Scaffolding Problem Based Learning

www.le.ac.uk/isciencewww.le.ac.uk/iscience

Scaffolding Problem Based Learning (PBL) with Module Length ProblemsProf Derek Raine and Dr Sarah GrettonCentre for Interdisciplinary ScienceUniversity of Leicester, U.K.

www.le.ac.uk/iscience

Interdisciplinary Science Programme:• Interdisciplinary Science programme started in 2004- response to

IOP enquiry

• 3 year undergraduate programme (BSc)

• Natural Sciences content (biology, chemistry, physics and earth sciences)

• Innovative in two respects:– Modules are interdisciplinary in nature– e.g. Astrobiology, Forensic Science, Biophysics– Core subject content taught entirely by PBL– each module is based around a problem e.g. “What limits the

speed at which a human can run?”


Year 1 Prophets and Powers

The Origins ofScience

Science of the Invisible

Atoms, Molecules and Cells

Ecology

Braining IT

Neurons and Computation

Near Space

Earth and Sun

Year 2 Time and EnergyDynamics andThermo-dynamics

Molecules by Design

Organic Chemistry

CSI Leicester

Forensic Science

Man and Machines

Biophysics & Physiology

Habitable Worlds

The Universe and Life

Year 3 Nanoscience

Materials and Organelles

Evolution

Communication ScienceElectro-magnetic and chemical signalling

Earth through Time

Climate


Problem Based Learning

• PBL is – ‘a student-centred method of teaching in which

students learn by investigating real-world problems and, working in groups, seek out the tools necessary to solve them’

• “Pure” versus “Scaffolded” (supported) PBL

Raine D. and Symons S. (2012) Problem-based learning: undergraduate physics by research, Contemporary Physics, 53(1), pp39–51


Delivery • Structure:

– 5 week sequential modules – Facilitated workshop sessions– Informal lectures– Independent research

• Assessment via coursework ( 65%, group work and individual) examination (35% individual)

• Support modules (Skills, Maths, Computing) and additional laboratory programme


Our Challenges with PBL delivery: • satisfaction with first “googled” search term

• lack of research in between sessions

• inappropriate division of learning within groups

• Resulting in :– Lack of engagement – Surface learning (lack of detailed subject knowledge)– Lack of coverage of all the curriculum– poor exam results

• Documented by others ( Wiznia et al. 2012)

Wiznia, D., Korom, R., Marzuf, P., Safdieh J., and Grafstein, B., (2012) PBL.2.0: enhancing problem-based learning through increased student participation; Med Educ Online 2012, 17:17375


Interventions• Pre-session preparation:

– Recommended textbooks and reading topics– Suggested questions to guide workshop

preparation and discussion– Increased detail in intended learning outcomes

• Tutorial session dedicated to feedback on weekly question sets

• Workshop sessions facilitated by subject based teaching fellows (one per subject)



Data

• Students who entered the programme in 2009/10 experienced less scaffolded PBL in year 1 and interventions in year 2 (and beyond)

• Small cohort (13 students)


Changes in Core Module Marks

• Average core (not support) module marks from available from 5 student cohorts prior to introduction of scaffolding

• Plot average module marks in years 1 against 2 for these cohorts we can predict expected year 2 marks based year 1 marks30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

Year 1 vs Year 2 Marks

Year 1 marks (%)

Year 2 marks (%)


Quantitative data from students suggests changes were effective • 2009/10 intake

experienced introduction of scaffolding at start of year two

• “Actual” marks are those from 2009/10 students in year 2 (when changes had been introduced).

• Statistically significant (2) increase in year 2 marks compared to year 1 for the target cohort relative to previous years

30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 7030

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

actual marks

Year 1 marks (%)

Year 2 marks (%)


Qualitative data:

• Which of the changes were significant in this change?

• Majority of cohort took part in semi-structured focus group discussing their views on the interventions


Student focus groups indicated:

• On the introduction of pre-session preparation:– often deviated from the suggested reading and recognised

that material is available from a wide range of sources– source their own reading materials based on similar titles – found the suggested discussion questions useful for

focussing their reading– made use of the ‘Intended Learning Outcomes’ as a

revision checklist.


Student focus groups indicated: • On the introduction of feedback sessions for weekly question

sets :– The students were happy with the tutorial sessions found

useful for revision purposes – Some students would like all questions to be covered not

just the “major difficulties”– Other students would like to see these sessions become

optional for students who score above a certain mark.


Student focus groups indicated: • On the use of teaching fellows:

– All students agreed this was a positive change – Liked having one teaching fellow per subject - know who

to approach if they need to– Felt more supported in the PBL process

“There's been a change since the first year where the PhD students that were there were just there to make sure we'd do the work rather than assisting and facilitating, whereas now they [teaching fellows] will prompt you towards an answer if you're not quite getting it.”


Conclusions• Limitations:

– Small cohort– Research bias

• Quantitative data suggests changes were effective - appears to benefit those with either strong or weak first year averages most.

• Generally positive about the changes introduced- particularly used discussion questions and intended learning outcomes and liked the introduction of subject based teaching fellows


Final thoughts• How much well trained are PBL facilitators in tertiary education?

• Our findings correspond with Gibbs (2011) in studies on effect of extensive use of graduate students and ancillary casual engagement in the U.S.

• PBL doesn’t work for all undergraduates - – not all students engage– in particular for students who maximise their social activities

during term and their studies during vacations (Edmonds et, 2009).

Gibbs G (2011) Dimensions of Quality, HEA publicationEdmonds (2009) Review of the Student Learning Experience in Physics, 2008, HEA Physical Sciences Subject Centre


Acknowledgements:

email: [email protected]

• Students and colleagues at the Centre for Interdisciplinary Science

• Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE)

• Institute of Physics• HE STEM