140 likes | 259 Views
Can problem-based learning in interdisciplinary teams work effectively online?. Ian Hutt Bland Tomkinson University of M anchester. Project Managing Humanitarian Aid. Designed/taught by: Bland Tomkinson Unit leader: Paul Chan Management of Projects Programme (MACE)
E N D
Can problem-based learning in interdisciplinary teams work effectively online? Ian Hutt Bland Tomkinson University of Manchester
Project Managing Humanitarian Aid • Designed/taught by: Bland Tomkinson • Unit leader: Paul Chan • Management of Projects Programme (MACE) • “Interdisciplinary Sustainable Development” (MSEC) • Collaboration with Keele & Staffordshire • Funded by NTFS
Project Managing Humanitarian Aid • Social Constructivist Approach • No formal lectures • Small, interdisciplinary groups (~8 students) • Solving “wicked problems” (scenarios) • Facilitated discussions • Group, individual and peer-assessed reports • Issues of scalability and logistics • Feasible for Distance Learning?
Online Groupwork PBL? • Aftermath of the Indonesian Tsunami, 2004 • Strategy for transitional accommodation • Only online collaboration allowed
Structure & Tools • Online briefing material • News websites • Documentary (BoB) Presentation • Group discussion forum • File exchange • Group Wiki Collaboration • Group Wiki report • Reflective journal Assessment
Data Collection • Submitted Reports • All groups and individuals successfully submitted • Nominal Group Process • Groups generate +ve/-ve comments and vote • Blackboard/wiki scored strongly as a –ve • Online Survey – 15 Qs, 5pt Likert scale • 62.5% response rate (15/24)
Technical / Training • Q1. Technical problems prevented me from using Bb9 and the online tools effectively. (5/15 agree) • Q2. I received sufficient instruction to be able to use Bb9 and the online tools effectively. (1/15 disagree)
Presentation • Q3. The websites and other online resources presented through Bb9 provided useful background to the scenario. (1/15 disagree)
Collaboration - groupwork • Q4. My group was able to collaborate effectively online.(3/15 disagree) • Q8. I found that my group was able to engage effectively with the facilitator online.
Collaboration - tools • Q6. The discussion groups and similar tools enabled my group to communicate even when we were not all online. (11/15 agree) • Q5. The online tools provided enabled my group to hold effective online meetings. (5/15 agree)
Other Tools • Q7. My group used additional online tools (e.g. Facebook) to collaborate online. (14/15 agree) • Facebook: 11 • Skype: 12 • Email: 12 • Mobile Phones: 5 • Google Docs: 1
Preferences • Q9. I prefer meeting online to meeting face-to-face. (3/15 agree) • Q10. I contributed more to the online discussions than I would in a face-to-face meeting. (2/15 agree)
Creativity • “I think It was a good experience, but a hard one ” • “I found it hard to fulfil our commitment when collaborating online.” • “Communicating through computer or other tools is time consuming” • Q11. I feel that working online made our collaborations less creative. (10/15 agree)
Conclusions • Limited success • All groups collaborated and submitted. • Effective group communication part of the challenge. • Students probably would not agree...! • Lessons learned • Synchronous communication tool (Pronto) • Greater familiarity required