Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association, University of Exeter, England, 12-14 September 2002
Models of Knowing, Learning, Delivering: An initiative using the application of Problem Based Learning for Staff Development to support the move to online learning in two contrasting departments in HE in Ireland.
Robbie Burns
Abstract
An instructional designer’s grounding assumptions about knowledge and learning are primary determinants of the instruction being designed. The argument for Problem Based Learning (PBL) is that this self-directed learning model should prepare us to be effective participants in our community . Using Constructivist principles, in PBL, students learn to be interdependent learners motivated to solve a problem, which is a real world example where possible. This learning model matched the problem of how to support staff development strategically in the move to online learning in a Higher Education institution in Ireland. As competent professionals, the staff became learners, using PBL, to address how they could become effective participants in new online learning communities that would result from their instructional design. PBL enabled staff to revisit assumptions about knowledge and learning gained through other forms of delivery and to develop their knowledge of learning theories relating to, and skills required for, the new mode of delivery. This staff development model uses constructivist characteristics: reflecting the complexity of the environment learners should be able to function in after their learning; giving them ownership of the process to develop a solution; and using the environment to support and challenge their thinking. The PBL focuses on two contrasting management degrees, one part-time and one full-time, requiring new staff/student collaborative learning communities where the students are also competent professionals.
This paper describes an approach to staff development, using PBL, to support the staff to design, develop and deliver curricula using online technologies.
Context
Dublin Institute of Technology (DIT) is the largest third level institution in the Republic of Ireland, comprising some 20000 students with approximately 970 full-time and over 1000 part-time staff. The Governing Body of DIT at its meeting on 14th March 2001 adopted a Strategic Plan (Strategic-Planning. 2001). While the strategic planning was placed in a 15-year timeframe the plan is supported by 3-year operational plans, the preparation of which commenced immediately. One key objective under the strategy, referred to ‘Flexible Leading-Edge Electronic Capabilities’, seeking to position DIT as a state-of-the- art institution with the capacity to deliver programmes flexibly, effectively and to the highest standards using the latest technology, on and off campus[1] to an enhanced student base. Some of the key goals under this objective referred to hardware provision, and other goals, relating to programmes, included the following:
§ To develop flexible web-based course delivery mechanisms, flexible means of entry, new knowledge domains, rapid response to changing needs; and
§ To develop modularised e-learning programmes as a feature of a rapid, flexible and cost effective response capability.
The common objective, in all elements of the Strategic Plan, is the achievement of excellence, through processes of continuous improvement of staff, programmes and facilities.
In common with many institutions of higher education DIT is challenged to find ways to facilitate staff development in order to prepare university staff to meet the demands of teaching and learning in an online environment. Obviously academic staff members who will teach the online courses are a key component in the implementation of a quality online programme, as are the provision of resources and the necessary technical support. However research in the area of staff development indicates that attitudinal issues, such as how people perceive and react to technologies are far more important than structural and technical obstacles in influencing the use of technology in higher education (Dillon 1992) (Clarke 1993). Course design, development, preparation and delivery require enormous amounts of time, which many staff find increasingly hard to find (Harris 1999) (Loeding 1999). And, since an instructional designer’s grounding assumptions about knowledge and learning are primary determinants of the instruction being designed (Duffy 1997) the complications are compounded when the online demand is included, as new learning by staff is required to enable them to understand the theoretical basis of online delivery.
Two existing undergraduate programmes offered through the School of Management in the Faculty of Business are under consideration for online delivery. The B.Sc. in Health Services Management has been offered effectively in traditional face-to-face delivery to six cohorts of graduates as a part-time programme for students in full-time employment in the Irish Health Services. To facilitate a nation-wide clientele, delivery by online would be a significant enhancement. The existing full-time B.Sc. in Logistics Management also needs to be offered as a part-time course and to be accessible on a national basis to serve an island economy dependent on high quality logistics management. On both programmes some staff members are using technology to some extent, but in each case the move to online delivery constitutes a considerable learning and staff development challenge. A comparative study was considered useful in the methodology.
To support the implementation of the Strategic Plan, DIT has recently created a Learning and Teaching Centre, including a Learning Technology Team, as a welcome additional resource.
Taken together these issues constitute a significant challenge to the management who are responsible to achieve the objectives of the Plan. The assumption has not been made that the journey from problem definition to learning outcomes will be uncomplicated. Rather the opposite is assumed.
Why use PBL to support Staff Development
However the challenge provided an opportunity to test some hypotheses and research findings regarding Problem Based Learning, (PBL). Using Constructivist principles, in PBL, students learn to be interdependent learners motivated to solve a problem, which is a real world example where possible. This learning model matched the problem of how, strategically (Savin-Baden 2000), to support staff development in the move to online learning in a Higher Education Institution in Ireland. It uses constructivist characteristics: reflecting the complexity of the environment learners should be able to function in after their learning; giving them ownership of the process to develop a solution; and using the environment to support and challenge their thinking (Savery 1994). In this case the staff had opportunity to become a community of learners (students), interdependent on each other’s specific expertise. The elements in this ‘real world problem’ facing the staff seemed suitable to pose as the focus of a PBL opportunity. The argument for PBL is that this self-directed learning model should prepare us to be effective participants in our community (Duffy 1997). To test that hypothesis staff teaching on two programmes were asked to use PBL to resolve the problem of how to deliver their programmes effectively in an online mode within their academic community.
[At a later stage the learning outcomes that are expected from the new course designs will be able to be further evaluated from an alternative perspective by considering the effectiveness of the learning achieved by the students who will eventually take the programmes, learning within their wider environments in Health Services and Logistics.]
The PBL approach taken to solve this real-world problem assumed, as another hypothesis, that the staff together could best identify their various personal development needs as they analysed the nature of their learning and skills shortfalls in specific areas. Thirdly, attitudinal and motivational issues would best be nurtured in a supportive environment where colleagues with expertise in specific disciplines, including IT, could contribute to both identifying and suggesting solutions to each other’s learning needs.
To date only a few research studies document the emergence of problem-orientated knowledge structures as a result of PBL. A valid question is - to what extent does PBL affect cognitive processing (Evensen 2000)? This question is being addressed as part the study, looking at the activation of prior knowledge, understanding new knowledge, and the long term retention of knowledge.
It has been demonstrated that problem analysis in a small group has a strong activating effect on prior knowledge (Schmidt 1984). Since the DIT staff members are committed, experienced and academically qualified it would be worth investigating how working and learning together in a small group would activate their prior knowledge.
In another study the findings indicated that the activation of prior knowledge through problem analysis in a small group definitely facilitates understanding and remembering new information, even if the prior knowledge is only to a small extent relevant to understanding the problem, and sometimes even incorrect. In fact problem analysis is most helpful if students have only limited knowledge of the subject (Schmidt 1989). This limited knowledge is the case with most of the staff in the two DIT degree groups regarding the online technology now available and the theories underpinning online learning.
Does PBL enhance the long-term retention of information? An assumption of constructivist learning is that education becomes more personally meaningful. If this is so, then knowledge acquired should be retained over longer periods. Results from various studies seem to indicate that PBL induces students to retain knowledge much longer than under conventional teaching conditions, even if initial learning may be poorer, possibly because students under this condition learn less initially, but process the information more extensively (Eisenstaedt 1990). Observations of the DIT staff early, in process, and towards the end of the study will enable this to be tested.
Further outcomes anticipated were that staff would practically experience online learning concepts that may be useful for their own future delivery of courses, and, by developing a pilot course using WebCT they will gain confidence for delivery of future course elements.
These arguments encouraged the decision to use PBL as a means of supporting Staff Development in the move to design develop and deliver online courses.
Theoretical Framing
These hypotheses are being considered in the broader research context of what theoretical principles should underpin online learning.
[The relationship between staff development, through PBL to support the move to online learning, and student learning, from the new course design and delivery through new learning communities that will result, is not being investigated at this stage but will be undertaken for a future research paper. See brackets in italics above. The theoretical framing set out below seeks to include this additional relationship.]
A recent paper, by Mishra and Koehler, suggests a new model for Faculty Development and Online Course Design (Mishra 2002). Their Transactional Model of Effective Online Teaching identified four key components that dynamically constrain and interact with each other (Figure 1).
Pedagogy
Technology Content
Representation
Figure 1
They argue that separating these four key issues is an analytic act and one that is extremely difficult, as the four exist in a state of dynamic equilibrium. Decisions about any one of these elements have implications and consequences for all other three. Technologies often come with their own imperatives that determine the kinds of representations and content that has to be covered. This can in turn affect core pedagogical issues. The model is helpful but by developing it to consider both nodes and edges of the tetrahedron, some different hypotheses can be proposed.
Representation can be understood to mean the manner in which the Content is presented, including the opportunity afforded by the Technology. Already, in face-to-face delivery, various relevant traditional technologies are used to represent the content. So we propose to consider Mishra and Koehler’s use of Technology and Representation, together, under one issue, - ‘Representation’. The course Content can be understood to be a part of the wider element of ‘Knowledge’.
If pedagogy is considered as a linkage of these elements (nodes) of Knowledge and Representation, then pedagogy can be represented by their linking edge.
That allows the other two nodes to be viewed as Teacher and Student. So, if the nodes are identified with Teacher, and Student, Knowledge and its Representation, then the edges of the tetrahedron can be used identify the theoretical relationships between the nodes. (Figure 2).
Knowledge (Courses, Curriculum, Syllabi)
(Learning) Student Teacher (Staff Development)
Representation (Teaching, Learning Resources)
Figure 2
These concepts (nodes) and theories (edges), and the relationships between them, take place within the wider context of the Learning Environment, within which evaluation of the learning will take place. In the case of the two courses under consideration this will include the workplace and the environment of the students in their domains of the Health Services and of Logistics. (Figure 3).
Environment (Evaluation)
Knowledge
(Courses, curriculum
syllabi)
Student Teacher
(Learning) (Staff Development)
Representation
(Teaching, Resources)
Figure 3
The Knowledge node includes Courses, their curriculum and syllabi. Moving along the edge, from the Knowledge node to the Representation node, there are theories of course design, and representation to be investigated as newer technologies become available. Learning theories exist connecting Teachers and Students, again needing further investigation as new opportunities in Representation enhance the relationships between teachers and students as learners together.
Within this wider theoretical framework this current study is limited to focus on three nodes, ‘Teacher’, considering relevant staff development issues that will enable knowledge building and application for new course provision; ‘Knowledge’, using PBL to identify and assist knowledge building by staff as they identify and process their own learning needs and thus are able to develop and design new course content; and ‘Representation’ of this new course content using the developing technologies towards providing effective course design and delivery in an online mode for new learning communities.