Problem-based learning (PBL) is a platform for learning which is heavily reliant on student engagement, group work and self-directed learning. The approach is designed to mimic real-life situations and is based on the notion that learning is an active and constructive process and not passively accumulated. In PBL, the aim is for students to develop their collaborative and problem-solving skills while acquiring a flexible and applicable knowledge base (Hmelo-Silver, 2004). My own experience with PBL stems primarily from the Aalborg model developed at Aalborg University (Kolmos et al., 2006). This model follows the same basic principles described above but involves fewer and more extensive projects (vs many short cases) and does not require a tutor to be present for every session, contrary to the Maastricht inspired model implemented at Linköping University (LIU). I have been exposed to the latter as a part of the online-taught course “supervision of problem-based learning tutorials”, and the focus of this blog post will be on the implementation of the PBL principles in an online format.
As I believe most video conferencing platforms, combined with text editing software, offer good options for sharing information, taking notes, and co-writing, I will limit my scope to the interpersonal parts of PBL, which are integral to the approach and, in my opinion, most vulnerable for disruption.
Group processes
Although different implementations of PBL exists, group work is a fundamental part of the approach, and collaboration is seen as both the process by which students acquire knowledge and a learning outcome in itself. PBL groups can be formed by the institute or the students themselves, and they can be matched on different parameters or fully randomized. Groups will often be asked to establish and write down rules for meetings, communication and shared aims and ambitions. These measures are put in place to limit conflicts and optimize the group’s workflow (Woods et al., 1996). But can we expect group dynamics to develop and behave similarly when moved online?
Group discussions are essential in PBL, and every member is supposed to contribute with their knowledge or opinion of the given problem. Usually, these discussions are dynamic with feedback and counterarguments, while the group leader or tutor ensures everyone gets heard. This way of discussing is impossible to do online as sound coming from multiple sources simultaneously floods the soundscape rendering the individual voices intangible. In my experience, this tends to make the sessions run slower and be less engaging, which others have experienced as well (Coiado et al., 2020; Erickson et al., 2021). Online discussions enforce turn-taking and, in a way, resemble small individual presentations where the speaker receives minimal non-verbal cues making it challenging to know when to stop or continue. Altogether, this has been found to limit the depth of discussions critical to the PBL approach (Erickson et al., 2021). When meetings are not engaging, it is also easier to drift away or get distracted (Wang et al., 2021), and Foo et al. (2021) suggested that the casual ambience of sitting at home might even make the learning session seem “unreal”.
Although PBL groups are usually well-organized, many informal exchanges occur during and in between sessions, and it is my experience that most of these are either lost or greatly impoverished in the online format. This can pose a challenge to the collaboration and workflow of the group, as informal exchanges often provide the social “glue” needed in teamwork (Fay, 2011).
Tutoring online PBL groups
The tutor role in PBL is essential but can vary between implementations (e.g. the Aalborg model vs the Maastricht model) and the group’s needs, why the challenges of online tutoring can differ just as much. A tutor in PBL is supposed to be a facilitator of the PBL principles by encouraging critical thinking, asking probing questions, providing feedback and overseeing group processes (Turan et al., 2009). However, some of these aspects of the tutor role are harder to apply online, independent of the PBL implementation and individual groups.
As stated above, online communication differs from face-to-face communication in multiple ways and is challenging for both the students and the tutor. In a study by Lee et al. (2013), they identify ten overarching themes on group dynamics that PBL tutors need to be aware of, but in this blog post, I will only focus on the following four:
1. Students speaking too much or too little
2. Non-verbal negative response
3. Unhelpful interpersonal interaction
4. Students with unusual behaviours
These problems are already challenging to address in a regular face-to-face PBL group but become even more so in an online format. In general, they call for the tutor to intervene and interrupt the current flow of the group. This action necessitates timing and flair as interruptions can be experienced negatively if not done correctly. This is difficult to achieve as the tutor will lack a “sense” of the room that would have otherwise been present in face-to-face sessions, and it is easy to fall into the turn-taking rhythm that naturally forms online. It is also challenging to address students directly when giving feedback or acknowledging their contribution, especially non-verbally. Dealing with unusual behaviour or disengaged students is also more challenging online as the tutor’s authority does not always seem to reach beyond their screen, and options to limit outside distractors are minimal.
Is it all bad then?
According to Coiado et al. (2020), Erickson et al. (2021), and Haley & Brown (2021), who have all investigated PBL group dynamics during the COVID-19 pandemic, the short answer is no. Although most students and tutors point towards the same issues as I have listed in this blog post, the majority report that the transition has worked surprisingly well, and the authors report that student assessments have been similar to previous ones. Although this blog post has been focusing on the challenges of online PBL, my own experience support the above findings, and I do believe that there can be a place for it. However, it is crucial to be aware of the changes the online format might have on the group dynamics and that the same methods or strategies might not apply. This pandemic has generated new technologies to accommodate the need for distance learning and teaching, but it is still too early to make any scientific conclusions on its impact.
References
Coiado, O. C., Yodh, J., Galvez, R., & Ahmad, K. (2020). How COVID-19 Transformed Problem-Based Learning at Carle Illinois College of Medicine. Medical Science Educator, 30(4), 1353–1354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-020-01063-3
Erickson, S., Neilson, C., O’Halloran, R., Bruce, C., & McLaughlin, E. (2021). ‘I was quite surprised it worked so well’: Student and facilitator perspectives of synchronous online Problem Based Learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 58(3), 316–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2020.1752281
Fay, M. J. (2011). Informal communication of co-workers: A thematic analysis of messages. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 6(3), 212–229. https://doi.org/10.1108/17465641111188394
Foo, C. chung, Cheung, B., & Chu, K. man. (2021). A comparative study regarding distance learning and the conventional face-to-face approach conducted problem-based learning tutorial during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Medical Education, 21(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-02575-1
Haley, C. M., & Brown, B. (2021). Adapting problem-based learning curricula to a virtual environment. Journal of Dental Education, 85(S1), 878–879. https://doi.org/10.1002/jdd.12189
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-Based Learning: What and How Do Students Learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.
Kolmos, A., Fink, F. K., & Krogh, L. (2006). The Aalborg PBL model – Progress , Diversity and Challenges.
Lee, G. H., Lin, C. S., & Lin, Y. H. (2013). How experienced tutors facilitate tutorial dynamics in PBL groups. Medical Teacher, 35(2). https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.714883
Turan, S., Elcin, M., Odabasi, O., Ward, K., & Sayek, I. (2009). Evaluating the role of tutors in problem-based learning sessions. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 5–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.005
Wang, B., Liu, Y., Qian, J., & Parker, S. K. (2021). Achieving Effective Remote Working During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Work Design Perspective. Applied Psychology, 70(1), 16–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12290
Woods, D. R., Hall, F. L., Eyles, C. H., Hrymak, A. N., & Duncan-Hewitt, W. C. (1996). Tutored Versus Tutorless Groups in Problem-Based Learning. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 60(3), 231–238.