Participation in Online Problem‐based Learning: Insights from postgraduate teachers studying through open and distance education

Distance Education,Vol. 27, No. 3, November 2006, pp. 331–353

ISSN 0158-7919 (print); 1475-0198 (online)/06/030331–23© 2006 Open and Distance Learning Association of Australia, Inc.DOI 10.1080/01587910600940422

Participation in Online Problem-based Learning: Insights from postgraduate teachers studying through open and distance education

Mike McLinden*, Steve McCall, Danielle Hinton, and Annette WestonUniversity of Birmingham, UKTaylor and Francis LtdCDIE_A_193958.sgm10.1080/01587910600940422Distance Education0158-7919 (print)/1475-0198 (online)Original Article2006Open and Distance Learning Association of Australia, Inc.273000000November [email protected]

This article reports on work undertaken within Phase 2 of a pilot study concerned with the design,development, and evaluation of online resources. Drawing on recent developments in the applica-tion of technology within open and distance education, these resources were structured around theprinciples of problem-based learning (PBL) for use with postgraduate teachers. The articleexplores the responses of one cohort of students studying on a programme for teachers of childrenwith visual impairment, to learning through the use of these resources. In line with recent literaturein this area, the findings demonstrate that with the appropriate design and use of technology, PBL,traditionally viewed as a campus-based approach, can be adapted for use with students in highereducation studying through open and distance education. The findings highlight a number ofpotential barriers to learning and participation that can serve to reduce effective participation inthe online PBL activities. Future planned research by the authors will explore the extent to whicheach of these barriers can be reduced through appropriate planning and design, and provisionalrecommendations are included to assist in this process.

Introduction

Learning and teaching can be considered as central activities within higher education.The environment in which these activities take place both nationally and internation-ally is changing at a rapid pace and, as the strategic plan by the Higher EducationFunding Council for England (HEFCE) noted, students will learn in a wider rangeof settings with the advent of new technologies opening up new ways of teaching and

*Corresponding author. Visual Impairment Centre for Teaching and Research (VICTAR), Schoolof Education, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK. Email:[email protected]

332 M. McLinden et al.

supporting them (HEFCE, 2005). This article explores the responses of one cohortof postgraduate teachers to their participation in online problem-based learning(PBL). The participants undertook the work as part of a specialist programme forteachers of children with visual impairment at the School of Education, University ofBirmingham. The two years distance education programme attracts full-time teachersfrom advisory/visiting teacher services for the visually impaired, as well as mainstreamand special schools. Successful completion of the course leads to a nationallyrecognized specialist qualification to teach children with visual impairment.

The introduction of the online study component was a key strand in the redesignof the two years distance education programme. The original programme wasdesigned in the early 1980s (Arter, McLinden, & McCall, 2001), and was basedlargely upon written units, supplemented by practical elements such as teachingplacements. The new programme was launched in 2004. It retained many of the keyelements of the previous programme but was reorganized around a set of specialiststandards for teachers of children with special educational needs issued by theTeacher Training Agency (TTA, 1999). Whilst the programme retained a modularstructure, and the support network offered by regional tutors, the underlying peda-gogy was changed to incorporate greater “student-centred learning approaches”(Lockwood, 2001). Further, it included a greater emphasis on “e-learning,”described by Singh, O’Donoghue, and Worton (2005) as “learning that utilisesinformation and communication technology (ICT) to promote educational interac-tion between students, lecturers and learning communities” (p. 1). As part of thesedevelopments, innovative pilot online learning and support resources were designedand structured around the principles of PBL.

Problem-based Learning

PBL has become a well-established approach in the education of professionals withinhealth care (Price, 2003). The approach was originally developed at McMasterUniversity as a response to disillusion with the lecture-based approach as a methodof imparting knowledge and a concern that students studying medicine did notnecessarily understand the course content they were required to learn (Savin-Baden,2000). Whilst many training courses for the education of healthcare professionalshave adapted forms of PBL for whole or part of the course (Newman, 2003), there isan increasing body of literature reporting the use of PBL in the professional develop-ment of students in higher education within disciplines outside medicine, includinginformation systems analysis (Yip, 2002), business studies (Arts, Gijselaers, & Segers2002), and physiotherapy (Dahlgren, 2000; Dahlgren & Dahlgren, 2002). Whilstthere is no commonly agreed single definition of PBL in the literature, nor a consensusabout the nature PBL should take, a number of common pedagogical features can beidentified:

1. The problem serves as a route to learning (Arts et al., 2002; Duch, Groh, &Allen, 2001).

Online Problem-based Learning 333

2. Students work together in small tutorial groups (Dahlgren, 2000; Price, 2003).3. Problems are contextualized in the real world (Albanese & Mitchell, 1993;

Duch et al., 2001).4. Problems are used to develop metacognitive strategies/self-directed learning

skills (Dahlgren, 2000).5. PBL requires a shift in focus from teaching to learning (Burch, 2001; Matusiv,

St Julien, & Whitson, 2001).

Newman (2003) reported that PBL can be described in a variety of ways that canbe summarized as a complex mixture of general teaching philosophy, learningobjectives and goals, and attitudes and values. This is supported by Savin-Baden(2000), who argued that PBL is not just a different method or style of teaching, butinstead “is a different philosophical approach to the whole notion of teaching andlearning… at the heart of this approach is the development of important abilities,such as flexibility, adaptability, problem-solving and critique” (p. 13).

Implementation of PBL within an Online Environment

Whilst PBL has traditionally been used in the professional development of campus-based students within higher education (Duch et al., 2001), there is increasing evidenceto suggest that with recent developments in ICT the approach can also be adapted tomeet the increasingly diverse needs of students (Dennis, 2003; Edwards, 2005; Oliver,2005; Oliver, Omari, & McLoughlin, 1999; Tichon, 2002; Uden & Beaumont, 2006;Watson, 2001). Indeed, Savin-Badin (2001) noted that such developments offerstudents alternative choices for gaining knowledge and information, and suggestedthat current trends and policies promote strong links between PBL and ICT. Thisview is supported by Uden and Beaumont (2006), who reported that the “student-centred, task-focused, research-based, collaborative learning characteristics of PBLmake it a particularly suitable environment in which to blend technology” (p. 209).

Drawing on such developments, intriguing possibilities have been reported in theliterature that demonstrate that the strengths of online teaching and PBL may becombined effectively in, for example, medical education (Bowdish, Chauvin,Kreisman, & Britt, 2003; Lycke, Stomso, & Grottum, 2002) and undergraduateteacher education (Albion & Gibson, 2000; Edwards, 2005), as well as otherdisciplines (Dennis, 2003; Tichon, 2002; Yip, 2002).

Translating PBL to the online environment is not without its challenges, however,and recent literature highlights a need to ensure that application of the technology isinformed by appropriate pedagogical principles (Edwards, 2005; Uden & Beaumont,2006).

Thus, Uden and Beaumont (2006) argued:

One of the challenges we face is to integrate e-learning technologies into PBL where it isappropriate—that is, where it supports the learner. We feel strongly that the pedagogyshould come first, and that the technology should support, rather than conflict with, thepedagogy. (p. 195, original italics)


In examining how technology might be integrated within PBL, Uden and Beaumontclassified PBL-related activities into three broad “sets”:

1. Information-related learning activities (relating to individual research andresource-based search, selection, collection, analysis, synthesis, and presentationof activities).

2. Communication and collaboration activities (including peer, tutor, and expertcommunications that question, challenge, and co-construct knowledge).

3. Assessment-related activities.

They reported that technology has a particular role to offer in relation to each ofthese sets of activities within the PBL process. Thus, with respect to the first set,technology can be used by learners to undertake independent research, enablingparticipants to access appropriate resources as well as “the ability to search, select,collect, analyse, evaluate, and present the results of their research” (Uden &Beaumont, 2006, p. 196). Similarly, in relation to the third set, it is noted that tech-nology can be useful in assessment-related activities providing opportunities forlearners to use applications in order to analyse data, present conclusions, andundertake self-assessment and peer assessment questionnaires, etc.

As Uden and Beaumont highlighted, however, one of the most challenging taskswhen integrating technology within the PBL process is to design and manage aneffective online environment that affords learning through providing activities forparticipants to communicate as well as collaborate (i.e. activities captured in thesecond set of activities outlined above). The literature relating to recent developmentsin the role of technology within open and distance education offers a helpful contextwithin which to view its implementation within PBL, and provides useful insights intokey features that can be drawn upon when designing an online environment to enablesuch learning to take place.

Developments in the Role of Technology within Open and Distance Education

Miller (1996) reported some ten years ago that as the goals of education change from“teaching to facilitating learning, to empowering students to be reflective learners”(p. 40) technology can provide important functions not only in increasing learner accessto educational resources, but also in facilitating interaction among students, andbetween students and tutors, thereby opening up new opportunities for the learner toparticipate in learning communities. Similarly, with an eye to the future, Bates (1995)argued that whilst technology provides an opportunity to teach in a way “that can meetthe fundamental needs of a new and rapidly changing society” (p. 17), new approachesto teaching and learning will be required in order to exploit the unique features of thedifferent technologies and meet the widely different needs of learners. Bates proposedthat such approaches need to be based on knowledge about “how people learn andhow to design effective learning environments, as well as on a good understanding ofthe educational strengths and limitations of different technologies” (p. 17).


More recently, Mayes (2001) reported that the emerging “pedagogical consensus”in relation to online learning is that of constructivism, with an emphasis on collabo-rative learning, authentic task, reflection, and dialogue, as well as the promotion ofidentities and learning communities. Such an approach, Mayes argued, results fromtwo distinct shifts of emphasis:

1. a shift from a “representational” view of learning in which learning is viewed asbeing “acquired” to a “constructivist” or “constructionist” view in whichlearning is primarily developed through activity;

2. a shift away from a focus on the individual, towards an emphasis on socialcontexts for learning.

Mayes argued that within a constructivist approach the design of online learningtasks should be authentic to the work and social contexts in which the skills or knowl-edge are normally embedded. This view is supported by Oliver and McLoughlin(2000), who proposed that opportunities for online learning should “be createdwithin a framework that recognises the social, collaborative, and interactive naturesof learning so that technology-based tools for learning are situated within a soundpedagogical framework” (p. 149).

This increased emphasis on communication and collaboration within the onlineenvironment raises particular issues about learner engagement in group activities,however. As an example, Salmon (2002) reported that many students may beconcerned about working online and view the reduced opportunities for socialcontact in their learning contexts as a possible threat. This highlights the significantrole of the online tutor, or “e-moderator” (Salmon, 2000, 2002), in “affordingonline socialization and networking” amongst participants (Alexander & Boud,2001, p. 9), as well as the need for responsive guidance to ensure that “participantscan benefit from increasing skills and comfort in working, networking, and learningonline” (Salmon, 2000, p. 10).

The Visual Impairment PBL Research Project

The Visual Impairment PBL Research Project (VIPBL) is a pilot study concernedwith the design, development, and evaluation of online PBL resources for use withpostgraduate teachers of children with visual impairment. The focus of Phase 1 ofthe project concerned the development and piloting of online materials for use in theprogramme (McLinden, McCall, Hinton, Weston, & Douglas, 2006). Whilst thefindings of Phase 1 are based on a relatively small sample (N = 10), they providedevidence to suggest that with appropriate resources, adequate preparatory training,and effective tutor support it is possible to structure the virtual learning environment(VLE) to enable learners studying through distance education to engage in PBLactivities as part of their continuing professional development. Within Phase 2 thematerials were embedded into Modules 1 and 2 of the restructured programme andstudents’ responses to their use within the programme analysed. An overview of themethodology used in this phase is presented below.


Participants

Participants in Phase 2 of the project were students registered at the University ofBirmingham on the 2004–2006 distance education programme of study MandatoryQualification for Teachers of Children with Visual Impairment (N = 34). Studentson this course are required to have “qualified teacher status” (QTS) and a minimumof two years teaching experience. The revised programme includes a number ofcompulsory face-to-face components (i.e. four residential study components, tworegional study days, and six regional tutorials). All students are in full- or part-timeemployment and are normally provided with half a day a week “study time” by theirsponsors.

The 34 participants were divided into one of six online PBL tutorial groups (fourgroups of six students and two groups of five). The composition of the online PBLgroups was decided in advance by the tutors to ensure that each group reflected therange of roles and responsibilities within the cohort (i.e. teachers from specialschools, mainstream provision, and advisory services).

The groups were assigned a “chairperson” and “summarizer”, with each membertaking turns to fulfil these roles over the course of the two scenarios. The chair wasresponsible for organizing how the task was to be tackled and helping the groupdecide individual contributions, while the summarizer was charged with bringingtogether each member’s contribution and submitting a coherent team response bythe deadline. Each module was assessed by means of a written assignment, withinwhich students were required to draw on work undertaken for the module todemonstrate their knowledge and understanding in relation to the relevant learningoutcomes.

The Project Team

The Project Team consisted of the programme tutors based within the VisualImpairment Centre for Teaching and Research (VICTAR) and the EducationalTechnology Officer from the School of Education E-Learning Team. The role of theteam included the design and development of the learning environment (includingthe case scenarios and associated student tasks), organizing and running the induc-tion programme, and moderating the discussion within each online PBL tutorialgroup.

Development of Online Resources

The PBL course developed by the project team within Phase 1 of the project(McLinden et al., 2006) was adapted for use within Phase 2. This course wasdelivered through WebCT™ (Web Course Tools), a popular VLE within highereducation for the delivery of online courses. WebCT™ includes a wide range oftools and features particularly suitable to support online activities (e.g. bulletinboard, chat room facilities) and is used as the standard VLE within the University


of Birmingham. As reported by McLean and Murrell (2002), a significant advan-tage of this resource is that it is hosted on the university server, so students withaccess to the Internet are able to log on and access the materials without being oncampus.

The online case scenarios developed within Phase 1 were embedded intoModules 1 and 2 of the programme. A novel feature of each scenario was theincorporation of role play, with group members assuming the role of a newlyappointed specialist teacher of children with visual impairment, and with opportu-nities provided for students to enact their theoretical knowledge in a “close-to-real” situation (Alexander & Boud, 2001). The first case scenario introduced aset of fictional characters, including a young child with visual impairment whohad recently transferred to a local mainstream school. Brief pen portraits wereprovided about the school, including information about the child’s headteacher,class teacher, and learning support assistant, and about the Local EducationAuthority Support Service to which the newly appointed advisory teacher wasattached, including details about the teachers’ line manager/head of service(Figure 1).Figure 1. Screenshot of LEA Support Service created for the PBL ScenarioWithin each scenario participants worked in their online PBL tutorial group tocomplete an assigned task every two weeks. To add authenticity, feedback and taskswere presented in memo format through the service’s “pigeon holes” located on adedicated bulletin board. The tasks were designed to address specific learningoutcomes from each module and were based around realistic and plausible“problems” that might be encountered by teachers of the visually impaired in theirpractice. Five tasks were designed for inclusion within Case Scenario 1 (Module 1)to run over a period of ten weeks during semester 1. A further four tasks were

Figure 1. Screenshot of LEA Support Service created for the PBL Scenario


designed for inclusion within Case Scenario 2 (Module 2) to run over a period ofeight weeks during semester 2. An example of a task from the first Case Scenario ispresented in Figure 2.Figure 2. Screenshot of sample task created for Case Scenario 1This task was structured around a learning outcome for Module 1 requiringparticipants to “analyse the process of vision, the effects of ocular and cerebraldysfunction and the implications of these for development and learning.” Within thetask participants were requested to research the presenting eye conditions of the casestudy child, analyse the potential impact of these on learning and development, andproduce a group handout summarizing pertinent information for use by parents andprofessionals without a background in visual impairment.

Induction Programme

Whilst attending the first residential study component all students participated in aninduction programme designed to introduce them to the principles of online learningthrough WebCT™. This programme was based on a series of “active” learning tech-niques (McLean & Murrell, 2002) and included face-to-face as well as online compo-nents. The induction programme culminated with the students being presented withtheir first group task within the Module 1 case scenario. Following the studycomponent, no further opportunities were provided for the group members to meetface-to-face and the group work for each of the two case scenarios was conducted

Figure 2. Screenshot of sample task created for Case Scenario 1


exclusively through WebCT™ using either the dedicated asynchronous (i.e. bulletinboard) or synchronous (i.e. chat room) facilities.

Evaluation of Online Resources

On completion of the second case scenario an anonymous questionnaire was used tocollect feedback from the participants with respect to: (a) participation in the onlinePBL component (including prior experience of the technology, emotional aspects ofonline group work, management of time, etc.); (b) the design and relevance of thetwo case scenarios (including format, use of role play, relevance to module learningoutcomes, etc.).

The questionnaire included themed statements linked to a four-point Likert scale(1, strongly agree; 4, strongly disagree). Feedback of the students’ experiences ofparticipating in the online PBL component is reported below. A further paper isplanned to report feedback relating to the format and design of the case scenariosdeveloped for the study.

Results and Discussion

Participants’ Experiences and Use of Technology

The results in Table 1 provide interesting insights into the participants’ priorexperiences of the technology used within the project. Of particular note is thelarge proportion of respondents for whom use of a VLE and/or online forms ofcommunication were novel experiences. Although all teachers in the UK undergocertificated training in the applications of ICT in the classroom, most respon-dents reported that they had no prior experience of using WebCT™ or a similarVLE (82%) or of contributing to an online discussion through either synchro-nous or asynchronous means (80%). These results may be a reflection of theprofile of this particular cohort (i.e. mature postgraduate teachers studyingthrough distance education), and whilst greater familiarity with online discussionmight be expected among younger undergraduate students, the results illustratethat familiarity with the VLE cannot be assumed when planning online learningactivities.

This finding has implications for the design of future induction activities for theprogramme and suggests that additional time should be allocated to this area, possi-bly in the form of small group tutorials. This is supported by McLean and Murrell(2002), who, in evaluating the use of WebCT™ within a problem-based curriculum,reported that while many students do adapt to the use of WebCT™, some studentsmight initially be intimidated by the prospect of electronically delivered messagesand resources, and proposed that additional hands-on tutorials would be helpful tofacilitate student learning.

Whilst it is a programme requirement that all students have “regular” Internetaccess in order to undertake the online components of the programme, it is not


specified whether this access needs to be from home, work, or another location (e.g.public library). It is of interest, therefore, that, with one exception, all respondentsreported that they had Internet access from home, with approximately two-thirdsindicating they had broadband connection (Table 2).

As shown in Table 2, the majority of respondents (61%) reported that they wereable to access the Internet from their work environment on a regular basis, but asimilar proportion (61%) reported that they were not able to actually use this facilityto undertake the PBL component of the programme because of restrictions on theschool computer network. This distinction between availability and accessibility oftechnology was raised by Bates (1995) in relation to open and distance educationover ten years ago. It suggests that despite advances in the provision of Internetaccess within educational establishments, it cannot be assumed that all students on adistance education programme will be able to access the Internet from their workenvironment, demonstrating a need to consider this distinction carefully withstudents, prior to them commencing online activities.

Design and Use of the Virtual Learning Environment (VLE)

WebCT™ is widely used within higher education for the delivery of online coursesand is designed to allow the integrated use of a range of features particularly suitedto online collaborative learning, such as chat rooms and bulletin boards. The results

Table 1. Participants’ experience of using online components prior to commencing the programme of study (N = 34)

Please indicate which of the following online components you had involvement with prior to commencing the programme of study Yes No

1 WebCT materials (or similar) as part of an online professional development programme

18% 82%

2 Online “discussion” within a bulletin board, i.e. asynchronous discussion

20% 80%

3 Online discussion within a “chat room”, i.e. synchronous discussion 20% 80%

Table 2. Use of the Internet for participation in a PBL project (N = 34)

Yes No

Are you able to access the Internet from your work environment on a regular basis?

61% 38%

Were you able to make use of the Internet from your work? environment to undertake the PBL component of the programme?

38% 61%

What type of Internet access do you have from home?Broadband 67% 32%Pay as you go 26% 74%No Internet access from home 3% 97%


presented in Table 3 suggest that the design of the learning environment usingWebCT™ was appropriate to allow the required online tasks to be successfullycompleted. Thus, the majority of respondents (79%) reported that the environmentallowed them to navigate between the components of WebCT™ effectively andaccess and use the range of online resources either “well” or “very well.” Further,over 90% reported that the bulletin board (the main vehicle for online discussion)worked either “well” or “very well.”

While most respondents reported that the VLE allowed them to access and usethe chat room facility either “very well” or “well” (79%), approximately one in fiverespondents (21%) reported that they were able to make use of this facility only“fairly well” or “not very well.” This may be a reflection of the difficulties experi-enced by some students when using the chat room for discussion. The synchronousand fast moving nature of the chat room discussions can exclude or intimidateparticipants with limited experience of their use, and discussions can often fragmentinto conversations between individuals. Bulletin board discussions, on the otherhand, allow discussions to take place over several days and provide students time tothink carefully about their responses. It was apparent during discussions within theinduction programme that some participants expected that the main forum forgroup problem-solving would be the online chat room and had a perception that thisfacility would best mimic face-to-face discussion. This preconception by studentsnew to online communication clearly warrants further investigation.

As reported above, Uden and Beaumont (2006) classified online PBL-relatedactivities into three broad sets, including information-related learning activities. Alink to a search engine (Google™) was provided for this purpose and participantswere provided with opportunities to use this facility within the induction activities.

Table 3. Participants’ feedback on the design of the virtual learning environment (N = 34)

Very well Well Fairly well Not very well

1 How well did the virtual learning environment used in the VI PBL Project allow you to navigate relevant components of WebCT effectively (e.g. bulletin board, case scenario, chat room, etc.)?

41% 38% 21% 0

2 How well did the virtual learning environment used in the VI PBL Project allow you to access and use the dedicated bulletin board for group activities?

47% 44% 9% 0

3 How well did the virtual learning environment used in the VI PBL Project allow you to access and use the dedicated chat rooms for group activities?

47% 32% 9% 12%

4 How well did the virtual learning environment used in the VI PBL Project allow you to access and use additional online resources (i.e. through the link to Google)?

26% 32% 24% 18%


The responses to question 4 (requesting feedback on how well the VLE allowedparticipants to access and use additional online resources through this facility) ismixed, with approximately four in ten participants (42%) reporting that the environ-ment allowed them to access and use these resources either “fairly well” or “not verywell.” It is not immediately apparent why this question should elicit such a spread ofresponses, and as such, merits further investigation. Of relevance is the work ofNovitzki (2000), who reported that students’ use of, and responses to, online “learn-ing tools” raises important issues, including whether students on an online coursetypically use the tools as envisioned, and whether there is a difference in whatstudents want and expect as they move through an online course.

Emotional Aspects

Given the novelty of participating in this form of online learning for most of thestudents, the emotional or “affective” aspect of participating in the project wasconsidered an important dimension on which to obtain feedback. As the findingspresented in Table 4 show, there was a high degree of apprehension among studentsat the start of the programme, with most respondents (76%) reporting that they wereinitially hesitant about participating in online group work. Further, whilst theinduction activities were useful in developing confidence for most participants, it isof note that over one-third of the respondents (40%) reported that they did not feelconfident having completed these. This finding suggests a need for more structuredsupport to be provided, particularly during the early stages of accessing the onlineresources, with guidance provided for moderators as to their role in supportingparticipant engagement. The “five-stage model” of teaching and learning onlinedeveloped by Salmon (2000) provided a helpful framework in this respect, andreference will be made to this in future resource developments.

As noted above, the rota for the roles of chair and summarizer for each task wasdrawn up by tutors in advance. Students were expected to plan their workloads toenable them to fulfil their roles and were allowed to exchange the dates of theirduties only with the consent of the group. All respondents agreed that it was helpfulto have group roles clearly assigned for each task and that the online work had beenbeneficial to their studies, while 88% felt that participation in the project hadprovided them with a useful professional support network that would endure aftertheir training was over.

Management of Study Time

The results presented in Tables 5 and 6 provide interesting insights into the onlineworking practices of the participants. As noted above, Case Scenario 1 lasted for tenweeks and contained five tasks. Whilst two participants spent less than one hour perweek on the tasks, most participants (93%) reported that they spent more than onehour, with just over one-quarter reporting they spent over three hours per week. It isimportant to remember, however, that these results only indicate average time


commitments. Inevitably, the amount of time would have varied considerably fromweek to week according to the relative complexity of the task and the role of theparticipant (i.e. chairperson, summarizer, or group contributor).

Although the participants were given a study time allowance by their employers(usually half a day), it was noticeable that the bulk of the online PBL work wasundertaken at home in the evening, with students making use of their own technol-ogy. Whilst approximately one-quarter of the participants reported working onlineduring normal working hours (i.e. 09.00–17.00), most (68%) reported workingbetween 17.00 and 21.00, with two working after 21.00.

A similar spread of responses is reported for Case Scenario 2, although it is ofinterest to note that a greater proportion of participants reported they worked lessthan one hour a week (15% in comparison with 6%) and a lower number reportedthey worked more than three hours per week (15% in comparison with 26%). Itwould be useful to further explore the reasons for this shift with respondents, in

Table 4. Emotional aspects of participating in the online PBL component (N = 34)

Strongly agree Agree DisagreeStrongly disagree

1 I was initially hesitant about participating in the PBL component of the programme

44% 32% 17% 6%

2 I felt more confident in my abilities once I had completed the induction activities

17% 41% 29% 12%

3 I found participation in the PBL component particularly challenging as it required me to work outside of my allocated study time

41% 38% 18% 3%

4 I found it was helpful to have assigned groups roles for each of the tasks

50% 50% 0 0

5 Having participated in the project, I feel more confident in my abilities to work online in small groups

32% 68% 0 0

6 As a student on a distance programme, I found it beneficial to complete the online tasks within a small group

50% 50% 0 0

7 I was concerned about letting my group down if I did not contribute to a task by a given date

71% 29% 0 0

8 As a student on a distance programme, participation in the project provided me with a useful additional support network

50% 38% 12% 0

9 I would have welcomed additional opportunities to meet face-to-face with members of my group

24% 38% 32% 6%

10 I will maintain contact with members of my PBL Activity Group once the relevant modules have been completed

35% 47% 15% 3%


Tab

le 5

.P

arti

cipa

nts’

fee

dbac

k on

tim

e sp

ent

enga

ged

in P

BL

com

pone

nt (

N =

34)

<1

hour

per

w

eek

1–2

hour

s pe

r w

eek

2–3

hour

s pe

r w

eek

>3

hour

s per

w

eek

1O

n av

erag

e ap

prox

imat

ely

how

man

y ho

urs

did

you

spen

d en

gage

d in

eac

h of

the

tas

ks d

urin

g yo

ur p

arti

cipa

tion

in C

ase

Sce

nari

o 1?

6%35

%32

%26

%

09.0

0–17

.00

17.0

0–19

.00

19.0

0–21

.00

21.0

0–23

.00

2P

leas

e in

dica

te d

urin

g w

hich

of

thes

e ti

me

slot

s yo

ur w

ork

was

us

ually

und

erta

ken

whe

n pa

rtic

ipat

ing

in t

he P

BL

tas

ks26

%6%

62%

6%

<1

hour

per

w

eek

1–2

hour

s pe

r w

eek

2–3

hour

s pe

r w

eek

>3

hour

s per

w

eek

3O

n av

erag

e, a

ppro

xim

atel

y ho

w m

any

hour

s di

d yo

u sp

end

enga

ged

in e

ach

of t

he t

asks

dur

ing

your

par

tici

pati

on in

Cas

e S

cena

rio

2?15

%41

%29

%15

%

09.0

0–17

.00

17.0

0–19

.00

19.0

0–21

.00

21.0

0–23

.00

4P

leas

e in

dica

te d

urin

g w

hich

of

thes

e ti

me

slot

s yo

ur w

ork

was

us

ually

und

erta

ken

whe

n pa

rtic

ipat

ing

in t

he P

BL

tas

ks26

%6%

59%

9%


Tab

le 6

.P

arti

cipa

nts’

fee

dbac

k on

man

agem

ent

of t

heir

stu

dy t

ime

(N =

34)

Str

ongl

y ag

ree

Agr

eeD

isag

ree

Str

ongl

y di

sagr

ee

1I

foun

d it

dif

ficu

lt t

o m

anag

e m

y ti

me

effe

ctiv

ely

in o

rder

to

fully

eng

age

in t

he t

asks

fo

r th

e ca

se s

cena

rios

21%

41%

38%

0

2I

wou

ld h

ave

wel

com

ed a

ddit

iona

l inp

ut f

rom

tut

ors

abou

t ho

w t

o m

anag

e m

y ti

me

effe

ctiv

ely

21%

41%

35%

3%

3I

wou

ld h

ave

wel

com

ed g

uida

nce

from

tuto

rs r

egar

ding

how

muc

h ti

me

I sh

ould

hav

e sp

ent

enga

ged

in e

ach

of t

he t

asks

35%

41%

21%

3%

4I

foun

d it

eas

iest

to

part

icip

ate

onlin

e fr

om m

y w

ork

esta

blis

hmen

t12

%6%

21%

62%

5I

foun

d it

eas

iest

to

part

icip

ate

onlin

e fr

om h

ome

62%

29%

6%3%

6I

used

my

allo

tted

stu

dy t

ime

to p

arti

cipa

te in

the

pro

ject

9%26

%29

%35

%7

Mos

t of

my

onlin

e pa

rtic

ipat

ion

was

in t

he e

veni

ngs

and/

or w

eeke

nds

56%

32%

12%

08

I fo

und

the

grou

p si

ze w

as a

dequ

ate

to e

nabl

e us

to

com

plet

e th

e ta

sks

on t

ime

44%

50%

6%0

9I

felt

the

gro

up s

ize

was

too

sm

all t

o en

able

us

to c

ompl

ete

the

task

s on

tim

e0

3%47

%50

%10

I w

ould

be

inte

rest

ed in

par

tici

pati

ng in

fut

ure

case

sce

nari

os o

n a

volu

ntar

y ba

sis

as

part

of

my

stud

ies

for

the

prog

ram

me

9%32

%32

%26

%


particular to find out whether it was the result of more efficient working practicesdeveloped through experience.

The information on working practices is derived from self-reporting by therespondents. Whilst it was possible to monitor some aspects of individual partici-pation within each task by reading their online contributions, the work recordedonline gives no indication of the full range of activities that participants engage inwhen undertaking a task (such as online searches for information or composing asummary document for submission). In future research, therefore, it would beuseful to request participants to record the approximate time spent working onthe various activities within a particular task, possibly through the use of anonline log.

The responses in Table 6 suggest that the majority of participants (62%) haddifficulty in managing their time online, and a similar proportion would havewelcomed additional input from tutors on this aspect of their involvement. Whilstonly a broad indication about the amount of time they were expected to spend oneach task was provided during the induction programme, most respondents (76%)agreed that they would have welcomed additional guidance from tutors, an aspectthat will be explored further by the Project Team for future implementation.

Role of the Project Team

As shown in Table 7, the contribution of the Project Team throughout the projectwas valued by the students. However, whilst most respondents reported that thecampus-based induction sessions were considered to be “challenging but fun”(77%) and were felt to be important in establishing “a good group rapport” (97%),less than half the respondents felt that they had been provided with sufficient time“to learn new skills and procedures.” This feedback confirms earlier findings aboutthe need in future to develop the induction programme to ensure students feelconfident that they have the range of necessary skills to engage in online PBL,perhaps with additional input being provided in the form of small group tutorials forstudents who feel particularly anxious. It also highlights a need to carefully considerthe support that is provided to participants at various points in their online experi-ences, and Salmon’s five-stage model of teaching and learning online referred toabove could prove to be useful in this respect (Salmon, 2000).

Table 8 provides a summary of the responses relating to the technical supportrequired during the first scenario. Almost two-thirds of the participants reportedtechnical difficulties in accessing the programme site during the first scenario, withapproximately four in ten reporting that they needed to contact the technical supportteam for guidance. The technical difficulties mainly related to the participant’s owncomputer and/or Internet provider, but these may pose substantial barriers toparticipation in online PBL for students who are new to this mode of instruction.The findings emphasize, therefore, how important it is to provide adequate technicalsupport, particularly in the early stages of a course, a finding supported by Novitzki(2000), who reported that students with “little understanding or familiarity with


Tab

le 7

.P

arti

cipa

nts’

fee

dbac

k on

con

trib

utio

n of

the

pro

ject

tea

m (

N =

34)

Str

ongl

y ag

ree

Agr

eeD

isag

ree

Str

ongl

y di

sagr

ee

1T

he p

roje

ct t

eam

wer

e kn

owle

dgea

ble

and

anal

ytic

al in

the

ir a

ppro

ach

thro

ugho

ut t

he p

roje

ct44

%56

%0

0

2T

he p

roje

ct t

eam

wer

e cl

ear

and

orga

nise

d in

the

ir a

ppro

ach

44%

53%

3%0

3T

he p

roje

ct t

eam

wer

e en

thus

iast

ic a

nd s

tim

ulat

ing

38%

50%

12%

04

The

pro

ject

tea

m p

rovi

ded

clea

r di

rect

ion

and

feed

back

38%

50%

12%

05

The

cam

pus

base

d se

ssio

ns w

ere

chal

leng

ing

but

fun

24%

53%

18%

6%6

The

cam

pus

base

d se

ssio

ns w

ere

impo

rtan

t to

est

ablis

h a

good

gro

up r

appo

rt47

%50

%3%

07

Suf

fici

ent

tim

e w

as p

rovi

ded

for

me

to le

arn

new

ski

lls a

nd p

roce

dure

s12

%29

%47

%12

%8

The

pro

ject

tea

m c

reat

ed a

n at

mos

pher

e of

eng

agem

ent

24%

56%

15%

6%9

The

pro

ject

tea

m s

tim

ulat

ed m

e to

acq

uire

new

ski

lls a

nd a

ppro

ache

s26

%53

%15

%6%


computers will find an online course initially at least, difficult, with more time spentwith the technology than the course material” (p. 74).

Conclusion

In discussing the new applications of PBL within higher education Ross (1997,p. 34) referred to the “healthy continuing evolution” of this approach. It can beargued that part of this continuing evolution is the adaptation of PBL, until recentlyviewed as a campus-based instructional approach, to the online environment. Insupport of recent work in this area the findings of this study provide evidence that,through the appropriate design and use of learning technologies, PBL can beadapted for use in the professional development of students studying through openand distance education. Indeed, Edwards (2005) reported that the features enabledby online technologies appear particularly suited to “many of the pedagogical tasksassociated with PBL, with avenues for integrating the two holding the potential tocreate a rich learning environment for students” (p. 333). The findings also supportbroader literature concerned with effective online teaching and learning, and suggestthat PBL can provide an appropriate context within which technology can be used tosupport the learner’s involvement in collaboration, authentic tasks, reflection, anddialogue (Oliver & McLoughlin, 2000).

This work does, however, highlight a number of potential barriers to online learn-ing and participation that can serve to reduce learning and participation in onlinePBL. These have been summarized in Table 9, and future planned research by theauthors will explore the extent to which each of these barriers can be reducedthrough appropriate planning and design. Provisional recommendations have beenincluded to assist in this process. It is of note, perhaps, that these barriers are notspecific to activities relating to PBL per se, but concern broader issues to do withaccess and participation within online learning environments. This suggests that inthe future design and development of the resources closer reference will need to bemade to relevant literature in this area (see, for example, Salmon, 2000, 2002) inorder that potential barriers to learning and participation can be identified.

As noted in the Introduction, the environment within which teaching and learningtakes place in higher education is changing rapidly, with new technologies openingup exciting possibilities for those involved in the design and delivery of distanceeducation resources. The findings of this study suggest the need to approach these

Table 8. Feedback on technical difficulties/support required during participation in PBL component

Yes No

1 Did you experience any technical difficulties in accessing the PBL site during Modules 1 or 2?

22 (65%) 12 (35%)

2 Did you need to contact the technical support team? 14 (41%) 20 (59%)

Online Problem-based Learning 349T

able

9.

Em

bedd

ing

tech

nolo

gy w

ithi

n P

BL

: pot

enti

al b

arri

ers

to a

cces

s/pa

rtic

ipat

ion

Pot

enti

al b

arri

er t

o ac

cess

/par

tici

pati

onR

ecom

men

dati

on f

or h

ow b

arri

er c

an b

e re

duce

d

1. S

tude

nt e

xpec

tatio

nsT

he s

tude

nt is

not

ful

ly a

war

e of

the

req

uire

men

ts a

nd

impl

icat

ions

of p

arti

cipa

tion

in th

e on

line

com

pone

nts

of

the

prog

ram

me

The

req

uire

men

ts a

nd im

plic

atio

ns o

f pa

rtic

ipat

ion

in t

he o

nlin

e co

mpo

nent

s (r

atio

nale

, att

enda

nce

and

part

icip

atio

n st

atem

ents

, tim

e m

anag

emen

t, c

ompu

ter

requ

irem

ents

, etc

.) a

re c

lear

ly s

peci

fied

in a

dvan

ce t

o bo

th s

tude

nt (

and

stud

ent’

s sp

onso

r/em

ploy

er if

app

ropr

iate

)G

uida

nce

is o

ffer

ed o

n th

e re

lati

ve a

dvan

tage

s/di

sadv

anta

ges

of u

sing

“sy

nchr

onou

s”

(e.g

. cha

t ro

om)

and

“asy

nchr

onou

s” (

e.g.

bul

leti

n bo

ard)

dis

cuss

ion

whe

n pa

rtic

ipat

ing

in P

BL

act

ivit

ies

2. A

vaila

bilit

y ve

rsus

acc

essi

bilit

y of

tech

nolo

gy (

e.g.

Bat

es

1995

)D

espi

te a

vaila

bilit

y of

tech

nolo

gy, t

he s

tude

nt a

ntic

ipat

es

that

it m

ay n

ot b

e po

ssib

le t

o ac

cess

it in

ord

er t

o en

gage

in

PB

L t

asks

Dis

ting

uish

wit

h st

uden

t be

twee

n av

aila

bilit

y of

tec

hnol

ogy

and

its

acce

ssib

ility

for

en

gage

men

t in

onl

ine

PB

L t

asks

Exp

lore

wit

h st

uden

t at

inte

rvie

w p

oten

tial

bar

rier

s to

onl

ine

acce

ssib

ility

wit

hin

the

wor

kpla

ce (

e.g.

dis

trac

ting

env

iron

men

t; li

mit

ed t

ime

avai

labl

e, e

tc.)

Exp

lore

the

pos

sibi

litie

s of

acc

essi

ng o

nlin

e P

BL

tas

k fr

om a

noth

er e

nvir

onm

ent

(e.g

. ho

me,

pub

lic li

brar

y, e

tc.)

3. E

xper

ienc

e of

IC

TS

tude

nts

wit

h lim

ited

IC

T e

xper

ienc

e fe

el o

ut o

f th

eir

dept

h w

hen

enga

ging

wit

h e-

lear

ning

Ref

eren

ce t

o ap

prop

riat

e m

odel

s of

onl

ine

teac

hing

and

lear

ning

in p

lann

ing

and

desi

gn o

f ac

tivi

ties

(e.

g. S

alm

on, 2

000)

Des

ign

indu

ctio

n pr

ogra

mm

e in

res

pons

e to

ass

esse

d ne

eds

of c

ohor

tD

urin

g in

duct

ion,

pro

vide

indi

vidu

al a

nd s

mal

l gro

up le

arni

ng o

ppor

tuni

ties

Mak

e st

uden

ts a

war

e of

the

tec

hnic

al s

uppo

rt t

hat

is a

vaila

ble

and

how

to

use

it—

w

here

app

ropr

iate

, int

rodu

ce s

tude

nts

to t

he t

echn

ical

sup

port

sta

ffP

rovi

de in

divi

dual

and

sm

all g

roup

lear

ning

opp

ortu

niti

es u

nder

the

sup

ervi

sion

of

expe

rien

ced

staf

f m

embe

rs f

or s

tude

nts

requ

irin

g ad

diti

onal

inpu

t/su

ppor

t4.

Tim

e m

anag

emen

tS

tude

nt e

xper

ienc

es d

iffi

cult

ies

in m

anag

ing

his/

her

stud

y ti

me

(e.g

. spe

ndin

g ex

cess

ive

tim

e en

gage

d in

on

line

acti

viti

es)

Cle

ar g

uida

nce

to b

e pr

ovid

ed t

o st

uden

ts in

adv

ance

of

onlin

e ac

tivi

ties

to

help

the

m

plan

and

man

age

thei

r st

udy

tim

eW

ithi

n gu

idan

ce, a

ckno

wle

dge

that

wor

k m

ay b

e re

quir

ed o

utsi

de o

f al

lott

ed s

tudy

ti

me

in o

rder

to

part

icip

ate

in g

roup

dis

cuss

ion

Pro

vide

rea

listi

c ti

mef

ram

es f

or e

ach

task

(w

here

pos

sibl

e, d

raw

ing

on e

xper

ienc

es o

f pr

evio

us c

ohor

ts)

Ens

ure

that

stu

dent

s ap

prec

iate

the

nee

d to

sch

edul

e th

eir

onlin

e w

ork

in a

dvan

ce

(esp

ecia

lly w

hen

they

are

gro

up C

hair

or

Sum

mar

izer

)


Tab

le 9

.C

ontin

ued

Pot

enti

al b

arri

er t

o ac

cess

/par

tici

pati

onR

ecom

men

dati

on f

or h

ow b

arri

er c

an b

e re

duce

d

5. N

on-p

artic

ipat

ion

Stu

dent

doe

s no

t pa

rtic

ipat

e in

onl

ine

acti

viti

esE

nsur

e st

uden

ts k

now

tha

t gr

oup

prog

ress

is m

onit

ored

reg

ular

lyId

enti

fy a

nd c

onta

ct n

on-p

arti

cipa

nts

earl

yE

stab

lish

caus

e of

dif

ficu

lty,

and

add

ress

Kee

p st

uden

t’s

fello

w g

roup

mem

bers

info

rmed

of

the

situ

atio

nR

efle

ct u

pon

whe

ther

the

tas

k an

d/or

inst

ruct

ions

nee

d re

defi

ning

—co

nsid

er w

heth

er

thes

e ar

e cl

ear

enou

gh f

or le

arne

rsC

onsi

der

whe

ther

add

itio

nal s

uppo

rt a

nd/o

r re

sour

ces

are

requ

ired

to

ensu

re

succ

essf

ul c

ompl

etio

n of

the

act

ivit

y6.

Tec

hnic

al is

sues

Stu

dent

exp

erie

nces

tech

nica

l dif

ficu

ltie

s in

acc

essi

ng th

e on

line

reso

urce

s

Ens

ure

that

stu

dent

s ar

e aw

are

of t

he t

echn

ical

sup

port

tha

t ca

n be

pro

vide

d to

su

ppor

t th

eir

stud

ies

wit

h co

ntac

t de

tails

of

who

wou

ld b

e ap

prop

riat

e to

con

tact

Cle

arly

out

line

wha

t ca

n po

tent

ially

go

wro

ng in

onl

ine

lear

ning

and

wha

t th

e st

uden

t ne

eds

to d

o in

eac

h ci

rcum

stan

ceP

rovi

de a

tec

hnic

al q

uest

ions

are

a (b

ulle

tin

boar

d) t

hat

is m

onit

ored

reg

ular

ly a

nd

prov

ide

FA

Qs.

Mak

e st

uden

ts a

war

e th

at t

hey

need

to

man

age

thei

r ti

me

and

thei

r re

acti

on t

o pr

oble

ms

(i.e

. tha

t no

ser

vice

is t

ruly

ava

ilabl

e 24

/7)


possibilities cautiously, in particular, to ensure that use of these technologies areinformed by sound pedagogical principles and with appropriate structured supportand guidance offered in order to maximize learner engagement.

Acknowledgements

The Project Team would like to acknowledge the role of the Learning DevelopmentUnit at the University of Birmingham in funding Phase 2 of the VIPBL project.

Notes on Contributors

Mike McLinden is a lecturer in Education (Visual Impairment) at the School ofEducation, University of Birmingham, UK.

Steve McCall is a lecturer in Education (Visual Impairment) at the School ofEducation, University of Birmingham, UK.

Danielle Hinton is an e-learning project coordinator at the School of Education,University of Birmingham, UK.

Annette Weston is a lecturer in Education (Visual Impairment) at the School ofEducation, University of Birmingham, UK.

References

Albanese, M. A., & Mitchell, S. (1993). Problem-based learning: A review of literature on itsoutcomes and implementation issues. Academic Medicine, 68, 58–81.

Albion, P. R., & Gibson, I. W. (2000). Problem-based learning as a multimedia design frameworkin teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8, 315–326.

Alexander, S., & Boud, D. (2001). Learners still learn from experience when online. In J. Stephenson(Ed.), Teaching and learning online: Pedagogies for new technologies (pp. 3–15). London: KoganPage.

Arter, C., McLinden, M., & McCall, S. (2001). A distance education programme for teachers ofchildren with visual impairments in the United Kingdom. Journal of Visual Impairment andBlindness, 95(9), 567–571.

Arts, J., Gijselaers, W., & Segers, M. (2002). Cognitive effects of an authentic computer-supported, problem-based learning environment. Instructional Science, 30, 465–495.

Bates, A. W. (1995). Technology, open learning and distance education. London: Routledge.Bowdish, B. E., Chauvin, S. E., Kreisman, N., & Britt, M. (2003). Travels towards problem-based

learning in medical education. Instructional Science, 31, 231–253.Burch, K. (2001). PBL, politics and democracy. In B. Duch, S. Groh, D. Allen (Eds.), The power

of problem-based learning (pp. 193–205). Sterling, VA: Stylus.Dahlgren, M. A. (2000). Portraits of PBL: Course objectives and students’ study strate-

gies in computer engineering, psychology, and physiotherapy. Instructional Science, 28,309–329.

Dahlgren, M. A., & Dahlgren, L. O. (2002). Portraits of PBL: students’ experiences of thecharacteristics of problem-based learning in physiotherapy, computer engineering, andpsychology. Instructional Science, 30, 111–127.

Dennis, J. K. (2003). Problem-based learning in online vs face-to-face environments. Education forHealth, 16(2), 198–209.


Duch, B. J., Groh, S. E., & Allen, D. E. (2001). Why problem-based learning? In B. J. Duch, S. E.Groh, & D. E. Allen (Eds.), The power of problem-based learning: A practical “How to” for teachingundergraduate courses in any discipline. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Edwards, S. (2005). Higher education in the twenty-first century: Examining the interfacebetween graduate attributes, online, and problem-based learning at Monash University.Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 14(3), 329–352.

Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). (2005). HEFCE strategic plan 2003-2008 (Revised April, 2005). Retrieved January 18, 2006, from http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2005/05_16/05_16.doc.

Lockwood, F. (2001). Foreword. In F. Lockwood, & A. Gooley (Eds.), Innovation in open anddistance learning: Successful development of online and Web-based learning (pp. xi–xii). London:Kogan Page.

Lycke, K. H., Stomso, H. I. & Grottum, P. (2002). PBL goes ICT: Problem-based learning in face-to-face and distributed groups in medical education at the University of Oslo, Institute for EducationalResearch Report no. 4. Oslo, Norway: University of Oslo.

Matusiv, E., St Julien, J., & Whitson, J. (2001). PBL in pre-service teacher education. In B. Duch,S. Groh, & D. Allen (Eds.), The power of problem-based learning (pp. 237–249). Sterling, VA:Stylus.

Mayes, T. (2001). Learning technology and learning relationships. In J. Stephenson (Ed.), Teach-ing and learning online: Pedagogies for new technologies (pp. 16–26). London: Kogan Page.

McLean, M., & Murrell, K. (2002). WebCT: Integrating computer-mediated communication andresource delivery into a new problem-based curriculum. Journal of Audiovisual Media inMedicine, 25(1), 8–15.

McLinden, M., McCall, S., Hinton, D., Weston, A., & Douglas, G. (2006). Developing onlineproblem-based resources for the professional development of teachers of children with visualimpairment. Open Learning, 21(3) 235–249.

Miller, G. (1996). Technology, the curriculum, and the learner: Opportunities for open anddistance education. In R. Mills, & A. Tait (Eds.), Supporting the learner in open and distanceeducation (pp. 34–42). London: Pitman.

Newman. (2003). A pilot systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of problem basedlearning, Learning, teaching support network-01 Special Report 2. Retrieved March 13, 2006,from http://www.ltsn-01.ac.uk/docs/pbl_report.pdf.

Novitzki, J. (2000). Asynchronous learning tools: What is really needed, wanted and used? In A.Aggarwal (Ed.), Web-based learning and teaching technologies: Opportunities and challenges(pp. 60–78). London: Idea Group.

Oliver, R. (2005). Using a blended learning approach to support problem-based learning with firstyear students in large undergraduate classes. In C. Looi, D. Joassen, & M. Ikeda (Eds.),Towards sustainable and scalable educational innovations informed by the learning sciences(pp. 848–851). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press.

Oliver, R. & McLoughlin, C. (2000). Using networking tools to support online learning. In F.Lockwood, & A. Gooley (Eds.), Innovation in open and distance learning (pp. 148–159).London: Kogan Page.

Oliver, R., Omari, A., & McLoughlin, C. (1999). Planning and developing a problem-based learn-ing environment for large on-campus classes using the WWW. In G. Cumming, T. Okamoto,& L. Gomez (Eds.), Advanced research in computers and communications in education, Proceedingsof ICCE99 (pp. 720–727). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press.

Price, B. (2003). Studying nursing using problem-based and enquiry-based learning. Basingstoke, UK:Palgrave Macmillan.

Ross, B. (1997). Towards a framework for problem-based curricula. In D. Boud & G. Feletti (Eds.),The challenge of problem-based learning (pp. 28–35). London: Kogan Page. (Second edition).

Salmon, G. (2000). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. London: Kogan Page.Salmon, G. (2002). E-tivities: The key active online learning. London: Kogan Page.


Savin-Baden, M. (2000) Problem-based learning in higher education: Untold stories. Buckingham:Open University Press/Society for Research into Higher Education.

Singh, G., O’Donoghue, J., & Worton, H. (2005). A study into the effects of e-learning on highereducation. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 2(1), 13–24.

Teacher Training Agency. (1999). National special educational needs standards. London: TeacherTraining Agency.

Tichon, J. G. (2002). Problem-based learning: A case induction in providing e-health educationusing the Internet. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 8(Suppl. 3), 66–68.

Uden, L., & Beaumont, C. (2006). Technology and problem-based learning. London: InformationScience.

Watson, G. H. (2001). Problem-based learning and the three Cs of technology. In B. J. Duch, S.E. Groh, & D. E. Allen (Eds.), The power of problem-based learning: A practical “How to” forteaching undergraduate courses in any discipline. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Yip, W. (2002). Students’ perceptions of the technological supports for problem-based learning.Education and Information Technologies, 7(4), 303–312.

Documents

Participation in Online Problem‐based Learning: Insights from postgraduate teachers studying through open and distance education