This article was downloaded by: [McMaster University]On: 27 October 2014, At: 09:43Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Open Learning: The Journal of Open,Distance and e-LearningPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/copl20

Transforming traditional lectures intoproblem‐based blended learning:challenges and experiencesChristian Dalsgaard a & Mikkel Godsk aa University of Aarhus , DenmarkPublished online: 05 Jun 2008.

To cite this article: Christian Dalsgaard & Mikkel Godsk (2007) Transforming traditional lecturesinto problem‐based blended learning: challenges and experiences, Open Learning: The Journal ofOpen, Distance and e-Learning, 22:1, 29-42, DOI: 10.1080/02680510601100143

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02680510601100143

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not 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 liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial 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

Open LearningVol. 22, No. 1, February 2007, pp. 29–42

ISSN 0268-0513 (print)/ISSN 1469-9958 (online)/07/010029–14© 2007 The Open UniversityDOI: 10.1080/02680510601100143

Transforming traditional lectures into problem-based blended learning: challenges and experiencesChristian Dalsgaard and Mikkel Godsk*University of Aarhus, DenmarkTaylor and Francis LtdCOPL_A_209956.sgm10.1080/02680510601100143Open Learning0268-0513 (print)/1469-9958 (online)Original Article2007Taylor & Francis221000000February 2007

This paper presents our experiences and the challenges identified in transforming traditionallecture-based modules at a university into problem-based blended learning within a social construc-tivist approach. Our experiment was, among other factors, motivated by an urgent need to meet newcurriculum requirements by reducing the lecturing time in a graduate course on the subject ofhuman–computer interaction. The results indicate that it is possible successfully to transform tradi-tional modules into problem-based blended learning using a social constructivist approach, andmoreover reduce lecturing time, support repetition and support educational differentiation.

Keywords: Blended learning; E-learning; Social constructivism; Problem-based learning

Introduction

Universities increasingly want to offer completely or partly web-based courses inorder to facilitate easy and flexible learning and to increase teaching and learning effi-ciency (see, for example, Driscoll, 1998, p. 6; Paulsen, 2003, p. 54). Many universitymodules are already delivered as carefully prepared, ‘traditional’, linear universitylectures based on PowerPoint presentations that, with some adjustments, can betransformed into partly web-based learning. However, the transformation requiressome regard to organizational, technical and, not least, pedagogical considerations,and the teachers need to rethink their learning approach to ensure the appropriateoutcomes.

In this paper, we present our pedagogical experiences and the challenges identifiedin rethinking and transforming a predefined university curriculum into problem-basedblended learning on the basis of a social constructivist approach. Our experiment was,

*Corresponding author. The E-learning Unit, University of Aarhus, Vennelyst Boulevard 6, DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. Email: godsk@e-learning.au.dk

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

43 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

30 C. Dalsgaard and M. Godsk

first and foremost, motivated by an urgent need to reduce the lecturing time in a partof a graduate course in web-based communication by compressing the curriculum oftwo human–computer interaction (HCI) lectures into one single module, both toavoid the HCI part of the course taking up too much of the overall lecturing time(compared with the curriculum requirements) and still to ensure a reasonable instruc-tion in this subject matter. Secondly, because the HCI curriculum was considered verydifficult, we were interested in providing a flexible possibility for repetition, enablingstudents to go over the curriculum several times on demand. Thirdly, we wanted tomake the curriculum easier to grasp and meet individual preferences and character-istics of students by supporting educational differentiation.

In order to meet these requirements, we decided to transform parts of the moduleinto web-based learning materials introduced through a lecture. The result was ablended learning approach that mixed face-to-face lectures and activities using onlinematerials, allowing students to further explore the subject on their own (Weller, 2002;Paulsen, 2003; Macdonald, 2006). This would enable us to partly reuse existinglearning materials, such as earlier PowerPoint presentations, and also to avoid confus-ing the students by exposing them to the unaccustomed form of completely web-based instruction.

The social constructivist approach as theoretical basis

In order to transform the module, a social constructivist approach to learning wasapplied. This emphasizes the individual student and his or her way of studyingthrough self-governed work, while one-way lectures are considered less important.Schultz and Tønnesen (2006) argue that the traditional curriculum and the oraltradition of lectures within higher education are two central barriers to the imple-mentation of distance learning and blended learning. However, we believed that thesocial constructivist emphasis on self-governed work for students could remove thesebarriers.

According to the social constructivist approach, learning is considered an active,social process in which individuals actively construct knowledge (Vygotsky, 1978;Brown et al., 1989) within the social environment and so knowledge cannot be trans-ferred. This means that learning necessitates the active and self-governed work ofstudents.

Vygotsky (1978), Leont’ev (1978), Dewey (1916) and Wertsch (1998) stress thegoal-directed and mediated nature of self-governed activities. A problem represents agoal that cannot immediately be achieved. The mediated nature of activities meansthat a goal-directed person uses resources (such as physical objects, concepts or theo-ries) to solve a problem. Knowledge is constructed in this goal-directed activity.Consequently, according to this approach, students should be directed at solving aproblem and should direct the problem-solving process themselves.

Problem-based and self-governed activities are open-ended and ill-structuredprocesses, because students do not know how to solve the problem and so it is notpossible to predetermine their activities. Such processes are supported by open learning

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

43 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Transforming traditional lectures into problem-based blended learning 31

environments that do not direct the students’ work, but instead provide opportunitiesfor multiple activities directed by the students themselves (Land & Hannafin, 2000).Hill and Hannafin (2001) use the concept ‘resource-based learning environments’ todescribe these environments:

Compilations of varied but related resources, such as text, video, audio, and graphics relatedto common learning themes, can be simultaneously gathered across multiple repositories.They can be combined to form new resources or examined from multiple perspectives aslearners think critically and evaluate information […]. (Hill & Hannafin, 2001, p. 40)

Similarly, Jonassen’s (1997) model for designing constructivist learning environ-ments recommends that students are provided with a range of different tools andresources to support their problem-solving. In order to organize a large open-endedcollection of resources, Dalsgaard (2005) introduces the concept of a ‘learning frame-work’, which is a structure that contains resources related to a common overall theme.These are ‘raw’ resources, meaning that they do not determine specific learning activ-ities, and they do not serve specific learning objectives. Instead, a learning frameworkprovides different resources that can potentially support students’ problem-solving.This is in line with Hill and Hannafin’s (2001, p. 38) definition of resources as‘media, people, places or ideas that have the potential to support learning’. Learningframeworks, resource-based learning environments and constructivist learning envi-ronments should be seen as open-ended environments that support multiple learningactivities and learning objectives. Resources themselves do not determine how and forwhat purpose they should be used. Thus, it is important that students are directed atsolving a problem when using the resources.

From traditional modules to problem-based blended learning

Traditional university courses can be characterized as curriculum-based and lecture-based teaching. A course is organized by a curriculum provided through variousmaterials (typically textbooks and papers) and a number of lecture-based modulesthat are predetermined and sequenced. This approach represents a concept of‘knowledge as content’ provided by the teacher. Furthermore, one-way lectures, to alarge extent, are not interactive, because students are presented with answers ratherthan having to solve problems or find answers for themselves. Finally, this approachdoes not focus on the individual student. Every student is presented with the sametexts and the same lectures.

In our experiment, a lecture-based module was transformed into problem-basedblended learning. The transformed module was a part of a university graduate courseworth 10–20 ECTS points that ran for a full semester (approximately 14 weeks/module). The transformed modules were held at the Institute of Information andMedia Studies, University of Aarhus in Denmark and was attended by students whotypically had a bachelor degree in information science, media studies or informationtechnology. Originally, the module had been divided into two separate lectures eachof three hours with different topics, but it was necessary to restructure and combine

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

43 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

32 C. Dalsgaard and M. Godsk

the lectures into one focused and coherent lecture of three to four hours covering theessential parts of the original lectures. An earlier attempt to restructure the moduleby integrating the two separate lectures into one traditional, but more concentrated,lecture was not successful and resulted in some frustration among students due to theincreased speed (and thus difficulty) of the instruction and the lack of various addi-tional information. To rectify this, in 2005 we decided to experiment with blendedlearning as a possible solution. In the process of transformation, we identified fourmajor challenges:

● Formulating a problem.● Developing open-ended materials.● Restructuring the module.● Changing roles of teacher and students.

Formulating a problem

The social constructivist approach presented in this paper necessitates a differentapproach to the curriculum that should be considered not as content or knowledge,created from materials such as books, but formulated in terms of problems, questionsand activities, or what Savin-Baden (2003, p. 119) terms ‘problem scenarios’. On thebasis of the demands of the curriculum, the questions are: What problems does thesubject matter of the curriculum entail? What problems and questions will makestudents cover the content of the original curriculum?

Our purpose was to rethink the existing curriculum in terms of problem-basedlearning activities while ensuring that the original curriculum was covered during themodule. How can we be certain that students learn what they are supposed to learn,when they are working independently using open-ended resources? To ensure theserequirements were met, the problem had to encourage a specific use of the subjectmatter (in the form of resources), to be open-ended in the sense that it did not deter-mine the students’ course of action (Jonassen, 1997), and furthermore motivate thestudents’ self-governed engagement (Mauffette et al., 2004). In practice the followingproblem was formulated: ‘Develop a user-centred communication strategy for awebsite’ and ‘argue for the choice of method in relation to other methods’. Studentswrote an assignment of about five pages based on this problem and were given thechoice of using one of three different methods. The problem was open-ended in thatit had no definite right or wrong solution; however, it was written in a certain way toencourage the students to explore all aspects of the issue, and adequately cover thesubject matter.

Developing open-ended materials

It was necessary to rethink the existing learning materials in terms of resourcesthat could potentially be used by students. This involved moving away from a pre-determined curriculum in the form of a linear collection of texts to the use of a fewtexts to provide a background and an introduction to the subject matter. In addition,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

43 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Transforming traditional lectures into problem-based blended learning 33

students were provided with open learning materials in the form of a range ofresources to use to solve the problem of an assignment. The questions for us were:What resources can help students solve the problems? How can the content of thecurriculum be transformed into open-ended, online materials?

Prior to the transformation, the module consisted of lectures that incorporateddiscussions and exercises in using the analytical tools. The lectures were based onPowerPoint presentations that were subsequently distributed to the students.Students also received a compendium with a hard-copy of the curriculum textssupplemented by a few references to online texts. In the transformed module, theimportance and role of the materials was changed and new online learning materialsdeveloped. The module was restructured so that a problem-based assignment anddifferent online learning materials, which were introduced in a compressed lecture,became central.

Different kinds of resources were created or provided: basic hard-copy curriculumtexts, PowerPoint presentation from the lecture, supplementary texts, interactivelearning materials, an online discussion forum and supplementary digital materials(see Figure 1). Students were also able to interact with each other and the teacherusing an online discussion forum. The hard-copy curriculum texts were still essentialto the module, but the in-depth presentation, the elaboration of information andtheoretical discussions were now provided by interactive, online Flash animationsbased on the original PowerPoint presentations and easily developed in MacromediaCaptivate (2006).Figure 1. Overview of all the online materials of the transformed module. The icons indicate the file type of the online materials: Flash animations, PDF documents, and HTML documentsIn contrast to a curriculum-based and lecture-based approach, this organization ofresources focused on the individual student. Every student had the opportunity towork in different ways with the materials, depending on their individual understanding

Figure 1. Overview of all the online materials of the transformed module. The icons indicate the file type of the online materials: Flash animations, PDF documents, and HTML documents

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

43 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

34 C. Dalsgaard and M. Godsk

of and approach to the problem. This approach both supported different ways ofworking and enabled resources to be used for different learning activities and learningobjectives.

Restructuring the module

Using a problem-based approach involved rethinking the content of the module.Students’ self-governed activities, and their problem-based assignment were consid-ered the most important aspects of the learning process; to support this, it wasnecessary to provide opportunities for interaction, discussion, guidance, support,help, and so on.

Figure 2 shows the structure of the transformed module. Prior to the actual lecture,students prepared by reading basic hard-copy papers and online documents. The listof texts for this lecture had been available since the start of the semester, but usuallythe students read the texts just a few days prior to the lecture. The lecture itself wasnow used for a different purpose as one of many resources; it was considerably shorterthan the original lecture and served as a narrative that provided an overview of thetopic, its basic theories, and an introduction to the assignment and to the availableonline resources. After the lecture, students worked (individually or in groups) onsolving the problem-based assignment using the different online resources madeavailable within a virtual learning environment (VLE) Dokeos 1.5.5 (Dokeos, 2006).For the first one and a half to two hours, an IT lab with computers was available forstudents and the teacher was present to answer questions about the assignment,curriculum, and so on. Subsequently, the teacher was available for answering ques-tions through online discussions in the VLE until the assignment deadline threeweeks later. After the assignments were submitted, the teacher evaluated the assign-ments and provided general feedback to the class and individual comments andassessments two weeks later. Approximately one and a half months later, the studentshad to write a paper of 20 pages in order to pass the examination. At that time thematerials from the transformed module were still available.Figure 2. The structure of the transformed module and the use of the different resources

Figure 2. The structure of the transformed module and the use of the different resources

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

43 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Transforming traditional lectures into problem-based blended learning 35

The focus moved away from the lecture and towards self-governed, active work ofstudents. The result was a blended approach that did not merely extend the existingmodule by use of web technologies, but also involved a different organization of activ-ities and a development of new resources using different technologies.

Changing roles of teacher and students

Restructuring the module involved a change in the roles of teacher, student andcontent: the three aspects of the didactic triangle (Diederich, 1988). In the trans-formed module, the teacher’s role as the ‘one-way lecturer’ was minimized from sixto one and a half hours, and in the following one and a half to two hours the role ofthe teacher was to help and guide the students. Face-to-face sessions were used fordiscussion and interaction—and not primarily for one-way lectures. Furthermore, theteacher was also available (through a discussion forum) during the students’ subse-quent work on the assignment.

Wilkie (2004) argues that a problem-based approach demands a change in the roleof the teacher. In the transformed lecture the teacher did not present the subjectmatter in its entirety, but rather gave an introduction and provided a background forthe students’ work on the problem. Their role changed to that of guide, answeringquestions, promoting dialogue and recognizing students’ needs of assistance, all areasof importance in problem-based learning (Donnelly, 2004; Wilkie, 2004).

The role of students also changed through an increase in their self-governed workand through the introduction of a problem-based assignment. In the original module,the students read texts and attended lectures. In the transformed module, thestudents’ role was actively and independently to make use of the subject matter in thecontext of solving a problem. All in all this meant that the transformed module placedmore responsibility on the students whose role changed from readers and listeners toproblem-solvers.

Empirical study

In order to measure the success of the social constructivist framework in reducinglecturing time, supporting repetition and supporting educational differentiation, weconducted an empirical study. This was carried out by identifying which resources thestudents had used and how they had used them. Furthermore, the study analysed thequality of the transformed module—did the students actually achieve the same levelof skills as in previous years? The empirical study consisted of a questionnaireconcerning the use of resources, an achievement test measuring the progression offactual knowledge, a log of student activity in the VLE and, finally, an assessment ofthe students’ assignments. Unfortunately, an error in the VLE meant that it was notpossible to get accurate usage statistics, and, thus, this method was not used.

To study the use of the resources, a questionnaire was given to the students. Thisasked students to assign a priority (from 1 to 10, where 1 equals ‘highest priority’)to the different resources in terms of how much they had used them to solve the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

43 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

36 C. Dalsgaard and M. Godsk

assignment problem (Figure 3). Furthermore, they were asked what onlineresources they used and how they used them. The questionnaire was answered by20 out of 21 students. Six of the questionnaires were not used in our analysis of thepriority to the resources, because not all resources were assigned a priority in thesequestionnaires, making the questionnaire invalid.Figure 3. The questionnaire given to students at the end of the module. (The questionnaire is translated from Danish)In order to measure whether the students learned something in the transformedmodule, we conducted a before-and-after achievement test of the students’ factualknowledge on the subjects of the module (Figure 4). The test given prior to themodule was answered by 17 students, and the test given at the end of the module wasanswered by 20 students. Students did not know that they would be exposed tothe same test at the end of the module. The module ended with each of the students

Figure 3. The questionnaire given to students at the end of the module. (The questionnaire is translated from Danish)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

43 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Transforming traditional lectures into problem-based blended learning 37

writing a five-page assignment. This assignment was used to give an indication of thelevel of the students.Figure 4. The factual achievement test. The test was given to the students prior to the use of the learning materials and after the actual use. (The test is translated from Danish)Finally, the students had to write a 20-page examination paper concerning variousparts of the curriculum of the course at the end of the semester to pass the examination.

The students’ use of resources

The students were not familiar with the use of web-based materials. The question-naire showed that only one of the students had previously used similar web-basedmaterials in a learning situation. Figure 5 shows the students’ priorities in using theresources.Figure 5. The students’ order of priority of the different resources. The order of priority is based on an inverse median calculation of the students’ priorities of each resource where a higher value equals a higher priority. The values are based on 14 answersHard-copy curriculum texts were considered most important to the students’ workon the problem, followed by interactive, Flash-based learning materials in the VLE.Third most important was the PowerPoint presentation from the lecture, and onlyfourth most important was the lecture itself. The remaining resources had similarpriorities compared with each other.

In the questionnaire, students wrote about how they had used the differentresources. The slides from the lecture (interactiondesign.pdf) were primarily used toget an overview of theory and the methods they were supposed to use. Five studentsused the paper on the Website Activity Walkthrough method (WAW.pdf). They allstated that they used it as the main resource of their assignment. Whereas theseresources were used in similar ways by students, the interactive learning materials wereused in very different ways depending on the student. For instance, the presentationof the Website Activity Walkthrough method (in WebsiteActivityWalkthrough.htm)was used by individuals for inspiration; to get an overview, to see the application ofthe method; to put other methods in perspective—while three students also used itvery extensively as the central resource for their work. This means that some students

Figure 4. The factual achievement test. The test was given to the students prior to the use of the learning materials and after the actual use. (The test is translated from Danish)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

43 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

38 C. Dalsgaard and M. Godsk

used some materials to get a quick overview of the methods, whereas others were usedmore thoroughly.

Students’ use of the resources also differed in other ways. Some students used allthe resources, whereas others only used one or two. Furthermore, although generallyin agreement on the relevance of the different resources, the students had differentopinions about the usefulness of the resources. For instance, two students wrote thatthey found the Flash-based learning materials very useful, while one student thoughtthe materials worked very poorly.

During the course of the module, three groups of students used the discussionforum to ask the teacher questions. One concerned the students’ understanding of theassignment problem:

We would like to know exactly what is meant by ‘develop our own communication strat-egy’ in the formulation of the assignment. Does it mean ‘use one of the following strategiesto evaluate the communication on a given website’? Or should we develop a new commu-nication strategy? We are a bit confused.

Other questions concerned the interpretation of the subject matter:

We are not sure what extraordinary uses covers. Should this category be understood as anunintentional use which it is best to avoid? Or should it be understood more positively as

Figure 5. The students’ order of priority of the different resources. The order of priority is based on an inverse median calculation of the students’ priorities of each resource where a higher

value equals a higher priority. The values are based on 14 answers

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

43 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Transforming traditional lectures into problem-based blended learning 39

an extraordinary infrequent use which the website supports without it being its primarypurpose?

We have problems understanding the meaning of step 1.2.5 ‘network of activities’. Is thisrelated to the uses we found in step 1.1? Or does it refer to different use situations? […]Can you give us an example which is more detailed than the one in the text?

The students’ achievements

The achievement test conducted prior to the module revealed that only four (out of17) students had some prior knowledge about any of the methods that were to bepresented in the module. The factual questions showed that none were able to answermore than four out of eight questions correctly, four students were able to answerthree or four questions correctly, two students answered one question correctly, and11 students were not able to answer any of the questions. The average test score wasapproximately one correct answer.

The test conducted at the end of the module showed a progression in factualknowledge. Seven (out of 20 respondents) were able to answer six to eight of the ques-tions correctly (see Figure 6), which is very good, seven respondents were able toanswer three to five of the questions correctly, which is good/fair, and four studentswere able to answer just one or two of the questions, which is moderately poor, andtwo students were not able to answer any questions correctly. At this point the aver-age test score was approximately four correct answers, and two-thirds of the studentshad achieved a good immediate, factual knowledge of various parts of the curriculumFigure 6. Test scores of the achievement testsThe assignments also showed that students had achieved a good understanding ofthe fundamental principles of the curriculum and demonstrated that they were ableto apply the methods in practice. Furthermore, the quality of the assignments was atleast similar to (if not better than) the quality in previous semesters.

Finally, an interesting fact was that more students than usual decided to writeexamination papers that drew on the subject presented in the transformed module incomparison with the other subjects in the course. Previously, only 36% (5 out of 14)

Figure 6. Test scores of the achievement tests

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

43 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

40 C. Dalsgaard and M. Godsk

of the examination papers had used the HCI curriculum in focus, compared with53% (10 out of 19) in the course with the transformed module.

Experiences and conclusions

This paper examined the transformation of a curriculum-based and lecture-basedmodule in order to reduce the lecturing time, support repetition and support educa-tional differentiation. A social constructivist approach provided a framework fortransforming the module and, based on the framework, we identified four major chal-lenges of the transformation process: to rethink the existing curriculum in terms ofproblems, to develop a range of open-ended materials that supports problem-solving,to structure a ‘blended’ module that moves the focus away from the lecture andtowards self-governed work of students, and, finally, to let the teacher take the role ofa guide.

The first objective was to reduce the lecturing time, while still covering the sameamount of subject matter. Even though the lecture was previously considered bystudents to be too difficult, it was possible to shorten it, because what had previouslybeen covered by lectures was now covered by the students’ work on the assignmentand by web-based materials. The experiment showed that the reduction of lecturingtime did not affect the module in a negative way; the students performed better thanin previous years. The experiment indicated that the self-governed work of thestudents provided a better way of working with the curriculum.

The second objective was to support the students’ repetition of the curriculum.The questionnaire showed that there were examples of resources used more thanonce by the same students. Although the students had already seen the PowerPointpresentation in the lecture, nine students chose to go through the presentation againduring their work on the assignment. One student specifically states that he/she usedthe PowerPoint presentation for repetition. A resource previously used to present thesubject matter was now used to solve a problem. Another example is that one studentused the online presentation of the Website Activity Walkthrough method severaltimes, and yet another student used two of the presentations of methods to brush upon the theories behind the methods. The range of available resources made it possiblefor students to use specific resources on demand. The recurrent use of the materialsemphasizes the importance of availability of resources during the process of problem-solving. Not all of the students were satisfied or comfortable with using all of the web-based learning materials, so the usefulness for repetition purposes is individual.Nevertheless, the materials are accessible for the students through VLE long after thecourse and the module has ended, providing support for recurrent use and repetition.

Finally, we wanted to support educational differentiation in order to make the diffi-cult curriculum easier to grasp and to accommodate the different educational back-grounds of the students. Educational differentiation was first of all supported by anassignment. The assignment supported self-governed activities of students throughan open-ended problem and the availability of a wide range of open-ended resources.The use of the resources was not given or predetermined and the students had to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

43 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Transforming traditional lectures into problem-based blended learning 41

decide for themselves which resources to use and how to use them. The answers inthe questionnaire showed that, although the students were working on the same prob-lem, they did not use the same resources, and the resources were used in differentways and for different purposes. This supports the argument that it is important toprovide students with a wide range of resources to meet their different needs andrequirements. Educational differentiation was further supported by providingstudents with opportunities for discussion with the teacher during their work on theassignment. The study showed that the students asked questions in relation to theirspecific approach to the problem. Educational differentiation might have been bettersupported by providing even more materials—for instance, a student suggestedproviding more examples. Nevertheless, the resources provided seemed sufficient tocreate the basis for an individual and self-governed use and support various instruc-tional needs to ensure overall good educational results.

In summary, the experiment showed that is was possible to reduce the lecturingtime, support repetition and support educational differentiation by transformingtraditional modules into problem-based blended learning—and, thus, solve ourcompelling need to meet new curriculum requirements. Our blended learningapproach was based on social constructivism and its principles of self-governed, prob-lem-based activities and open-ended collections of resources. The experiment pointstowards certain potentials within a social constructivist approach to blended learningin which students are working independently on problems and are provided with arange of different resources.

However, our transformation process still needs further refinement and develop-ment—especially with regard to the shape and development of materials. The coursematerials in the experiment were successful, but other kinds of curriculum mayrequire more complex and highly interactive materials. In future work, we wish torethink and develop different kinds of digital materials; for instance, more interactivematerials, demonstrations, more examples, video clips, and so on. Furthermore, itwould be relevant to consider some of the technical and organizational challenges thistransformation inevitably will raise if implemented on a larger or more complex scale.

References

Brown, J. S., Collins, A. & Duguid, P. (1989) Situated cognition and the culture of learning,Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42. Available online at: http://www2.parc.com/ops/members/brown/papers/situatedlearning.html (accessed 12 January 2005).

Dalsgaard, C. (2005) Learning frameworks as an alternative to repositories, paper presented at theICL 2005 Proceedings, Villach, Austria, 28–30 September 2005.

Dewey, J. (1916) Democracy and education (New York, NY, The Free Press).Diederich, J. (1988) Didaktisches Denken. Eine Einführung in Anspruch und Aufgabe, Möglichkeiten

und Grenzen der Allgemeinen Didaktik (Weinheim/Munchen, Juventa).Donnelly, R. (2004) Investigating the effectiveness of teaching ‘on-line learning’ in a problem-

based learning on-line environment, in: M. Savin-Baden & K. Wilkie (Eds) Challengingresearch in problem-based learning (Glasgow, Open University Press), 50–64.

Dokeos (2006) Dokeos open source e-learning. Available online at: http://www.dokeos.com/(accessed 30 November 2006).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

43 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

42 C. Dalsgaard and M. Godsk

Driscoll, M. (1998) Web-based training. Using technology to design adult learning experiences (SanFrancisco, Jossey-Bass Pfeiffer).

Hill, J. R. & Hannafin, M. J. (2001) Teaching and learning in digital environments: the resurgenceof resource-based learning, Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(3), 37–52.

Jonassen, D. H. (1997) Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes, Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 65–94.

Land, S. M. & Hannafin, M. J. (2000) Student-centered learning environments, in: Jonassen,D. H. & Land, S. M. (Eds) Theoretical foundations of learning environments (Mahwah, NJ,Lawrence Erlbaum), 1–23.

Leont’ev, A. N. (1978) Activity, consciousness, and personality (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, PrenticeHall).

Macdonald, J. (2006) Blended learning and online tutoring (Hampshire, Gower Publishing Ltd).Macromedia Captivate (2006) Macromedia––Captivate. Available online at: http://www.macrome-

dia.com/software/captivate/ (accessed 28 April 2006).Mauffette, Y., Kandlbinder, P. & Soucisse, A. (2004) The problem in problem-based learning

is the problems: but do they motivate students?, in: M. Savin-Baden & K. Wilkie (Eds)Challenging research in problem-based learning (Glasgow, Open University Press), 11–25.

Paulsen, M. F. (2003) Online education: learning management systems (Bekkestua, NKI Forlaget).Savin-Baden, M. (2003) Facilitating problem-based learning (Glasgow, Open University Press).Schultz, R. & Tønnesen, Lone Guldbrandt (2006) How can blended learning help to the integra-

tion of ICT in adult education?, elearningeuropa.info. Available online at: http://www.elearningeuropa.info/index.php?page=doc&doc_id=7507&doclng=6&menuzone=1 (accessed15 August 2006).

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in society (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press).Weller, M. (2002) Delivering learning on the net (London, RoutledgeFalmer).Wertsch, J. V. (1998) Mind as action (London, Oxford University Press).Wilkie, K. (2004) Becoming facilitative: shifts in lecturers’ approaches to facilitating problem-

based learning, in: M. Savin-Baden & K. Wilkie (Eds) Challenging research in problem-basedlearning (Glasgow, Open University Press), 81–92.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

43 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014