This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]On: 15 November 2014, At: 09:43Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Educational Media InternationalPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/remi20

Constructing Problems in a Web‐BasedLearning EnvironmentShirley Corrent‐Agostinho a , John Hedberg a & Geraldine Lefoe a

a Wollongong, AustraliaPublished online: 09 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: Shirley Corrent‐Agostinho , John Hedberg & Geraldine Lefoe (1998) ConstructingProblems in a Web‐Based Learning Environment, Educational Media International, 35:3, 173-180, DOI:10.1080/0952398980350306

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0952398980350306

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, ouragents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to theaccuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the viewsof or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied uponand should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francisshall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses,damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access anduse can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Constructing Problems in a Web-Based LearningEnvironment

Shirley Corrent-Agostinho, John Hedberg and Geraldine Lefoe, Wollongong, Australia

Abstract This article describes how the World Wide Webwas implemented in a graduate course. The interactions thattook place among the students and between the students andinstructor illustrate how problem-based learning strategiescan be supported by the Web. Of particular note, the coursecontent focused on technology-based learning, thus studentswere immersed in an authentic learning environment. Thearticle chronicles the various strategies • that studentsimplemented to facilitate the problem-solving process andconcludes by way of issues to consider when implementingsuch strategies within Web-based learning environments

Abstract français: Cet article montre comment le WWWest utilisé dans un cours de licence. Les interactions qui se fontparmi les étudiants et entre les étudiants et l'instructeurillustrent comment des stratégies d'enseignement basées surdes problèmes peuvent être soutenues par le Web. On peutnoter en particulier que le contenu du cours était concentrésur un enseignement basé sur la technologie. Ainsi lesétudiants étaient immergés dans un environnementd'enseignement authentique. L'article mentionne au jour lejour les diverses stratégies que les étudiants ont mises enœuvre pour faciliter le processus de résolution de problèmeset conclut sur les objectifs à considérer lorsque de tellesstratégies sont mises en œuvre dans des environnementséducatifs basés sur le Web.

Problem-based learningIn many ways, the notion of problem-based learningis not new; it was the way in which learning tookplace before the advent of classrooms and curricula(Boud and Feletti, 1991, p. 14). This is quite a pivotalstatement for our understanding and appreciation ofhow 'learning' takes place and how problem-basedlearning as an instructional strategy can facilitate suchlearning. This statement posits that one learns moreby doing something than by being told how to do it.As a pedagogical approach originally discussed in themid 1950s within medical teaching, problem-basedlearning has filtered through to a diverse range oflearning environments. But problem-based learningis the most significant innovation in education forthe professions for many years; some argue that it isthe most important development since the move ofprofessional training into educational institutions.

Problem-based learning (PBL) is based on the premisethat students learn more effectively when they arepresented with a problem to solve rather than justbeing given instruction. As Stepien and Gallagher(1993) state: 'Problem-based learning turns instruc-tion topsy-turvy. Students meet an "ill-structuredproblem" before they receive any instruction'. Inthis way, students themselves 'identify, and searchfor, the knowledge that they need to obtain in orderto approach the problem. This turns the normalapproach to problem solving found in university andcollege programs on its head. In the normal approachit is assumed that students have to have the knowledgerequired to approach a problem before they can starton the problem; here the knowledge arises from workon the problem.' (Ross in Boud and Feletti, 1991, p. 36)

Perhaps the most institutionalized form of PBL is themodel developed by Howard Barrows for use within amedical curriculum. Known as the 'pure' form ofproblem-based learning (Engel in Boud and Feletti,1991, p. 25), the key stages of the Barrows model aresummarized as follows:

Problem analysis stage

Students, divided into small groups and assigned afacilitator, are presented a problem without anyinstruction being given. They generate ideas aboutpossible solutions to the problem based on what theyalready know. They then define what they need toknow by identifying the key learning issues andformulate an action plan to tackle the problem.

Information gathering stage

A period of self-directed learning takes place. Studentsare responsible for searching for relevant information.A number of faculty staff may be available forconsultation. Students in this phase are engaged in'just-in-time' learning as they are searching forinformation when their need to 'know' is greatest.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

43 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

174 EMI 35:3 - WEB-BASED INSTRUCTION - PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

Synthesis stage

Students reconvene after a specified period of timeand reassess the problem based on their newlyacquired knowledge. 'Note that they do not simplytell what they learned. Rather, they use that learningin re-examining the problem' Savery and Duffy(1995). Thus, students construct knowledge byanchoring their new knowledge on their existingknowledge base.

(The second and third stages may be repeated if newlearning issues are identified.)

Abstraction stage

Once the students feel that the problem task has beensuccessfully completed, they discuss the problem inrelation to similar and dissimilar problems in order toform generalizations.

Reflection stage

The students review the problem-solving process.Students undergo a self- and peer-evaluation. Thisphase aids students' metacognitive ability as theydiscuss the process and reflect on their newly acquiredknowledge.

The five phases can be implemented in a variety ofways and over various lengths of time (Savery andDuffy, 1995). Boud and Feletti (1991, p. 21) state:'Problem-based learning is an approach to structuringthe curriculum which involves confronting studentswith problems from practice which provide a stimulusfor learning. However, there are many possible formsthat a curriculum and process for teaching andlearning might take and still be compatible widi thisdefinition.'

Principles of PBL

Irrespective of how PBL is implemented, a learningenvironment needs to support the following principlesif it is to be classed as problem-based learning (Saveryand Duffy, 1995; Boud and Feletti, 1991; Koschmannetai, 1995; Camp, 1996).

1. Learning is an active and engaged process — Ra ther thanbeing told what to do or how to solve a problem,students within a problem-based learning environmentare able to generate their own learning issues. Thus anelement of ownership occurs which leads to greatercognitive engagement. '[L] earners are activelyengaged in working at tasks and activities that areauthentic to the environment in which they would beused' (Savery and Duffy, 1995). Learning theorieswhich support this principle of PBL include anchoredinstruction and situated learning.

Learning is situated in 'real world' contexts. Therefore,learning occurs in an authentic setting which leads togreater ability to transfer to other situations or settings.As Stepien and Gallagher (1993) state: 'Problem-basedlearning is apprenticeship for real-life problem solving'.

2. Learning is a process of constructing knowledge - Consistentwith the philosophical principles of constructivism,(Savery and Duffy, 1995), problem-based learningpurports that learners construct their own knowledge.'Constructivism assumes that "knowledge" is notabsolute but is "constructed" by the learner . . . Thus,the opportunity to find knowledge for oneself, contrastone's understanding of that knowledge with others'understanding, and refine or restructure knowledgeas more relevant experience is gained, (all of which aredone by students in PBL curricula), seems to harnessthe reality of learning.' (Camp, 1996).

Engel in Boud and Feletti (1991, p. 26) claims thatwithin a problem-based learning environment, 'learn-ing is cumulative, leading to increasing familiarity.Stimulation of existing knowledge facilitates anchoringof the new knowledge.' Learning is self-directed andfacilitated by the use of the learner's current and pastexperiences. This is especially applicable for adults as'adults feel a need to learn when the learning processrelates to and uses their own experiences' (Camp,1996).

3. Learners Junction at a metacognitive level — Learning isfocused on thinking skills rather than working on the'right answer the teacher wants'. Students generatetheir own strategies for defining the problem andworking out a solution. The instructor's role is thatof a facilitator, a guide or coach, probing students'thinking, monitoring their thinking and generallykeeping the process moving. Thus a problem-basedlearning environment promotes metacognition andself-regulated learning. It also encourages students to'reflect' upon the problem-solving process. As Engel(in Boud and Feletti, 1991, p. 28) quite eloquentlystates: 'Reflection on recent experiences is an effectivemethod of learning: wisdom through reflection.'

4. Learning involves 'social negotiation' — Problem-basedlearning requires group collaboration. 'Cooperation isfostered instead of competition with colleagues' (Engelin Boud and Feletti, 1991, p. 27). Students are ableto challenge their thoughts, beliefs, perceptions andexisting knowledge by collaborating with otherstudents thus assisting their cognitive developmentprocess.

The World Wide Web is a tool that can support theselearning principles. For example, the use of computermediated communication (CMC), that is, the use ofcomputer networks to allow learners in differentgeographical locations to interact with one anothereither in synchronous (real time) or asynchronous

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

43 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Constructing Problems in a Web-Based Learning Environment 175

(delayed) mode via text-based communication for thepurpose of discourse, within a Web site, can assist inthe construction of knowledge as students are able todiscuss their ideas and build on these ideas by readingthe responses from others. Reflective interaction can beencouraged and supported which is a feature notprominent in traditional university lecture settings.

A technology-based learning course

Implementation and Evaluation of Technology-Based Learning (code numbered EDGA957), is apost graduate course offered by the Graduate Schoolof Education at the University of Wollongong,Australia. The aim of the course is to prepare studentsto implement and evaluate learning in varioustechnology-based learning (TBL) environments.Implementation and evaluation issues regarding TBLare complex areas of study, therefore, in order toprepare the students to manage such. projects, thefundamental issues can be identified by critiquingappropriate literature, but it is best learned whenstudents apply this knowledge in an appropriatecontext.

Problem-based learning (PBL) was deemed to be achallenging instructional approach, as it enablesstudents to enhance their critical thinking skills andallows them to build upon their existing knowledgebase and prior experience. This is considered an essen-tial element for learning, particularly in adults. Forexample, Camp (1996) states: 'Thus, at least for adults,PBL is a good match with conditions believed tofacilitate learning'. Engel (in Boud & Feletti, 1991,p. 29) also supports this view as he writes: 'Problem-based learning is thus particularly suited to assiststudents towards mastery in a range of generalizablecompetencies and to support effective adult learning inthe cognitive and affective aspects of a course in highereducation.'

Additionally, the use of similar technologies in acourse which teaches about technology-based learningenabled students to experience 'first hand' some of theissues relevant to the course content. Such a strategyhas the potential to foster greater transfer to their real-world settings. 'Real-world contexts and consequencesnot only allow learning to become more profound anddurable, but increases the transferability of skills andknowledge from the classroom to work.' (Gallagheretal, 1992)

In the Spring 1996 session, this course wasimplemented using World Wide Web and videoconferencing technologies. Students were required tophysically attend class. One was held on campus andthe other held 80 kms north, at a University studycentre in Sydney. There were eight students and aparticipant observer in the Wollongong class and six

students in the Sydney class. The instructor 'physically'attended each class on alternate weeks. The Wollon-gong class commenced at 4.30pm and the Sydney classcommenced at 5.30pm. The two sites communicatedthrough the use of World Wide Web communicationsand video conferencing.

For assessment purposes, students were required tocomplete three pieces of work:

1. Present a seminar on an agreed topic. (30% of finalmark)The instructor suggested that this task be conductedas a collaborative exercise between two students,one from each site. The students were to leada discussion and provide the class with a learningexperience which would create links between thetwo sites. A formal written paper from each studentwas also required for submission.

2. Develop a portfolio of resources relating toimplementation and evaluation of TBL relevantto the student. (40% of final mark)

3. Evaluate the implementation of this course as atechnology-based learning project (Berge (1996)refers to this as metacommunications) or evaluatean educational software package of their choice.(30% of final mark)

The first five weeks of semester consisted of a review ofrelevant literature in the form of class discussions andworkshops facilitated by Web chat and collaborationspaces and video conferencing. The following nineweeks consisted of student led discussions. Thestrategies implemented by students are the focus ofthis article.

Implementing the Web-based learningenvironmentThe Web site developed for this course providedinformation about each student (as they were requestedto submit a personal profile of themselves), relevantreferences, a guide to each week's readings and accessto the asynchronous (delayed time) and synchronous(real-time) computer-mediated communication toolsdescribed below. A hard copy resource complementedthe Web site by providing copies of key readingmaterial.

A Live Chat tool was used synchronously during classsessions. The messages are 'vertically stacked' with themost recent message appearing at the top of the screen.The maximum length of a message is approximatelythree lines. Messages are not stored, although dialoguecan be saved during the live chat sessions. The studentmay enter their name or an alias.

The collaborative Work tool: Basic Support forCooperative Work (BSCW) site [URL: http://bscw.gmd.de/bscw/bscw.cgi] enables students to create

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

43 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

176 EMI 35:3 - WEB-BASED INSTRUCTION - PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

'workspaces' which allows them to share files,messages, URLs, etc. This tool was chosen as it isa collaborative tool used in other flexible deliveryprogrammes, for example, Collis (1996). Studentsinitially accessed the tool directly (from Germany)which caused slow response times. Even though thesoftware was then downloaded onto a server oncampus, students still found this tool cumbersome touse. Comments were made regarding the complexityof the interface and the 'noise' created by the variousgraphical icons.

A Discussion Forum facility was introduced in thesecond half of session as a response to students'feedback on the limitations of the Live Chat facility andtheir difficulty in using the BSCW site. Students areable to create 'conferences' by which all messageswithin each conference are archived and 'threaded'.This tool can be used both in asynchronous orsynchronous modes. In this course, it was mainly usedas a synchronous tool in class time.

Students also had access to e-mail accounts, (althoughtwo students did not have e-mail access for the first fewweeks of the course). E-mail proved to be quite popularand was the medium most frequently used whenexchanging files from the two sites or among students.All students were encouraged to access the Internetoutside class time. Seven students used the University'sInternet infrastructure, while the remaining seveneither had Internet access at their work place orsubscribed to external Internet Service Providers. Onestudent in the Wollongong class works at the Universityand was involved in providing a support role forthe instructor. During the course she became the'informal' support person from whom most studentssought assistance.

As part of the University initiative to trial flexibledelivery methods, this was one of the first coursesto experiment with such a combination of deliverytechnologies. As such, the students were novices butall very keen and enthusiastic to learn about and usethese technologies. Thus, the delivery strategy wasexperimental and one which resulted in some interest-ing findings.

Using the Web to facilitateproblem-based learning

Technology-mediated learning can play an importantrole in the problem-solving process. In particular,Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) isgaining much attention as recent literature describes itas a medium well suited to 'task-oriented communi-cation and problem-solving' (Palmer, 1995 cited inChambers, 1996). Interestingly, literature about CMCimplies that such a medium can facilitate the fourprinciples stated above relating to problem-based

learning. For example, McLoughlin (1996) listsfeatures of CMC that have been discussed in theliterature. Some of these features include: developmentof a sense of community among participants; peerinteraction and sharing of views; greater autonomyin learning, collaborating and exchanging ideas; newroles for teachers as facilitators; networlds for studentsto socialize and exchange ideas; and authentic contextfor learning. 'Reflection' and 'self-direction' are alsostated as positive features of CMC but these featuresare dependent on the participants. There are however,opposing views of the educational benefits CMC canprovide. Chambers (1996) describes a study conductedby Palmer which 'delineated a number of perceiveddeficiencies of CMC as a means of interpersonalcommunications which limit the transmission ofinterpersonal and social information, including therestriction of "social presence", diminished socialcontext cues . . . " This may be a short-term view ashe continues by stating: 'However, pending wide-spread dissemination of synchronous broadbandtelecommunications educational technologies, for mostlearners, the limitations of CMC for interpersonalcommunications noted in the literature remain valid'.

In this course, as part of their seminar presentation,each student was required to create a learningexperience that would engage the entire class (thetwo separate classes coming together to form onecommunity). Students were requested to provide theclass with a set of resources relevant to their topic inthe form of a HTML document which would be madeavailable on the class Web site. Apart from this onerequest, the instructor provided one example to modelhow such a learning experience could be created.While all students had, in a previous course, composeda HTML document, they were left to ponder howdiscourse could be facilitated and supported withinthis technology-based learning environment. Thedeliberate strategy of not specifying any discourseetiquette rules and providing minimum scaffoldingabout using the various technologies allowed studentsto experiment with the tools and to think about theissues involved when implementing technology-basedlearning projects.

What resulted was a range of collaborative activitiesdevised by the students. Three strategies are describedillustrating how problems can be constructed in atechnology-mediated learning environment.

Case 1. The 'Simpsons' and 'Munsters' Live ChatDiscussion

Two students, one from each site, collaborated on atopic about the usability of video conferencing. Theycreated a BSCW workspace a week before their classpresentation and solicited feedback from the class oftheir general impressions of video conferencing. The

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

43 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Constructing Problems in a Web-Based Learning Environment 177

feedback obtained was summarized in their Webpage.

The two students conducted a video conference sessionproviding the class with some background to the topic.The task for the evening was explained as well asbeing provided on their Web page. After the videoconference, all the students logged onto die class Website, read the task from the Web page and logged ontothe Live Chat facility. The task involved forming twogroups in each site and engaging in a live chatdiscussion. The two groups in the Sydney class werereferred to in the live chat space as the 'MUNSTERS'and 'SIMPSONS' (upper case), whereas the twogroups in the Wollongong class were identified as'munsters' and 'simpsons' (lower case). Students wererequired to work collaboratively with their correspond-ing remote group on an assigned question.

An excerpt from the live chat is provided in Exhibit 1.

Exhibit 1: The Munsters and the Simpsons -gettingonline

simpson homer- 08/27/96:18:53: Shelley - what doyou think about the qwuality of dialogue going onhere?

simpson maggie - 08/27/96:18:53: I still want aquestion on content because I find it very had toconcentrate on the content of most presentations(not tonights of course)

SIMPSON Marge - 08/27/96:18:53: Clare beforewe go when will you call or when will I call?

Shelby - 08/27/96:18:53: I'm not sure in whatcontext it is taking place, so am finding it idfficultto pick up the threads

munsters-Regina - 08/27/96:18:54: I think usingvideo conferencing helps in gadiering data veryquickly. The nt Howerver, the human interaction isnot present. I am quite amazed with the use oftechnology on how to reach people. It saves timeand the worry of poeple that has to trav el

munsters - Clare- 08/27/96:18:54: D&F the contex-tual clues are not on die IRC - seeing the person youare talking to is much better.

simpsons - 08/27/96:18:54: I think the content isimportant too - We often focus on the technologyand forget the discussion

SIMPSONS (George) - 08/27/96:18:54: Regina, Imuch preferred chatting at dinner to you.George.

zorro -08/27/96:18:54: ziggy. are you there in spirit?

HOUSTON- 08/27/96:18:54: T O ALL. GO ONT O NEXT TASK WATCH THE VIDEO THENDO ANALYSIS.

munster(D&F) - 08/27/96:18:55: agree!!!

simpson homer- 08/27/96:18:55: Shelley - visit thissite to put it in context ht tp: / / [address omitted]

simpson maggie- 08/27/96:18:55: Wow oooh!!

munsters - Clare- 08/27/96:18:55:OOOOOOOHHHHHHH!!!!

simpson homer— 08/27/96:18:55: No ones asked meto dinner

zorro - 08/27/96:18:55: okay!

SIMPSON Marge- 08/27/96:18:55: blahhhhhhh

zorro- 08/27/96:18:55: children children!

simpsons - 08/27/96:18:56: Regina and George, Ishaving dinner virtual collaboration?

(Note: messages are viewed in reverse in the LiveChat facility as die most recent message appears atthe top of the screen.)

Some interesting issues that arise from diis excerptfollow:

As stated by McLoughlin (1996), CMC supports manythreads of conversation. In this example, there areeight threads of conversation taking pace at the onetime. Also, Shelley is not a student but a lecturerfrom another university who accessed this live chatdiscussion from anodier site. While quite a complexthreaded discussion, the students managed well as dieyfocused on the dialogue of their respective remotegroup. Thus widiin die one chat space, the 'noise' frommultiple dialogues may be reduced by structuring thetask appropriately.

The Live Chat facility facilitated 'flexible interactivity'.For example, notice how one group is able to reviewand participate in the dialogue of the other group.Also, a member of one group can join die discussion ofanother group or send a message to a member inanother group without disturbing die flow of discourse.This cannot be implemented in a traditional classroomenvironment with ease.

The facilitators of the discussion, that is, Ziggy andZorro, were able to participate in multiple roles. Forexample, when they needed to communicate with eachother they assumed the aliases of Zorro and Ziggy.When they needed to facilitate the discussion dieywrote the instructions in upper case and diey were alsoable to participate in the discussions under the simpsonand MUNSTER aliases (although this is not illustratedin the above excerpt). CMC allows diis to occur easilywith minimum disruption to the flow of discourse.

The informality of die tone of conversation allowsincorrect grammar and spelling to be tolerated andenables humour to surface. Such elements seemto enhance class bonding. When the message from

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

43 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

178 EMI 35:3 - WEB-BASED INSTRUCTION - PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

George was posted, the Wollongong class roared withlaughter. These emotions were also conveyed in thediscourse by the inclusions of 'Wow oooh!!' and'OOOOOOOHHHHHHH!!!!' .

Two students who worked together under the aliasof munster(D&F;) are from non-English speakingbackgrounds. They contributed to the discussion andwhen phrases or incorrect spelling were not under-stood, they asked for clarification and received promptreplies from others in the live chat session.

Case 2. Unstructured threaded discussionOne student created a learning experience for the classusing the Discussion Forum tool. The topic focusedon creating Teams when implementing TBL projects.A Web page provided background to the topic andprovided a description of the problem the class was totackle. E-mail was used to inform all class memberswhich tool was to be used and a suggestion made thatthe class to form small groups. The intention was thatall students would form small groups of three or fourpeople and create their own 'conference' space to workin the discussion forum facility. The live chat facilitywould be available for any 'informal' communication.

What resulted was the following:

• Many students did not access their e-mail accountprior to commencement of class and were unawareof how the class was to undertake the problem-solving process.

• Due to the facilitator's lack of structure in guidingthe discussion, students did not form smaller groupsand create separate 'conferences'. Instead, a largeclass discussion occurred. The facilitator creatednew 'conference' spaces during class time in anattempt to guide students. She posted messages suchas:

- You are working in a different space to the rest ofus — please move over to Case Study. Click ontopics, then Case Study, then Thread.

- We seem to be skirting around the issues and notgetting down to the questions. Can we revert tothe live chat for a while. I'm crossing over now,when you've crossed over would you register yourpresence please.

However, students lost interest and motivation andthus the problem task assigned was not concluded well.There was a lack of depth of discussion. Possiblereasons include:

• The problem assigned to the class was one in whichthe facilitator was very close to, yet for most of theclass it was not a relevant problem, thus their levelof engagement was low.

• Some students worked in pairs therefore theydiscussed the problem between themselves and used

the discussion forum tool to post their 'answers'rather than using the medium to socially negotiate apossible solution with the rest of the group.

Case 3. Structured threaded discussionIn this case, one student created a learning experiencefor the class using video conferencing, the DiscussionForum tool and the Live Chat facility. The topic dealtwith Maintenance Evaluation. She constructed a Webpage which provided students with a list of resourcesto access when working on the task assigned. Threeproblems were created. She assigned each student to aparticular group. She deliberately placed one person ineach group who was familiar with the background ofthe problem assigned. She also made sure that withineach group of four there were two people from eachsite. Prior to commencement of class, the facilitatorcreated three conference spaces in the DiscussionForum Tool. Within each conference space the firstmessage detailed the task. The Live Chat was usedtowards the end of the class session for the three groupsto summarize their discussions. During the classsession, groups collaborated on the task and theyseemed to be more 'engaged' in the task than inprevious classes. The collaborative problem-solvingprocess worked so well that the class ran out of time tocompletely summarize their discussions.

The success of this strategy is supported by studentfeedback in their review of the course such as: 'Themost successful use of Interaction occurred whenthe organizer of the discussion had carefully thoughtout the tasks and allocated students to specificgroups.'

Outcomes of the study

'Asynchronicity' of the medium

The traditional mode of physically attending class forthree hours each week was adopted and while studentswere encouraged to access the class Web site betweensessions, many students did not find it necessary. Ifstudent Web pages were on the server prior to theirseminar presentation, preparation for discussion andquestioning could occur. The Discussion Forum toolcould be used asynchronously during this lead up timeand students would have time to reflect on the materialand on comments made before making commentsthemselves. This may aid metacognition. It may alsoassist second language students who are having difficul-ties understanding some of the terms and also studentswho lack confidence in their immediate response. Thefollowing week the students presenting the seminarcan then use the discussion summary to justify theirposition and finalize the discussion using the Live Chatspace.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

43 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Constructing Problems in a Web-Based Learning Environment 179

Students were responsible for facilitating their dis-cussions during seminars. However, due to timeconstraints it was difficult to take advantage of thisrole. For example, a following comment made byone student indicates this. 'There was definitely groupinteractivity but did it solve any problems? Successfulgroup interaction requires direction and is neverguaranteed'. Mason (1991) highlights the need foronline facilitators to clearly understand their role.'The lack of adequate leadership is one of the factorssometimes responsible for [online] conference failure;unless a moderator sets an agenda and keeps the groupworking towards its goal, nothing much will occur'(Kerr, 1986 in Mason, 1991). This is further exempli-fied in a student comment about the Discussion Forumtool: 'It required some thought and organisation if thegroup is to have a productive learning experience.'

Level of experience with the technology

Several students didn't seem to identify the nature ofdiscourse required and how the different technologiesand different problems might be matched. Theinefficient use of synchronous time for data givingrather than discussion and idea generation meantthat the resulting dialogue was unsatisfactory tothe learning outcomes expected by some students.However, for most of the students, this course providedtheir first experience with synchronous and asynch-ronous Web tools. As exposure to such tools increases,so too, their ability to use such tools and determine howbest to use them to facilitate the problem-solvingprocess.

Course assessment

Collaboration within the problem-based learningactivities devised by students for the class was notassessed. As such, apart from personal motivation therewas no real incentive for the students to participate inthe problem-solving process as all assessment wasbased on individual work.

Conclusion

This article has described several examples of how theWorld Wide Web can be used to facilitate theimplementation of problem-based learning strategiesthrough the use of various communication tools.It is envisaged that the features of asynchronouscommunication will be more effectively utilized infuture course offerings and the reliance of fixed timemeetings be further explored.

In terms of the course context whereby studentsexperienced a form of technology-based learning whilelearning about it, the complex interweaving of contentand process required the students to reflect on the

outcomes and how they were achieved. In part severalof their assessments provided further chance for reflec-tion and showed that the experience was valued formany reasons and at many levels. As a vehicle for theprofessional preparation of managers of technology-based learning projects, students claimed they learnednot only methods but experienced first hand what theymight be 'inflicting' upon others, if they fail to managethe processes effectively. The data go well beyond thesimple cases described in this article.

References and further reading

Berge, ZL (1995) Facilitating Computer Conferencing:Recommendations from the field, EducationalTechnology, January-February, 35, 1, 22-30.

Berge, Z L (1996) The Role of the Online Instructor/Facilitator.http://cac.psu. edu/~mauri/moderate/teach_online.html

Boud, D and Feletti, G. (1991) The Challenge of Problem-Based Learning, Kogan Page, London.

C a m p , G (1996) Problem-Based Learning: A Paradigm Shiftor a Passing Fad?, Medical Education Online, http://www.utrnb.edu/meo/fo000003.htm

Chambers, M (1996) Problem-based learning by CD-ROM: A strategy for pedagogically sound applicationsof multimedia, AUC Academic Conference 'From Virtual toReality' The University of Queensland, NSW,Australia.http://www.uow.edu.au/auc/Conf96/Papers/Chambers.html

Collis, B (1996) Pedagogical re-engineering: Designissues and implementation experiences with theWWW as a learning environment, ED-MEDIA/ED-TELECOM, Boston, MA, 20 June.

Disadvantages of Problem Based Learning (1996)http://edweb.sdsu.edu/clrit/learningtree/PBL/DisPbl.html (Date Sourced, October 17, 1996).

Felder, RM (1995) We never said it would be easy,Chemical Engineering Education, 29, 1, 32 -3 http://www.public.iastate.edu/~teaching_info/tips/active.html

Gayeski, D (1989) Why Information Technologies Fail.Educational Technology 29(2), 9-16.

Gallagher, SA, Stepien, WJ and Rosenthal, H (1992)The effects of problem-based learning on problemsolving, Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 4, 195-200.http://edweb.sdsu.edu/clrit/learningtree/PBL/PBLadvantages.html

Kerr, EB (1986) Electronic leadership: A guide to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

43 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

180 EMI 35:3 - WEB-BASED INSTRUCTION - PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

moderating online conferences, IEEE Transactions onProfessional Communications, PC29, 1, 12-18, March .

Koschmann, T, Feltovich, PJ, Myers, AC andBarrows, H S (1995) Implications of CSCLfor Problem-Based Learning.http://www-cscl95.indiana.edu/cscl95/outlook/32_Koschman.html

Mason, R (1991) Moderating educational computerconferencing, DEOSMEWS, 1, 19. [Online], Availableemail: LISTSERV@PSUVM.PSU.EDU (Archived asDEOSNEWS 91-00011).

McLoughlin, C. (1996) A Learning Conversation:Dynamics, Collaboration and Learning in a ComputerMediated Communication. Paper presented at theThird Interactive Multimedia Symposium, Perth273-76.

Savery, JR and Duffy, TM (1995) Problem basedlearning: An instructional model and its constructivistframework, Educational Technology, September-October,35,5, 31-8.

Stepien, W and Gallagher, S (1993) Problem-basedlearning: As authentic as it gets, Educational Leadership,April, 50,7.http://www.fiu.edu/~time4chg/Library/Problem-basedLearning

Biographical notesShirley Corrent-Agostinho is a doctoral student inthe Faculty of Education, University of Wollongong,Australia. Her dissertation examines learning environ-ments facilitated by Internet technology (specificallythe World Wide Web).

John Hedberg is Associate Dean and Head of theGraduate School of Education at the University ofWollongong, he is directing a major project to move allof the graduate teaching to flexible and web-basedsubjects.

Geraldine Lefoe is also a doctoral student interested inthe study of academic innovation for on-line teaching.

Address for correspondence: Ms Shirley Corrent-Agostinho, PhD candidate, Faculty of Education,University of Wollongong New South Wales, Australia(e-mail: shirley_agostinho@uow.edu.au), AssociateProfessor John Hedberg, Head, Graduate School ofEducation, University of Wollongong New SouthWales, Australia (e-mail: john_hedberg@uow.edu.au),Ms Geraldine Lefoe, Educational ConsultantUniversity of Wollongong New South Wales,Australia.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

43 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014