The Amer. Jrnl. of Distance Education, 22: 207221, 2008 Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN 0892-3647 print / 1538-9286 online DOI: 10.1080/08923640802430462

The Amer. 1538-9286 0892-3647 Jrnl. of Distance Education Vol. 22, No. 4, September 2008: pp. 127 HAJD Education,

Recommendations for Designing and Implementing Distributed Problem-Based LearningJerome D. ScriptureScripture Consulting

SCRIPTURE DISTRIBUTED PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING

Abstract: As distributed problem-based learning (dPBL) emerges as an interactiveonline methodology, it is necessary for instructional designers who want to develop this approach to understand the practices experienced designers of dPBL recommend. This phenomenological study examined the practices that designers of dPBL use and recommend. Ten experienced dPBL designers from seven countries participated in the qualitative study. Data were collected through semistructured telephone interviews in order to gather information about each individuals experiences using instructional design and designing dPBL. A listing of ten recommendations for designing dPBL is presented based on the information provided by the experienced designers.

Problem-based learning (PBL) is a method of education that has been effective in engaging the learners in a traditional classroom environment. Burch (2000) notes that according to recent research, PBL is the most effective technique for students to learn, apply, integrate, and retain information (31). Mierson and Freiert (2004) report that PBL expands traditional classroom roles and is ideal for training programs as well as single training sessions, including addressing complex cross-functional topics by seeking solutions to real-world problems in a cooperative fashion. They state that both trainers and companies get a lot of bang for their buck using PBL because participants learn critical skills that benefit the business (15). A version of PBL that can be offered in a distance learning environment is distributed problem-based learning (dPBL) (Wheeler 2006). Wheeler writes that learning is mediated through computer technology, and a shared, virtual distributed learning environment is used to enable students to collaborate (176). According to Wheeler, one of the most important skills that students can acquire is problem solving because it is generalizable to everyday life experiences. Wheeler suggests that an opportunity presents itself in the realmCorrespondence should be sent to Jerome D. Scripture, Scripture Consultants, 205 Red Fern Ct., Canton, GA 30114. E-mail: phd.runner@gmail.com

208

SCRIPTURE

of research to explore the effectiveness of dPBL. Barrows (2002) states that it would be valuable to create effective distributed PBL (dPBL), as it would enhance the value of PBL. Learners could work together from around the world (120). Although PBL has been used in online environments, it is an undeveloped area of exploration within the online community and warrants additional exploration (Savin-Baden 2003). Collaboration and PBL are not new concepts, although their application to the Web for distance training is new (Carr-Chellman 2001). Online learning and technologies continue to evolve rapidly and dPBL methodologies have materialized. Research has focused primarily on students and instructors experiences with computer-mediated dPBL, but it has not looked at dPBL from the designers perspective. The practices that designers apply to constructing dPBL environments are critically important areas to examine within the instructional design and distance education disciplines. Recommendations for dPBL design could help in the refinement and advancement of dPBL practices and improve this online learning methodology. One question that this phenomenological qualitative study explored was What are the best practices that instructional designers of dPBL recommend? Ten experienced dPBL designers from seven countries participated in this study. Resulting from the information derived from the participants is a listing of ten recommendations to consider when designing dPBL environments.

PBL PRACTICES Problem-based learning is the conceptual foundation for dPBL. PBL processes, methods, and outcomes have provided the impetus for dPBL. Problem solving is a necessary requirement in life and does not result from memorizing material or mirroring other people (Knowlton 2003). Barrows (2002) notes that problem-based learning (PBL) surfaced over 30 years ago as a reaction to the problems and shortcomings of conventional educational approaches (119). PBL was introduced first in medical education at McMaster University in Canada, and the McMaster model spread quickly throughout Europe and North American medical schools (Burch 2000). Ribeiro and Mizukami (2005) state that PBL is an instructional method characterized by the use of problems to encourage students to acquire knowledge and develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills (138). Edens (2000) writes that flexibility is a keystone of the PBL model (56). PBL is composed of several different smaller parts and there are different ways that it can be performed; thus, definitions of PBL vary and are ambiguous. Savin-Baden (2003) says that the two basic PBL approaches are the pure model and hybrid model. She notes that the argument is that either the whole curriculum is problem-based and is modeled on the McMaster version of

DISTRIBUTED PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING

209

problem-based learning, whereby students meet in small teams and do not receive lectures or tutorials, or it is the hybrid model, which is usually defined by the inclusion of fixed resources sessions, such as lectures and tutorials, which are designed to support the students (118). Meaningful learning and understanding are the focus of PBL as opposed to memorizing content by rote learning (Fyrenius, Bergdahl, and Silen 2005). Fyrenius, Bergdahl, and Silen write that, in order for meaningful learning to occur, the learner must be an active participant in the process and not be a passive recipient. One of PBLs greatest attributes is that it motivates and engages the learner by presenting challenging and relevant problems (Barrows 2002). Presenting a problem with a scenario, forming of teams, collaborating on the problem, and reflecting on the overall results are just parts of the general PBL method (Reigeluth 1999). Morrison, Ross, and Kemp (2004) note that other methods could include case study, guided design, cooperative learning, roleplaying, simulation, and games. The four phases that are characteristic of the PBL method are problem development, inquiry and investigation, solution, and debriefing performance (Stepien, Senn, and Stepien 2000). In the problem development phase, learners are presented with a problem by the instructor and must identify the issues and formulate a hypothesis (Stepien, Senn, and Stepien 2000). Questions are then selected to guide their inquiry, which leads into the inquiry and investigation phase. Learners are placed in groups ranging from five to seven participants. The problem scenarios become the central component for the learning process and need to be based on what the learner is expected to know upon course completion (Savin-Baden 2003). The second phase of PBL learning consists of building on hypotheses and beginning the investigation process (Edens 2000). Ground rules and structure of the group interactions are established early in this process. Through group discussion, potential resources and investigation strategies are discussed and shared. Resulting from this process, the learners define the core problem (Mierson and Freiert 2004). Once learners identify areas of further research, tasks are then divided and responsibilities are delegated for investigation. Sharing knowledge with each other in a collaborative group effort refines decision-making and problem-solving skills for the learners and provides a transition to the solution phase. The solution phase involves group members deciding how to resolve the problem they were presented. Each individual embarks on a fact-finding mission, then reports his or her findings to the group. The group then decides how to incorporate the new information into solutions to the problem (Mierson and Freiert 2004). One of the challenges the group faces in this phase is deciding the best approach to resolve the problem based on the new information. Group members are expected to share their research information, knowledge, experiences, and debate issues until a solution is found (Savin-Baden 2003). Debriefing performance is the final phase of PBL and includes reflection and evaluation of the group learning process. In this phase, the learners

210

SCRIPTURE

discuss the problem-solving process, how effective it was, and what they could have done differently (Mierson and Freiert 2004). Reflection on their experience allows the learners to make the connection between their learning and problem-solving goals (Hmelo-Silver 2004). It is recommended that learners share how they personally contributed to the group and receive feedback from other group members (Mierson and Freiert 2004). The debriefing phase allows learners to identify any misconceptions they may have had and add to their understanding of the problem-solving process.

dPBL PRACTICES AND CHALLENGES Advantages of Online Environments and dPBL In recent years distance education in the United States has experienced a rapid growth and, if this trend continues, at some point distance education will become the dominant venue of teaching and learning (Saba 2005). Computer-mediated PBL environments can provide learners the opportunity for reflective commentary without any time limitations that traditional environments impose (Wertsch 2002). The advantage of asynchronous environments is that the learner can access the online discussion at his or her convenience instead of at a predetermined time. Wertsch states that the use of newer asynchronous communication systems may be introducing a larger element of change into PBL, and its consequences for cognition, identity, and collaboration, than we normally recognize (108). Synchronous communications can be advantageous by allowing questions to be posed and answered for immediate resolution, which can create a more team-oriented collegial environment (Carr-Chellman and Duchastel 2000). Durrington, Berryhill, and Swafford (2006) state that although PBL scenarios may be challenging in an online environment, they can be an effective strategy for promoting student interactivity, enhancing students problem-solving skills, and providing students with a meaningful learning experience (192). A key to positive learner experiences and instruction is interactivity according to the research in traditional and online contexts (Durrington, Berryhill, and Swafford 2006). dPBL environments in which learners exchange written feedback in a collegial manner builds a community in a manner that is engaging and fosters reciprocity (Bjrck 2002). Successful learning activities can continue, even after the course is over, if community building is established in dPBL (Bjrck 2002).

Challenges of Online Environments and dPBL Solutions to the problems by groups tend to take more time in online environments than traditional educational settings and instructors can intervene too quickly, thereby not allowing the learning process to develop (Durrington,

DISTRIBUTED PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING

211

Berryhill, and Swafford 2006). Evidence suggests that online learners spend more time for outcomes similar to traditional face-to-face groups, and computer-mediated communication should be cautiously implemented (Dennis 2003). McConnell (2005) cautions instructors not to assume that technology alone will support group collaboration because online groups can exhibit diverse learning processes and dynamics. Online technologies can have a tremendous potential for maximizing interaction, but they are not being used to their full advantage (Tu 2005). As noted by Bjrck (2002), a challenge of dPBL is developing computer-supported environments that support the pedagogical ideas and PBL procedures. Presenting rich, authentic, complex real-life work-related problems is possible with computer simulations, but simulations take a significant amount of time and resources, and the learners tendency is to view them as artificial games (Lehtinen 2002). A challenge associated with asynchronous learning includes communication anxiety, in which students are reluctant to join conversations due to the fear of making inappropriate postings and being judged by others, which is accentuated when group members and instructors responses are not immediate (de Bruyn 2004). Other challenges of asynchronous learning noted by de Bruyn include information overload from the discussion postings; misconceptions such as unclear feedback; and the amount of time spent in the online environment, which can exceed the time spent in conventional learning environments. Because dPBL is a relatively new approach, there are noticeable gaps in the literature that are worthy of investigatingspecifically dPBL design recommendations from experienced designers in this area. Therefore, one of the primary questions of this study was to examine the practices that designers of dPBL recommend.

THE DESIGN AND CONTEXT OF THE STUDY The purpose of this study was to add to the scholarly literature regarding the best practices of designing and implementing dPBL according to experienced dPBL course designers. The phenomenological qualitative methodology included in-depth telephone interviews of experienced designers in the field of dPBL. The interviews were thirty minutes to two hours in duration. The questions asked were in a semistructured format in this study (see Table 1). The participants were e-mailed the interview questions prior to the interview. Besides the structured questions, there were follow-up questions throughout the interview. The responses were recorded through audiotaping and transcribed verbatim into a computer word processor following the interview. Participant names were not transcribed into record in order to protect confidentiality, but rather they were referred to according to their assigned

212

SCRIPTURE

Table 1. Research and Interview Questions Research Question 1. What are the best practices that instructional designers of dPBL recommend? Interview Question What is the ideal number of participants in a course? What is the needs assessment process for a dPBL course? What processes do you use to discover what ill-defined problems to present to learners so they perceive it as relevant? What is the ideal length of a dPBL course? What would you recommend for a best practices listing for designing dPBL courses?

pseudonym. The interview was semistructured in order to elicit information regarding the research questions. In order to maintain credibility and validity, the researcher conducted strategies to check the accuracy of the findings, which included memberchecking, triangulation, and transferability. The researcher e-mailed each participant a copy of the interview transcript in order to ensure accuracy of the data. The researcher spent enough time conducting the telephone interview and examining the phenomenon in order to gain an in-depth understanding of it from the participants perspective. Upon conclusion of each interview, the researcher recorded perceptions in the reflective journal, which was a resource during the data analysis phase. Triangulation consisted of in-depth analysis and coding of the transcribed interviews, member-checking, and the researchers reflective journal. The researcher then wrote a qualitative descriptive narrative using rich, thick descriptions that accurately convey the research findings. Ten participants from seven countries were purposely selected for the study because of their experience with designing PBL and dPBL. All of the participants have published studies in professional scholarly literature. The participants were chosen purposely from countries where PBL and dPBL are most popular in order to get a wide range of perspectives. The participants in the study were from Australia, Belgium, Canada, Sweden, the Netherlands, United Kingdom, and the United States. Eight of the participants selected had earned a Ph.D. The ninth participant had an M.D. degree, and the tenth participant had a B.A./B.Ed. degree. Five males and five females were selected for the study. The study participants had a tremendous amount of experience with PBL and dPBL design in education and/or corporate learning environments. As a group, the participants had 145 years of experience with designing PBL and 66 years of dPBL design experience. Nine of the participants were experienced in university education environments, and one participant worked extensively in a corporate learning environment.

DISTRIBUTED PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING

213

RESEARCH FINDINGS Recommendations for dPBL Design The participants in the study presented several similarities in their recommendations, such as knowing PBL and its methodology very well, encouraging learner engagement in the process, and understanding the value of the illdefined problem. The results from the participants recommendations for designing dPBL environments are presented in Table 2, followed by an explanation of each recommendation. Recommendation for dPBL Design Number One. The ideal group size for dPBL is 3 to 6 members. Six of the 10 participants believed that the ideal group size for dPBL environments is 3 to 6 members. One participant recommended starting the class with 20 members so that there would be enough diversity in interests to form five groups of 3 to 5 students with similar interests. Similarly, another participant preferred to begin with 30 students and then break the students into groups of 4 to 6. Two participants believed that a group size ranging from 8 to 12 was ideal, and one participant recommended starting with a group of 15 to 20 members. One participant suggested that a dPBL group be 80% of normal class enrollment. Table 3 illustrates the ideal group size for dPBL according to participant recommendations.Table 2. Recommendations for dPBL Design 1. The ideal group size for dPBL is 3 to 6 participants per group. 2. The ideal course length for dPBL is approximately 12 weeks. 3. Do not organize everything in dPBL. The blended learning approach with dPBL is recommended. Adding some face-to-face elements contributes to learner communication and social presence in dPBL. 4. When designing dPBL, focus on the knowledge and skills participants should possess by course completion and present a well-thought-out, challenging, ill-defined problem that matches those needs. Knowing learner characteristics can be helpful in problem definition. 5. It is necessary to provide clear structure, guidelines, and expectations when designing and facilitating dPBL. 6. The quality of the online facilitation is central in dPBL. The instructor must encourage active and meaningful dialogue among participants but should not interfere too much or overmoderate the discussions. 7. Learners need to be encouraged to take responsibility for their own learning. 8. A supportive learning environment including communication, exchange of ideas, and social presence is necessary in dPBL. 9. Use a variety of assessment strategies that are aligned with the content. Provide a clear marking framework to inform the learner of the assessment criteria. 10. When using synchronous learning with dPBL, limit each session to one hour.

214

SCRIPTURE

Table 3. Ideal Group Size Ideal Number of Participants 3 to 6 8 to 12 15 to 20 80% of normal class enrollment Participant Recommendations Gretchen, Karen, Maureen, Michael, Patti, Stephen Thomas, Timothy Sarah Anthony

The rationale the six participants gave for recommending 3 to 6 members per group was that groups larger than 6 members placed higher requirements on the tutor to monitor the group communication. It was emphasized that the amount of discussion can be overwhelming and the repetitive nature of the answers distracts from the group discussions. Smaller groups allow members a better opportunity to interact and contribute to group discussions and gain a feeling of responsibility for each other. With a group size that is larger than 5 members, Karen noted, when its bigger than that, then it gets overwhelming for the overall discussions. A group with fewer than three members was not recommended because the amount of communication is decreased. As described by Stephen, I think you really ought to have at least four or five persons in a dPBL group in order for them to actually get enough communication for them to experience that its giving them something back. Gretchen did not believe large groups work well in online environments. She said, I suggest they move away from having large groups of 8 to 10 students and design them around . . . five students instead because I think they work better in online spaces. Maureen recommended smaller groups of 4 to 6 participants. She stated, From my experience, four people if theyre all active can be highly effective. She did note that difficulty arises when there are more than 6 participants. According to Maureen, An obvious failing of having a large group was the questions the students were raising. They realize they were being repetitive, so if you are in a group of four, its easy to add something new to the discussion. Three participants had a different perspective on group size. Two recommended that the dPBL group be 8 to 12 members, and one recommended 15 to 20 members. The rationale that two participants gave for 8 to 12 persons per group centered on the belief that the larger number provides a higher quality and richness in the discussions, and in smaller groups there is not enough discussion. Timothy stated that a group of 8 to 10 is ideal. But, at the same time, I can imagine that a group larger than 15 would be too much work and potentially lead to social loafing . . . 3 or 4 people, thats definitely too small. You need a minimum of 10 to 12 people.

DISTRIBUTED PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING

215

Thomas has had over 200 students in a course but divided them into small groups of 8 to 12. According to Thomas, Weve run courses where we have upwards of 200 students logging into the same course site, but we have all the students broken up into small groups of between 8 to 12 students. . . . I think with a large number of students it enhances the nature and the quality of the discussions. Recommendation for dPBL Design Number Two. As illustrated in Table 4, the ideal course length for dPBL is approximately 12 weeks. Five out of the nine participants who addressed this area believed that an ideal dPBL course length would be approximately 12 weeks. But four participants claimed that a shorter duration length is ideal. Of those four, two believed 6 weeks is ideal, and the other two recommended a time range from 1 to 7.5 hours is best suited for dPBL. Recommendation for dPBL Design Number Three. Do not organize everything in dPBL. The blended learning approach with dPBL is recommended. Adding some face-to-face elements contributes to learner communication and social presence in dPBL. Four of the participants described the value of the blended approach over strictly 100% dPBL. According to Gretchen, The model is still to use some face-to-face, even if its only small amounts. Michael does not believe in designing courses primarily in dPBL. As described by Michael, Im quite convinced that 100% distributed problem-based learning will be less efficient than mixed-methods because my experience learns that the one thing you certainly need is to start face-to-face. For students to know each other, to have talked to each other, and to have the feeling of what our common goals are. . . . From my point of view, its not ideal to do a problem-based learning completely distributed . . . make a mix between face-to-face and distributed. . . . Restrict your amount of dPBL for what it fits for. Patti designs and tutors a six-week nonblended dPBL course. She reported that the students meeting at least once and knowing each other prior

Table 4. Ideal Course Length Duration Approximately 12 weeks 6 weeks 1 to 7.5 hours Participant Recommendations Karen, Anthony, Timothy, Maureen, Gretchen Patti, Michael Sarah, Thomas

216

SCRIPTURE

to entering the course was a very important element in developing communication in an online environment. Without the students knowing and meeting each other prior to entering a dPBL environment, Patti doubted whether it would be as successful. Students in her dPBL courses know each other personally very well and have met face-to-face prior to entering the online course. According to Patti, They know each other . . . so they love talking to each other and then they joke to each other. I dont have to make them collaborate; they do it. Recommendation for dPBL Design Number Four. When designing dPBL, focus on the knowledge and skills participants should possess by course completion, and present a well-thought-out, challenging, ill-defined problem that matches those needs. Knowing learner characteristics can be helpful in problem definition. Seven of the participants described focusing on developing the ill-defined problem around the learner and course expectations. Karen begins with considering the ill-defined problem based on the learner. She stated, In terms of approaching how to design dPBL, I would recommend looking at the beginning of the design process the way I do by looking at the content and asking the questions: what do you want the students to do with the knowledge as opposed to what students need to learn. That gives you a good handle for coming up with a problem. Recommendation for dPBL Design Number Five. It is necessary to provide clear structure, guidelines, and expectations when designing and facilitating dPBL. Six of the 10 study participants described the importance of this recommendation. Maureen recommended providing clear structure and support for dPBL learners. As noted by Maureen, I dont give them the answer, obviously, but I can give them a more clear understanding of what they have to do. Theyre more comfortable with that, otherwise theyre feeling quite a bit agitated and wonder what am I supposed to be doing, so this approach does help that way. Michael talked about communicating clearly the expectations to the students in dPBL. As stated by Michael, Our experience learns that only announcing to the students that they will be assessed in this way, and that peer assessment will give a weight to the group score, only the announcement of this, for 99% of the students is enough to contribute very actively to the group. Recommendation for dPBL Design Number Six. The quality of the online facilitation is central in dPBL. The instructor must encourage active and

DISTRIBUTED PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING

217

meaningful dialogue among participants but should not interfere too much or overmoderate the discussions. Seven of the study participants described the importance of the instructor being responsible for encouraging dialogue in dPBL. Thomas stated that in the online environment, the facilitator or tutor needs to play a more active role in promoting socialization or encouraging interaction between students. Stephen noted the importance of the online dPBL facilitator with his comments: I think its pretty important actually, based on what I was telling you before that the facilitator or teacher is really maybe the most important person because most of the students will wonder what is required by me in this course. The person to look for that is in almost all cases the teacher or the facilitator. According to Maureen, First of all, you have to give students a feeling at home, so being a facilitator of social presence or something like this is very important. The role of the instructor as described by Michael is to monitor the communication between group members, give them guidance, and intervene when necessary. Patti conducted a large portion of her courses synchronously. As stated by Patti, For synchronous learning, your tutor is really, really important . . . a good tutor actually is not involved, they just really pay attention. Recommendation for dPBL Design Number Seven. Learners need to be encouraged to take responsibility for their own learning. Four of the study participants placed an emphasis on this issue. Stephen accentuated engaging the students curiosity for learning: I think its really, really important to get students engaged in activity and get people engaged in the learning processes rather than telling people what is important. . . . I think its important that students and people in general are guided by their own lust for learning and their own curiosity on the subject field and the issues that they feel are important. Karen emphasized making the students realistic stakeholders and considers, How can I put the students as realistic stakeholders in a situation where they would have to solve the problem? The challenge sometimes is to get the students to take responsibility for their own learning. According to Anthony, One of the things that becomes very interesting in the linking of PBL with distributed learning is how you develop an espirit de cour among the students that enables them to say this is the sort of problem we can take ownership of.

218

SCRIPTURE

Recommendation for dPBL Design Number Eight. A supportive learning environment including communication, exchange of ideas, and social presence is necessary in dPBL. Seven of the 10 participants made specific comments regarding this recommendation. According to Michael, If you could strengthen social cohesion, I think that results could be much better. That social connection is also important to Anthony, who stated, What it does indicate, though, is the importance of building in factors that create that sense of connection. Stephen emphasized the importance of the social environment and discussions including noncourse-related topics: Encourage students to talk about other issues than the course on the Internet . . . actually encourage students to talk about other issues than the course on the Internet because when we study traditional courses, you will see that the students talk to each other about a lot of things, not only course issues in the subject or in the course. Recommendation for dPBL Design Number Nine. Use a variety of assessment strategies that are aligned with the content. Provide a clear marking framework to inform the learner of the assessment criteria. Three of the study participants discussed the importance of assessment strategies in dPBL. An important recommendation to consider, according to Gretchen, is How are you going to assess this so that the students value the process of the learning as part of the assessment, rather than the assessment guiding the learning fully? Michael elaborated on using more than just one assessment strategy and alignment: Try to adapt your assessment system to your way of organizing your course, because if your assessment system is not in line, it will never function. . . . We have different types of assessments here . . . we introduced the overall tests, peer assessment, and we introduced the scoring of the reports. We introduced all different types of assessment . . . thats very important. Recommendation for dPBL Design Number Ten. When using synchronous learning with dPBL, limit each session to one hour. Two of the study participants facilitated synchronous online learning discussions. Both had similar recommendations when facilitating synchronous chat sessions and duration. According to Gretchen, I dont do more than an hour . . . its exhausting. Patti preferred synchronous education and conducts weekly synchronous online chat sessions. She did recommend one hour in duration for synchronous chat sessions and not two hours like those that she has facilitated in the past. According to Patti, The synchronous part is the chat room, which now

DISTRIBUTED PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING

219

is one hour . . . we never go anywhere close to two hours. As described by Patti, Its the synchronous thats powerful. . . . Synchronous is just fun.

CONCLUSIONS Resulting from the study is a list of 10 recommendations for designing dPBL summarizing the recommendations that experienced designers believed to be the most critical for designing dPBL. Because participants in the study are from seven countries, the findings provide a unique and diverse outlook and perspective on dPBL design. Several of the recommendations are aligned with what other researchers have previously documented in the scholarly literature regarding PBL. For example, the concept of ill-defined authentic problems that is recommended on listing number four has been widely supported in PBL literature. As Barrows (2002) stated, One of the methods strongest attributes is that it is an engaging and motivating way to learn as the learner works with problems that are challenging and perceived as relevant (119). Weiss (2003) noted that selfdirected learning and lifelong problem solving can be encouraged with problems that are authentic. The role of the instructor in the online environment is central in dPBL, as recommended in design number six. It appears as though the role of the instructor takes on a higher significance in dPBL and may require different skill sets due to the lack of visual cues that are present in a face-to-face PBL environment. According to Dennis (2003), In the online environment the facilitator role may need to be modified since non-verbal cues available in the FTF environment might need to be replaced with textual techniques that promote student contribution, challenge thinking and keep the group on task (208). The importance of the learning environment providing supportive and encouraging communication, an exchange of ideas, and social presence among participants was highly recommended in design number eight. What this requires, though, is an instructor who is knowledgeable in what constitutes encouraging forms of communication in an online environment. The instructor should have an awareness of how much social presence is necessary without controlling the discussion and dialogue among the students too extensively. It is a significant finding that participants in the study expressed the opinion that learner success in dPBL environments is positively influenced by designs that clearly communicate guidelines and instructor expectations and provide learner familiarity with the dPBL approach. This finding provides valuable information that can guide designers in the development of dPBL environments because it is easy to overlook the practical elements of effective design. Designing a way to provide learner familiarity with the dPBL approach potentially can have a tremendous influence on how a learner reacts

220

SCRIPTURE

and performs in that environment. It does raise a question: What is the best way to design and provide learner familiarity with dPBL? Another significant finding in the study is that the blended model approach to dPBL is preferred among experienced designers. The value of the students meeting face-to-face and social communication was believed to add to the collaborative dPBL processes. If it is possible to add face-to-face communication with dPBL, it is recommended. The question that follows from the finding is how to design dPBL if face-to-face meetings between the students are not feasible and yet create an environment of social communication, collaboration, and interaction. Overall, the recommendations listing provides instructional designers, instructors, educators, and anyone who is interested in designing dPBL with a solid foundation of what experienced designers recommend for this method to be effective. It is suggested that future dPBL models take into account the recommendations listing as distance education continues to evolve. As audiences in online environments continue to become more widely dispersed throughout the world, dPBL has the potential to provide learners the opportunity to expand their problem-solving skills in a collaborative and interactive learning environment.

REFERENCESBarrows, H. S. 2002. Is it truly possible to have such a thing as dPBL? Distance Education 23 (1): 119122. Bjrck, U. 2002. Distributed problem-based learning in social economyKey issues in students mastery of a structured method for education. Distance Education 23 (1): 85103. Burch, K. 2000. A primer on problem-based learning for international relations courses. International Studies Perspectives 1:3144. Carr-Chellman, A. A. 2001. Long distance collaborative authentic learning (CAL): Recommendations for problem-based training on the Web. In Webbased training, ed. B. H. Khan, 435450. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology. Carr-Chellman, A., and P. Duchastel. 2000. The ideal online course. British Journal of Educational Technology 31 (3): 229241. de Bruyn, L. 2004. Monitoring online communication: Can the development of convergence and social presence indicate an interactive learning environment? Distance Education 25 (1): 6781. Dennis, J. K. 2003. Problem-based learning in online vs. face-to-face environments. Education for Health 16 (2): 198209. Durrington, V., A. Berryhill, and J. Swafford. 2006. Strategies for enhancing student interactivity in an online environment. College Teaching 54 (1): 190193.

DISTRIBUTED PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING

221

Edens, K. M. 2000. Preparing problem solvers for the 21st century through problem-based learning. College Teaching 48 (2): 5560. Fyrenius, A., B. Bergdahl, and C. Silen. 2005. Lectures in problem-based learningWhy, when and how? An example of interactive lecturing that stimulates meaningful learning. Medical Teacher 27 (1): 6165. Hmelo-Silver, C. 2004. Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review 16 (3): 235266. Knowlton, D. S. 2003. Preparing students for educated living: Virtues of problem-based learning across the higher education curriculum. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 95:512. Lehtinen, E. 2002. Developing models for distributed problem-based learning: Theoretical and methodological reflection. Distance Education 23 (1): 109117. McConnell, D. 2005. Examining the dynamics of networked e-learning groups and communities. Studies in Higher Education 30 (1): 2542. Mierson, S., and K. Freiert. 2004. Problem-based learning. Training & Development 58 (10): 1517. Morrison, G. R., S. M. Ross, and J. E. Kemp. 2004. Designing effective instruction, 4th ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Reigeluth, C. M. 1999. What is instructional-design theory and how is it changing? In Instructional-design theories and models. Vol. 2, A new paradigm of instructional theory, ed. C. M. Reigeluth, 529. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Ribeiro, L. R., and M. Mizukami. 2005. Problem-based learning: A student evaluation of an implementation in postgraduate engineering education. European Journal of Engineering Education 30 (1): 137149. Saba, F. 2005. Critical issues in distance education: A report from the United States. Distance Education 26 (2): 255272. Savin-Baden, M. 2003. Facilitating problem-based learning: Illuminating perspectives. Philadelphia: The Society for Research Into Higher Education & Open University. Stepien, W. J., P. R. Senn, and W. C. Stepien. 2000. The Internet and problem-based learning: Developing solutions through the Web. Tucson, AZ: Zephyr. Tu, C. H. 2005. From presentation to interaction: New goals for online learning technologies. Educational Media International 42 (3): 189206. Weiss, R. E. 2003. Designing problems to promote higher-order thinking. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 95:2531. Wertsch, J. V. 2002. Computer mediation, PBL, and dialogicality. Distance Education 23 (1): 105108. Wheeler, S. 2006. Learner support needs in online problem-based learning. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education 7 (2): 175184.