groups;

• a discussion tool that can be applied to and used within each module ofa subject that allowed asynchronous communication on multiple issues(or threads) among staff and students;

36Boud and Feletti, supra n. 11.37Ramsden, supra n. 8, p. 81. 38See e.g. L. Waters and C. Johnston “Web-delivered, Problem-based Learning in OrganisationalBehaviour: A New Form of CAOS” (2004) 23(4) Higher Education Research and Development 413–31.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

21 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

The Law Teacher 51

• a separate compartment (folder) that can be created for each modulewithin a subject which can contain information pertinent to the module,links to assignments, assignment material and additional resources suchas online links;

• a fully self-contained assignment environment that can house:– the assignment description, instructions, assessment criteria, instruc-

tions and transactional or case study materials to commence theproblem-based learning sequence; and

– the assignment submission area where students can submit theirassignment as a Word document with or without comment and themarker can download the assignment, insert feedback, upload theassessed document and have a choice of actions: return the assign-ment to the student for review and edit, save for later action or returnthe assignment with or without closing comments and award a finalgrade.

Online LMS infrastructure such as this can be of great value in supporting aproblem-based learning environment for students. It can, for example:

• provide online “triggers” or “starters” in the form of videos or othermedia to introduce the “problem” or learning question;

• release client instructions or requests for advice sequentially during theconduct of the case studies in a “real-life” way;

• provide, on request, learning resources or assignment materials housedin an online database for independent or group research; and

• provide opportunities for efficient and valuable communication and col-laboration.39

Study outcomes

Effectiveness of the “blend” of online and face-to-face learning

The process of adapting the institutional generic LMS for the two main “real-life” learning vehicles in the Course – business and litigation practice –involved linking assessment tasks to learning resources and support, includingon-campus facilitation and off-campus study and collaboration. Within the basicframework were “problems” in the form of tasks, introduced in face-to-face ses-sions or released online, on which students worked progressively off-campus,independently and collaboratively (for example, online using the discussiontool); assessment and feedback on assignments, followed by face-to-faceanalysis, reflection and discussion. These authentic tasks were built into thePBL sequences. Students were required to react to real-life situations thatconfronted them so that they needed to acquire skills or knowledge (or both)

39Snepvangers and McAlpine, supra n. 12.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

21 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

52 Ian McCall

to “solve” the problem (such as advising the client or preparing the appropri-ate document) and so assemble a solution.40

In reflecting on the quality of the blended learning design and integratedPBL settings, we were greatly assisted by one of the published designs fromthe AUTC project referred to earlier,41 one which was based on a specific PBLapproach to medical education. According to the description of this learningdesign in the AUTC website42 “. . .The selection structure and online presenta-tion of the PBL case resources have been specifically designed to support theface-to-face tutorial sessions and the integrated learning that flows fromthem”. The AUTC evaluation of the exemplar concluded that the model couldbe applied “in a range of disciplines”. The author of the exemplar43 proposed alearning design composed of three key elements: the content or resourceslearners interact with; the tasks or activities learners are required to perform,and the support mechanisms provided to assist learners to engage with thetasks and resources. This view is supported in the literature.44

We drew on the AUTC project exemplar as a “diagnostic tool” to identify,assess and validate some of the most important learning and teaching settingsin our online enhanced PBL delivery. Importantly, it assisted us to criticallyexamine such aspects as:

• the need to provide students with course materials and other resourcesin hard copy, CD or other electronic format;

• the ease with which students could access, navigate and interact withthe online environment and the technical support offered by the Univer-sity IT facility;

• the effectiveness of the “problems” we posed in the form of “triggers”and other introductory sequential assignment tasks, that were meant toengage the students in “real-life” practice-oriented activities and themedia by which they were (or could be) introduced;

• when and how we should offer support for students in the form of face-to-face sessions, on-campus individual or group consultations, onlinediscussion, email and online individual or generic feedback; and

• how and when we might encourage collaboration among studentsincluding use of the discussion forum.

40D. Jonassen, “Thinking Technologies: Context Is Everything” (1991) 31(6) Educational Technology35–7.41See supra n. 33.42Available at: http://www.iml.uts.edu.au/autc/ (accessed 12 January 2010). 43G. Ryan, “Description of University of Sydney Medical Program: Web-supported Problem BasedLearning Environment for Medical Education” (2002). Available at: http://www.learningde-signs.uow.edu.au/exemplars/info/LD18/index.html (accessed 17 September 2008).44For example, J. Elen and G. Clarebout, “Problem-based Learning in Technologically Rich Environ-ments: The Issue of Teacher Support”, in T. Chan, A. Collins and J. Lin (eds), Global Education on theNet, Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Computers in Education (Beijing, ChinaHigher Education Press and Heidelberg, Springer Verlag, 1998), pp. 473–80.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

21 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

The Law Teacher 53

The exemplar also enabled us to more clearly identify, evaluate and align theprincipal resources, learning experiences, facilitation and other supportrequirements in the Course programme for each case study. In this way, wewere able to determine whether we had the “blend” or “balance” right in allaspects of the delivery of these key learning and teaching vehicles. To illus-trate, the patterns that emerge from applying the exemplar to the businessand litigation case studies are shown in Figure 1.

Effectiveness of the online enhanced Course: students’ perceptions

An important opportunity for collaborative learning in the Course which westrongly endorse and encourage among the students is contributing to thediscussion forum. We suggest to students that such contributions can pro-mote a collegial spirit by sharing ideas and information, seeking clarification ofassignment issues or requirements and discussing ethical and professionalresponsibility issues arising in their “real-life” assignments. We have issuedguidelines and encouraged collaborative discussion of this nature especially incoursework where there can be tangible benefits such as providing opportuni-ties to clarify issues and share research and, to a permitted extent in groupwork, precedents, in drafting complex commercial agreements, therebyreducing students’ workload.

The literature offers guidance about the teacher’s role in contributing tothe discussion forum: when it is best for them to contribute and when toremain silent;45 how they can either stimulate or inhibit discussion by thequestions they pose.46 It appears that the discussion forum, at least in the twomain case study areas in the Course, is being under-utilised. In informal feed-back, one of the reasons students give for this apparent reluctance to engagein the discussion medium is that it is much easier to just text a question to acolleague rather than having to log into the online programme. Some stu-dents also report that they are inhibited by the public nature of the mediumand do not want to “look silly” by posting “dumb” questions. Despite theapparent lack of active contribution to the discussion forum, there are someencouraging signs in the students’ evaluations reported below, such as stu-dents apparently learning from the medium even without contributing to it.47

45R.W. Rohfeld and R. Hiemstra, “Moderating Discussions in the Electronic Classroom”, in Z.L. Bergeand M.P. Collins (eds), Computer-Mediated Communication and the Online Classroom in DistanceEducation (Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 1995).46L. Muilenberg and Z.L. Berge, “A Framework for Designing Questions for Online Learning” (2002).Available at: http://www.emoderators.com/moderators/muilenburg.html (accessed 24 September2008).47P. Maharg, “On the Edge: ICT & the Transformation of Professional Legal Training” (2006) 3 WebJCLI, where Maharg suggests students “lurking” on the discussion forum is fine: “We encouragedstudents to participate, but if they did not, we assumed they were content with the information onthe forum or had consulted previous forums, or had found the information they needed elsewhere.”Available at: http://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/2006/issue3/maharg3.html (accessed 24 September 2008).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

21 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

54 Ian McCall

Figure 1. Patterns that emerge from applying the exemplar to the business andlitigation case studies.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

21 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

The Law Teacher 55

At the end of each semester, we seek feedback from students by way of astudent course evaluation related to a number of learning and teaching issues.The surveys use a six-point Likert scale, are administered formally in class andthe students’ responses are anonymous. In addressing the questions for thissection of the study, we used the results of the students’ surveys from Spring

Figure 1. (Continued).

RESOURCES

ONLINE File note from partner to

trigger discussion session

SUBJECT RESOURCES (ALL MODULES)

Subject outline, Module Notes & Readings, Competency Standards, web links, library, weekend programs.

CIVIL LITIGATION (PERSONAL INJURY) FILE File note of interview, client statement, letter to other party.

ASSIGNMENTS LIST Details Additional assignment materials

Assessment criteria Blank pro forma documents

HARD COPY

Module notes and readings

Handouts

TASKS

ANALYSE FILE NOTE Identify issues, possible legal principles and/or statute, professional issues.

Assignment 1: prepare case analysis check list

Carry out enquiries/research identified in check list

Assignment 2: Report letter reporting outcome of research & enquiries.

Assignment 3: draft pleadings (statement of claim or defence).

Serve pleadings along with documents in support on “opponent”

Assignment 4: Draft brief to counsel.

Analyse counsel’s advice and report to client, seek instructions re settlement

Assignment 5: Draft negotiation plan

Attempt to negotiate settlement with opponent in accordance with instructions

Assignment 6: Report letter to client – outcome of negotiations, further work needed, bill

Assignment 7: hand up hard copy file

RESOURCES

FACILITATED PBL F2F SESSION

Introduction to litigation: what does a litigator need to know?

Discussion: professional issues – costs/costs disclosure & agreements, litigation ethics

FACILITATED PBL F2F SESSION

Case analysis Gathering evidence Expert evidence

INDEPENDENT STUDY

FACILITATED PBL F2F SESSION

Drafting pleadings – how to set out?

Drafting Brief to counsel. What does counsel need to know?

INDEPENDENT STUDY

FACILITATED PBL F2F SESSION

Planning for a negotiation Offers of settlement Documenting settlement Memorandum of costs

INDEPENDENT STUDY

F2F AND/OR HARD COPY FEEDBACK

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

21 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

56 Ian McCall

2008 and Autumn 2009. In each of the surveys, four of the focus questionssought students’ perceptions about:

• the value of the PBL approach as a way of learning in the Course;• the value of the e-learning sites for each Course subject;• the value of the discussion forum in enhancing their learning; and• their reaction to the level of face-to-face contact they experienced

during the Course.

Spring session 2008

There were 32 completed responses in all from a Course enrolment of 38. Wewere interested in learning how the students valued the PBL approachbecause we were aware we needed to exercise care in gauging the amount offacilitation and support to be provided against the amount of self-relianceexpected of students. In the evaluation, 28 of the 32 students rated the PBLapproach either “quite valuable” (14) or “very valuable” (14), while of the fourremaining respondents, two rated it “not particularly valuable” and the othertwo, “no opinion”.

The results on the value of the online learning programme in enhancingthe students’ learning were pleasing with ratings of “moderately valuable” (9)“quite valuable” (6) and “very valuable” (13). The remaining responses ratedthe value of the programme as “of limited value” (2) and “not particularly valu-able” (2). These students did not give reasons for their relative dissatisfactionand might have had technical issues with the system which they were not ableto resolve or for which they did not seek assistance.

Again, when rating the value of the discussion forum, most of theresponses (28/32) rated it on a scale of “moderately helpful” (9), “quite helpful”(12) to “very helpful” (7), with the remainder rating it as “of very little help” (1),“not particularly helpful” (2) and “no opinion” (1). These four respondents didnot give reasons. The students’ reaction to the face-to-face question was alsopleasing, with most (27/32) indicating that, overall, the face-to-face contactwith staff facilitating their learning was “about right” (13) or “quite sufficient”(14). The remainder rated it “not particularly sufficient” (2) and “excessive” (3)but did not assign reasons.

Autumn session 2009

In this semester, out of a course enrolment of 39, there were 34 completedstudent survey responses. The students rated the Course PBL approach aseither “moderately valuable” (2) “quite valuable” (5) or “very valuable” (27)in assisting their learning. The students surveyed showed strong supportfor the value of the online learning programme in enhancing their learning,rating it as “moderately valuable” (3) “quite valuable” (9) or “very valuable”

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

21 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

The Law Teacher 57

(19). The remaining respondents (3) rated the online learning programmeas “not particularly valuable” but did not give reasons. The value of the dis-cussion forum was rated highly by students with most rating it “moderatelyhelpful” (9) “quite helpful” (7) or “very helpful” (17). The remainingrespondents rated the discussion forum as “of very little help” but did notgive reasons. The students in this semester displayed an increased willing-ness to engage in most of the discussion threads. This participation wasespecially noticeable in the contributions to the “settlement figures” dis-cussion thread preceding the completion of the purchase of the businesstransaction, which involves each student being assessed by a member ofthe visiting assessment panel made up of external practising commerciallawyers.

On the question of the sufficiency of the level of face-to-face contact withstaff, most respondents thought it was “about right” (13) or “quite sufficient”(15), while the remainder rated it “not particularly sufficient” (2) or “excessive”(4). Neither of the latter groups assigned reasons.

Conclusion

Overall, the responses to the focus survey questions suggest that the projectwe embarked on to adapt the LMS to the needs of our course was successful inenhancing the flexibility of delivery and in contributing to the quality of thestudents’ learning experiences. The “Resources – Tasks – Support” exemplarassisted us not only to plan and develop an appropriate balance of face-to-face opportunities and online technology within our overall PBL course struc-ture but also to assess the extent to which the settings could contribute to asupportive student-centred learning environment. The students’ surveyresponses in both semesters indicated that, overall, the majority were satisfiedwith the level of teacher facilitation and support and also considered theonline learning programme enhanced their learning.

As would be widely experienced among educators, blended learningenvironments, especially those delivered within a PBL framework, do notgenerally produce lighter workloads for teachers. During the study, wewere able to assess the appropriate amount of additional teaching and con-sultation support that needed to be available to students – by telephone,online and, if necessary, in extra sessions on campus, individually or ingroups. The amount of teaching and additional support to be provided,outside normal academic consultation times, needs to be gauged with eachcohort but the availability and extent of such support should, it issuggested, be clearly signalled to students at the outset. This aspect is aworkload issue that teachers and faculties need to appreciate and takeaccount of when they ponder the value of a blended learning environment,as is the fact that marking online-submitted assignments takes measurablylonger than marking hard copy.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

21 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

58 Ian McCall

The level of positive responses on the value of the online discussion forumwas interesting and indicated to us that, even where students might havebeen reluctant to contribute to the discussion threads, they still apparentlyread them and they assisted their learning in the Course. We see value in find-ing ways to encourage more participation in the discussion forum, as the asyn-chronous medium allows students time to develop their responses, come backto a thread with new thoughts when convenient and allows opportunities forcontributions from less dominating types of students who might be reluctantto speak up in class.48

The outcomes from the project to restructure the Course suggest thatblended learning with a problem-based learning approach can contribute tostudents’ learning, especially in a professional education context, as well as totheir efficient use of online technology, their personal development and prob-lem-solving skills. These are among the toolkit of skills students need for life-long learning and they can apply them across disciplines and throughoutglobal legal environments. The work we did in developing and implementingthe blended learning Course has enabled us to continue to improve theapplication of the generic online components, in particular, and also to con-tinue to develop our own model for best practice.49 For us, that work has alsoreinforced the need for teachers to be clear on the aims and intended out-comes of their subjects and the learning and teaching needs of their students.If they are, the task of how dominant a part an LMS might play within the mixof other delivery methods is likely to be more focused and those outcomesmore positive.

AcknowledgementsThis article is based on a paper “Blended Learning Design in a PBL Context: Adapting aGeneric Learning Management System for Professional Legal Education”, presented bythe author at the Australasian Professional Legal Education Council (APLEC) conferencein Auckland New Zealand in November 2008. The author gratefully acknowledges thework of the UOW Centre for Educational Development and Interactive Resources(CEDIR) in the planning and design stages of the project.

48P. McKellar and P. Maharg, “Talk about Talk: Are Discussion Forums Worth the Effort?” Availableat: http://zeugma.typepad.com/Publications/VTF%20paper%20summary.doc (accessed 22 June2009).49It is noted that the learning design that emerged from the project described here was itselfreused to redesign two subjects within the University of Wollongong postgraduate engineeringmanagement course and was positively evaluated: S.R. Lambert and C.J. Brewer, “1st, 2nd and 3rdGeneration Implementations of an eLearning Deign: Re-use from Postgraduate Law to Block/online Engineering Course” (2007) 2(2) Journal of Learning Design 70–82.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

21 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014