9608
The use of problem-based learning in the education of adults in part-time higher education
Andy Bowden and Rita Newton, University College Salford
Abstract
Statistics show a continuing demand by adults for part-time higher education, and in Building-related subjects approximately 40% of adults in higher education are educated through a part-time route. An analysis of the success or otherwise of student centred approaches to learning in part-time education is considered important by the authors because
part-time higher education has seldom received the attention paid to full-time provision, and it has never enjoyed the latter’s level of resourcing. But it has been, and remains, of considerable value to those who have experienced it and who could not engage in full-time study.[1].
The authors have experienced difficulties in introducing problem-based learning into day release undergraduate education. In attempting to define where these problems lay, they realised that most research and practice in the area of problem-based learning was in full-time education. The authors attempt to redress this imbalance by focusing on the experiences of a course team for an undergraduate BSc (Hons) Surveying, a five-year day-release programme. The course team have attempted to facilitate the principles and practices of problem-based learning for the past four years and this paper concentrates on their experiences of the process of problem-based learning, and not the practice of surveying.
A questionnaire completed by the course team was analysed and this indicates that the team uses a variety of techniques for facilitating problem-based learning. When comparing the practices of the course team with established problem-based learning principles it is clear that what is occurring is a variation of problem-based learning. Could an effective approach to student-centred learning therefore be formulated for the benefit of the part-time student?
Introduction
‘I am clean forgotten, as a dead man out of mind’.[2] So may the part-time student justifiably claim when considering the plethora of educational research heaped upon full-time education.
Student profile
The department in which the authors work (construction and surveying) caters predominantly for students studying by day-release or other modes of partial attendance. Part-time study has been defined by Tight[3] as ‘higher education undertaken by people who are unwilling or unable - for whatever reason or combination or reasons - to enrol as full-time students’.
The authors’ experience suggests that this student profile identified by Tight is typical of their students, who are generally more mature with infinitely greater practical experience. They are often highly motivated with supportive and stable domestic environments which can benefit their studies. To the detriment of their studies, they often have demanding employers who perceive education as secondary when considering their employees’ workload. Also they may have personal situations and difficulties that impact on their studies.
Between 1989 and 1993 Department for Education and Employment Statistics[4] show that in full-time building-related higher education, student numbers have risen from 21,382 to 32,414. In that same period, student numbers for part-time courses have remained steady at around 25,000. Part-time students in this field between the years 1989 and 1993 have therefore made up between 44% and 54% of the total undergraduate population in the UK.
The nature and relevance of problem-based learning
One area of learning that appears on the surface to be particularly relevant to part-time study in building-related subjects is that of problem-based learning. Building is a dynamic environment that continually revolves around problem-solving situations, these problems tending to be ‘wicked’, defined by Green and Simister[5] as unbounded and indeterminate. Work takes place in teams, another common problem-based learning approach. Professionals in building have to be flexible and adaptable to changing circumstances. It therefore seems logical that this inherent ability is utilised in part-time student education. The aim of a programme of study should therefore
... stimulate an inquiring, analytical and creative approach, encouraging independent judgement and critical self-awareness.[6]
Entwistle[7] suggests that student-centred approaches are more relevant to part-time and mature students due to their greater ‘heterogeneity, experience and responsibility’. The authors feel that the skills of part-time students, because of their practical experience, are more closely allied to practical problem solving and therefore effective learning, compared to full-time students. It is the notion that students are used to solving ‘messy, indeterminate problems’[8] as part of their everyday working lives. The criticisms of predominantly lecture-based courses in higher education for the professions, according to Boud and Feletti, are
lack of attention to issues such as the relevance of subjects, for placing little emphasis on encouraging teamwork, for poor attempts at developing skills of enquiry in students, and for inadequate portrayal of the context of major issues and problems.[9]
The authors’ experience would concur with this, hence their keenness to see whether the practice of problem-based learning on the surveying course overcame these difficulties. Boud and Feletti further advocate that problem-based learning ‘addresses these criticisms head-on and uses such deficiencies as the foundation of its approach’. Ryan suggests that the challenge to us as educators is to
bring out into the open their covert expectations of students, and to conduct their session in ways .... which are designed to actively assist students as they move from dependence to independence as learners.[10]
Problem-based learning in surveying education
The course being studied as a vehicle for this research is a BSc (Hons) in surveying, which is a five year programme carried out between two institutions, Manchester College of Arts and Technology for the first two years, and the authors’ own institution of University College Salford for the final three years. This research applies to the process of problem-based learning at both institutions.
The course is semesterised and modularised and a lecture programme underpins the student learning. The course document clearly identifies problem-based learning as the chosen mechanism for facilitating learning and assessment. A module tutor may choose to undertake non-assessed problem-based learning exercises but must facilitate a minimum number of assessed problem-based learning exercises.
This research therefore seeks to answer whether the implementation of problem-based learning has been successful within the surveying programme.
Methodology for the study
The BSc (Hons) in Surveying has been running successfully since 1992 with cohorts graduating in the last two years. The expertise built up by the course team over this period in dealing with problem-based learning issues was something the authors wished to take advantage of. In researching the potential research methodology approaches, the Delphi Method[11], developed at the Rand Corporation’s think tank, appeared to be the most appropriate method taking into account the fact that depth of feedback was considered important. The Delphi technique was originally used in forecasting, where expert opinion was sought from a number of sources and a series of stages used in order to gain consensus from the results received. More qualitatively the Delphi method has been used in order to clarify where fuzzy issues exist and uncertain parameters require definition.
The experiences and perceptions of the team were sought through the completion of a questionnaire. By this method the authors were able to establish whether problem-based learning was effective for the part-time student and by comparing approaches from the whole course team a best practice approach could be formulated.
This gathering of data via the questionnaire is seen by the authors as the first step in this process. Qualitative answers were sought in order to allow lecturers to analyse their experiences and for the issues to be recognised. The analysis from the questionnaires forms the basis of this paper. A subsequent follow up approach to the questionnaires will be formulated and this will form the basis of future research. The Delphi method allows for an unspecified number of follow-up procedures until an answer is arrived at, the problem is resolved or the logic clarified.
Analysis from the course team; defining problem-based learning
From a course team of 27 there were 20 replies. Cherrington and van Ments[12] identify the difficulties involved in attempting to define problem-based learning too closely. The analysis of the questionnaires supports this finding in that respondents saw problem-based learning as being based around student investigation. Some respondents clearly considered that the process being carried out was not true problem-based learning but a half way stance between traditional project work and problem-based learning.
The value of problem-based learning as a mechanism for covering part of the syllabus not formally taught was discussed by some respondents which ties in with the definition by Boud and Feletti in that problem-based learning should start with a problem and not with a presentation of the subject matter in the context of a lecture.
When asked to indicate whether problem-based learning was different to a lecture, all of the respondents confirmed that it was. This unanimity wavered when asked to say whether problem-based learning was different to a seminar or tutorial; 80% gave an unqualified yes, 15% said no with 5% not clear. When asked if problem-based learning differed in terms of conventional assessment, 65% thought problem-based learning was different, 10% thought it was not, and 25% qualified their answers with comments that indicate that the type of problem-based learning they deliver is tending towards conventional assessment.
When asked whether problem-based learning on the surveying course is different to that in other disciplines most respondents indicated they were unaware of what these practices were. Those respondents that showed knowledge of other areas acknowledged that problem-based learning usually has more practical-based applications than they are delivering on the surveying course.
Analysis from the course team; format and process of problem-based learning
Ninety percent of respondents use problem-based learning as part of their assessment procedure while 75% use it for non-assessed exercises. Non-assessment exercises are seen as an introduction only to the subject area and to the style of problem-based learning sessions run by the lecturers.
When considering the introduction and direction given to students most respondents took a similar approach with an initial introduction followed by direction only when sought by groups or individuals. One respondent made a particular point that no direction to large groups was given and lecturer support was student driven. Student attendance at problem-based learning sessions varied widely; some sessions were even noted as compulsory. In the main, attendance was low, between 10% - 20% being typical. Concern by respondents of this was evident but suggestions for improvement were few. One respondent noted that continual assessment may well be an option to consider. Eighty five percent of respondents thought that integration between subjects was a good idea and the vast majority of problem-based learning tasks were tackled individually by students, rather than group work. Respondents were divided as to whether problem-based learning tasks took more or less time than conventional assessment, 45% thought it took more time, 40% less time and 15% thought the same time or were unclear.
It is clear that a variety of feedback methods are adopted. Some positive events were noted particularly when the class was able to witness the work of their peers, either as part of a presentation, as a critical appraisal in the design subjects or in the exchanging of individual work between group members. A number of respondents noted students’ absence during feedback and there was a general feeling that feedback to students on an individual basis would be useful. One respondent noted the danger of revealing too much information about a marking scheme and warned of the potential hazard from changing a mark awarded after representation from students.
Analysis of the course team; benefits, problems and improvements
When commenting on the benefits of problem-based learning for students and staff there were very similar responses. The vast majority were clear that problem-based learning improved students’ ability to research and gain knowledge and that by going through the process the knowledge would be more readily understood and retained. Benefits to staff were less obviously admitted to; however, there were a number of references to lecturers being kept up to date by the findings of the students and interestingly one respondent pointed out that problem-based learning actively encouraged discussion within a course team, rather than an isolated single subject approach.
Difficulties were recognised in a number of areas. The result of modules being delivered in semesters appears not to allow for sufficient application in some subjects. Students progressing through the course appear to encounter difficulties, particularly when they move between the two institutions. It is clear that some respondents believe that there must be traditional delivery of a subject prior to the setting of a problem-based learning exercise. Student attendance and their reluctance to seek guidance are the main concerns.
There are a large number of calls for a consistent approach across the course. This would have the added benefit of clarifying the meaning of problem-based learning, as it is clear that respondents hold different perceptions of the process. The utilisation of real industry problems and even integrating with other courses are suggested. A number of respondents felt that by changing the daily timetable, attendance could be improved. Interestingly one respondent with a sound knowledge of industry pointed out that the day-release student did not need to develop problem solving skills as, he believed, these were inherent in the student. The authors conclude that more time for these students should be devoted to improving their transferable skills.
Conclusion
Margetson[13] argues that knowledge of problem-based learning is not widespread and by contrast, subject-based learning, with lectures as a prominent vehicle of learning, backed up by tutorials and so on, is far more familiar to people. Typically problem-based learning either accounts for whole modules or large elements of the curriculum, as in medical education, or educators use it as a vehicle for fieldwork or an end of course project block, as in engineering education. So on the surveying course, despite good intentions in the writing of the course document, have we achieved problem-based learning? Can problem-based learning effectively be integrated with a lecture programme and with formal assessment? Is problem-based learning an effective method for facilitating the learning of a part-time student?
One way to answer these questions would be to conclude by seeing whether our research and analysis addresses the four crucial conditions required for a deep approach (rather than surface approach) to learning identified by Biggs and referred to in Gibbs as essential elements of problem-based learning, namely
an increased quality of learning could be expected because of the combination of four elements entailed by problem-based learning; motivational context, learner activity, interaction with others and well-structured knowledge base.[14]
Motivational context
Students do not set the questions for themselves, they are preset. Yet they are encouraged to find their own way of approaching and answering the question. Where possible the problem is set within the context of typical problems within the industry, so that students can see the relevance but this is not possible in all subject areas and not all staff are willing.
Learner activity and interaction with others
Students have the opportunity to participate in discussion groups but are reluctant to take this up and attendance is low. Interaction with others occurs when the assessment is based on group work, but this only forms a small element, contrary to Barrows[15] who advocates group work as essential. Self-directed study on an individual basis outside the institution is the more common occurrence.
Knowledge base
Students should begin with the problem, but typically they start with the lecture programme, because sometimes as staff we tune into the fact that we have to cover all the syllabus, so the process of student-centered learning is sacrificed for content via lecture-centred learning - what is referred to in medical education as ‘coverititis syndrome’[16].
The question of whether we have achieved problem-based learning on the surveying course is difficult to answer. We need to continue working with module tutors via the Delphi technique to refine a common approach to the course. We need to look at our differences in opinion of the nature of problem-based learning compared to the experts. The answer to the question is that the analysis with tutors shows that we are achieving a degree of problem-based learning, but that there are significant difficulties in using it as the model for part-time education.