The use of online conferencing/managed learning environments to support problem-based learning

1. The use of online conferencing/managed learning environments to support problem-based learning Alec Rickard Lecturer in Physiotherapy University of Plymouth alec.rickard@plymouth.ac.uk

2. Content • Background information • Problem based learning (PBL) • Potential issues/concerns • ePBL project • Aims • Development • Pilot • Year roll-out • ePBL v2.0? • evaluation

3. Background information – PBL • PBL is: • ‘an educational method which uses carefully constructed clinical problems as a context for students to learn problem-solving skills and acquire knowledge about the basic and clinical sciences.’ • (Albanese and Mitchell, 1993 cited by Johnson and Finucane, 2000: 281)

4. Background information – PBL • PBL has become increasingly popular in health education (Reynolds, 2003) • Educational philosophy for School of Nursing, Midwifery and Community Health at Glasgow Caledonian University (Docherty et al, 2005) • Peninsula Medical School (PMS) incorporated it into its curriculum from inception (PMS, 2006) • BSc (Hons) Physiotherapy programme at UoP designed around a PBL approach.

5. Background information – Potential issues with PBL • Discrepancies in groups’ and individuals’ performances • Potentially useful information not disseminated to all groups • Do students reflect effectively on their contribution/performance?

6. Background information – Potential issues with PBL • Johnson et al (2000): • Group dynamics in PBL may powerfully influence its efficacy • Ineffective group members may seriously compromise their learning • The need for active participation in tutorials.

7. “ePBL” Project • Could learning technologies be utilised? • E-mail • Web-based • Online conferencing • Managed learning environment (MLE) / portal.

8. Project Aims • To explore how existing strengths of PBL can be maximised • To facilitate the overall learning experience • By: • Facilitating the storage, retrieval and dissemination of the information derived from groups' objectives.

9. Project Aims • Salmon (2002) suggests online conferencers are often more willing to try things out than they would in face-to-face situations • Can also be more fun/playful and still promote learning and reflection.

10. Project Development • Readily available/accessible options • E-mail & online conferencing software • Outlook Web Access • Managed learning environment (MLE) • EMILY (Blackboard platform).

11. Pilot • One 2nd year PBL group (8 students) • Convenience • Outlook Web Access • Familiar environment • Simple (?) • Set-up (sub-folders) • Control of permissions

13. Results of Pilot • 7/8 completed the questionnaire • All 7 stated: • the online conference was a useful addition to their PBL experience • facilitated their access to and exchange of information • was easy to use.

14. Results of Pilot • 3 had initial access problems • 2 continuing intermittent • Mainly when off campus

15. Results of Pilot • 6 = would be useful for accessing other groups’ information at the end of a scenario • 1 concerned it would affect the amount of work individuals completed, knowing they could potentially just wait until the end and use everyone else’s.

16. Results of Pilot • “I thought it was an excellent addition... You are always limited by time in the Friday PBL session, there is so much information to disseminate in 2 hours; being able to share 'full-text' type research is extremely helpful and definitely enhances the depth of knowledge you can gain.”

17. Results of Pilot • “I enjoyed participating in the online conferencing as it enabled group members who maybe are more of reflective learners and therefore less vocal within the seminar session to be able to place information up on the folder to enable the rest of the group the opportunity to view the work that they might not have seen otherwise.”

18. Results of Pilot • “I think this system works well as long as everyone contributes and puts information up in the folders and continues to do so throughout the module or year.”

19. Roll-out • To whole year group • Well received by those who could access it! • Problem with different student accounts/ different servers • '@students.plymouth.ac.uk' or '@students.pahc.ac.uk'

20. ePBL v2.0? • Readily available/accessible options • E-mail & online conferencing software • Outlook Web Access • Managed learning environment (MLE) • EMILY (Blackboard platform).

24. Full Evaluation • Focus groups • Staff • Students (1-2 reps from each PBL groups) • Questionnaire to year group

25. Focus Group – key objectives • Staff: • Change in group working/PBL sessions as a result? • How much it is utilised by the students and themselves? • Any particular features/improvements?

26. Focus Group – key objectives • Students • Has it improved the PBL “experience”? • How much is it utilised? • Any particular features/improvements?

27. References • Docherty, C. Hoy, D. Topp, H. and Trinder, K. (2005) eLearning techniques supporting problem based learning in clinical simulation. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 74(7-8): 527-533. • Johnson, S.M. and Finucane, P.M. (2000) The emergence of problem-based learning in medical education. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 6(3): 281-291. • Peninsula Medical School (2006) Undergraduate Prospectus 2007. Plymouth: Peninsula Medical School. • Reynolds, F. (2003) Initial experiences of interprofessional problem-based learning: A comparison of male and female students' views. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 17(1): 35-44. • Salmon, G. (2002) E-tivities: The key to active online learning. London: RoutledgeFalmer.