enhancing problem-based learning designs with a single e-learning scaffolding tool: two case studies...

Enhancing Problem-Based Learning

Designs with a Single E-Learning

Scaffolding Tool: Two case studies

using Challenge FRAP

Terry M. Stewarta*, William R. MacIntyrea,Victor J. Galeab, and Caroline H. SteelcaMassey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand; bUniversity of Queensland, Gatton,

Australia; cUniversity of Queensland, St Lucia, Australia

Problem-based learning (PBL) is a powerful instructional approach. By working through assessable

complex problem-solving tasks learners can be encouraged to actively engage in investigation and

inquiry and to use high level cognitive thought processes to solve real-life problems in professional

contexts. A critical element of a successful PBL design is the inclusion of instructional support, such

as scaffolding, to guide and assist the learner through the reasoning process that is crucial to

successful problem-solving. The e-learning tool ‘Challenge FRAP’ (Form for the Recording of the

Analysis of Problems) is client-based public domain authoring software which facilitates the use of

scaffolding, the provision of progressive feedback and can promote student reflection at key

decision-making points. This paper illustrates the benefits of such an e-learning scaffolding tool

through two PBL case studies; one group-based PBL task in science and technology and one self-

directed PBL task in plant pathology.

Introduction

Problem-based learning (PBL) is now accepted and widely used across disciplinary

areas and education sectors. Many educators have recognized that, if well designed

and implemented, it is a powerful learner-centred instructional approach. The

e-learning tool ‘Challenge FRAP’ offers both the PBL designer and learner a range of

tools and templates that enable better design and learning opportunities. Through

describing the authoring capabilities of this software and drawing on two different

case studies, this paper seeks to illustrate how this client-based public domain author-

ing tool can be effectively utilized to enhance PBL designs and learning. In particular,

we discuss the capabilities of the software to facilitate the use of scaffolding, provide

*Corresponding author. Institute of Natural Resources, Private Bag 11222, Massey University,

Palmerston North, New Zealand. Email: [email protected]

Interactive Learning Environments

Vol. 15, No. 1, April 2007, pp. 77 – 91

ISSN 1049-4820 (print)/ISSN 1744-5191 (online)/07/010077-15 � 2007 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/10494820601058780

progressive learner feedback, promote student reflection at key decision-making

points and support both self-directed and group-based learning designs.

Problem-based learning has been described as ‘an instructional (and curricular)

learner-centred approach that empowers learners to conduct research, integrate

theory and practice, and apply knowledge and skills to develop a viable solution to

a defined problem’ (Savery, 2006, p. 12). With its foundations in constructi-

vist theories, the PBL approach has been shown to improve students’ diagnostic

skills (Schmidt, Machiels-Bongaerts, Hermans, ten Cate, Venekamp, & Boshuizen,

1996), their ability to retain content knowledge with a greater depth of understanding

(Dods, 1997), and their problem-solving skills (Gallagher, Rosenthal, & Stepien,

1992).

The ability to apply our thinking and draw on a range of resources to solve complex

real-life problems has been recognized as a central tenet of education by many

educational theorists over time (see, for example, Dewey, 1974; Gagne, 1980).

Simons and Ertmer (2006, p. 297), suggested that PBL designs are characterized by:

student engagement with ill-structured problems, introduction of the problem prior to

acquisition of relevant content knowledge, collaboration, instructional support during

the problem-solving process, and the facilitation of learner reflection. Along with

others (see, for example, Hmelo-Silver & Barrows, 2006, pp. 21 – 25; Savery, 2006,

p. 12) they also recognize that a critical factor in successful PBL implementation

is the availability of expert tutors to guide learners through the PBL process. As

various constraints often limit the availability of such skilled and trained tutors, it has

become increasingly important to embed instructional support and scaffolding

mechanisms within the PBL design that assist learners to successfully attain their

learning goals.

Scaffolding is a mechanism for helping learners to extend their learning into more

complex or unknown areas of knowledge and knowledge application (such as real-life

problems). Scaffolds can take many forms, including learner guides, resources, tools,

and strategies that help the learner to attain higher levels of understanding. According

to Hmelo-Silver (2004, p. 245), in PBL scaffolding often takes the form of modelling,

coaching, and questioning to progress students through the PBL task and to monitor

their learning and reasoning processes. Learners are encouraged to reflect on their

thinking and actions and to check their own understanding so that they become more

adept at problem-solving and, consequently, the level of scaffolding can be reduced.

On a practical level, a common constructivist approach using PBL is to set students

an investigative task designed to solve a complex, ill-structured but authentic problem

(Boud & Feletti, 1991; Kain, 2003). Students undertake this task, perhaps in

groups, and report back to the tutor/facilitator at several stages throughout the task or

at completion. Reporting can take many forms, from seminars through to written

documents.

One thing a tutor looks for when assessing a student’s effort on such a task is a well-

reasoned investigative pathway. As such, it is beneficial when the activities carried out

are documented, as well as any results and reflections. As a scaffolding strategy the

tutor may elect to set an example of a potential investigative pathway for the student

78 T. M. Stewart et al.

to follow, to get them started, or at least to indicate some of the common tasks

expected of them.

Challenge FRAP (Form for the Recording of the Analysis of Problems) is a

freeware program which affords the designer/facilitator the opportunity to track the

investigative pathways, results, and reflections of learners and to create potential

pathways of inquiry that the learner can utilize, change, or extend. It allows the

designer/facilitator to use a variety of scaffolding mechanisms, provide progressive

feedback, and promote student reflection at key decision-making points. This tool

enhances the designer/facilitator’s ability to either guide or model students through an

investigative exercise and for learners to record their observations, reflections, and

conclusions. Learner contributions to the PBL task can be saved as a data file, known

as a FRAP form. This electronic form can be treated like a living document, to be

shared between group members and sent to the tutor at various stages during the

exercise with questions and reflections and for comment. A component of the form

can carry date-stamped comments from the tutor or student for feedback and

discussion. Furthermore, this dynamic ‘digital product’ may initially take the form of

a template, with the embedded tutor scaffolds such as suggested actions, processes,

and resources, which the students can add to, delete or change.

The software was developed as a derivative of the Challenge scenario-based

authoring tool (Stewart & Bartrum, 2002). However, unlike the latter, Challenge

FRAP is not designed to author and display a problem-based scenario as a ‘‘game,’’

but rather to document the learners’ reasoning processes and solution to a real

problem while simultaneously providing guidance and feedback as to their process.

A description of authoring capabilities of the software may assist the reader to better

understand how it can be employed.

Description of the Authoring Tool

Challenge FRAP is described in detail at the site http://challenge.massey.ac.nz, where

both the program and a manual can also be downloaded. The program is now in

version 2, but version 1 was used in this study, hence the screen shots show the latter.

The differences between the two versions are mostly cosmetic.

The open screen of Challenge FRAP gives the user (student or tutor) the choice of

either starting a new FRAP document or loading an existing document. A new FRAP

form simply starts up with a single activity node at the root and a blank editing page,

while an existing document may be a partially completed student record or a template

developed by the tutor to guide the student through the exercise. After the user makes

the appropriate selection the program then moves to the main screen (Figure 1).

The authoring window is split into three parts. The left-hand side is reserved for a

series of nodes. These nodes can be pre-existing if a tutor-supplied template is being

used or can be created by the students as they work through a task. Nodes can be

represented by a series of in-built icons. They can represent any entity (object,

location, action, or theme) the student thinks is appropriate. Nodes can be organized

in hierarchies so that their relationship to one another is obvious. In essence, they

Problem-Based Learning Designs 79

show a pathway of related activities that may take place (or have taken place) during

the problem-solving exercise. First level nodes can represent main activities while

second and third level nodes can represent sub-activities off these main ones.

The main right pane is an edit screen which this holds the HTML content

associated with each node. If a FRAP template is supplied, as shown in Figure 1, this

may hold tutor-written information (suggestions, hints, and directions) pertaining

to the activity represented by the node. The student would replace this with their

own content (showing results and reflections) once they had undertaken the task

themselves. Pictures, text, and hyperlinks, either to the web or a local resource, are all

accepted. Where a hyperlink points to a locally held file (e.g., a document file held on

the hard drive) the file is embedded in the FRAP file itself, thereby always staying with

it no matter what machine it is being viewed or edited on.

The top left-hand screen contains a Properties tab and a Discussion and Feedback

one. The latter allows input by the student and the tutor pertaining to particular node

content. All input is sequenced and date stamped so a clear record is kept of the

feedback.

FRAP files can be exchanged between teacher and student or other members of a

student team for additions and comments during the course of the investigation.

The next section of this paper illustrates the benefits and use of this e-learning

scaffolding tool through two PBL case studies, one group-based PBL task in

science and technology and one self-directed PBL task in plant pathology. Both

Figure 1. A FRAP (version 1.0) template showing a plant diagnostic pathway


problem-solving exercises were developed prior to the introduction of the software,

but Challenge FRAP enabled better scaffolding and reflective discourse amongst

tutors and students.

Case Study 1. A distance learning problem solving exercise

Description of the Project

During 2004 202 students enrolled on ‘Curriculum integration: science and

technology,’ a compulsory third year paper for teacher trainees at Massey University

College of Education. Ninety-seven of these students studied this paper online. Three

lecturers were involved with teaching the course.

Students worked in groups of three and were given a choice of four scenarios that

represented an ill-structured, undefined problem or issue in society. The intention of

this assignment was to immerse student trainees in the process of PBL by carrying out

science and technology investigations. The learners negotiated their way (as active

participants) through the process by:

. determining what information they knew already;

. determining what information they needed;

. determining how the information could be obtained (via science investigations or

technology design process or the Internet, etc.), often without a tutor;

. determining what information is relevant, often without a tutor;

. applying new information to the problem;

. presenting problems, processes, and solutions to tutors/class for scrutiny;

. evaluating and reflecting on the process.

Each group was asked to record the ‘process’ (i.e., higher order thinking,

discussions, questioning, key decisions made, etc.) involved in PBL, as well as the

science and technology investigations carried out. Each group had a meeting at the

end of the second week/beginning of the third week with their tutor. This formal

checkpoint was for formative assessment purposes, to ensure that each group was on

the right path and had the necessary skills and time to complete the assessed aspects

of the project.

The assessed components and sub-components of the PBL activity were as follows.

. Science: Overall investigation.

. Science: Exploring the situation.

. Science: Understanding/knowledge.

. Science: Links to science in the New Zealand Curriculum (SiNZC) document.

. Technology: Societal knowledge.

. Technology: Knowledge and understanding.

. Technology: Technological capability.

. Technology: Links to technology in the New Zealand Curriculum (TiNZC).


. Information technology—presentation.

. Thinking skills in the PBL process.

. Self-reflection/evaluation skills in PBL.

Each component had five progressive statements (indicators) of the expected

standard work, which corresponded to marks. Table 1 provides an example of the

expectations for science investigations carried out in the project.

A ‘digital product’ of the collaborative work was to be submitted at the end of a five

week block. The students were provided with various templates—Word, PowerPoint

and Challenge FRAP. Templates were provided for the three formats because the

tutors wanted the students to spend the time on the PBL process rather than on

creating the product. Tutors were available throughout the project as mentors and

became involved in coaching groups early in their projects. Those groups working

online submitted partially completed ‘digital products’ for comment and peer review

as they worked their way towards a solution. Ten of the seventy groups chose to

present their ‘digital product’ using Challenge FRAP. Six of the ten groups were

students involved in online learning. Those groups that did use Challenge FRAP did

so because they did not have the other two programs on their computers or there were

some incompatibility issues at the start. Hence they used the free software for their

digital product. Figure 2 demonstrates the starting point for a group (involving two

students) as well as the lecturer’s comment in the ‘Lecturer/Tutor Comment’ box.

Results

Student evaluations of Challenge FRAP were collected after the submission of their

final ‘digital product’. Only eight students replied to the two given questions out of a

total number of 28, but their results are included here for completeness. In answer to

the question ‘‘How did you find Challenge FRAP as a recording/feedback template?

(1¼not useful at all, 5¼ extremely useful)’’, three students responded with a 5, two

with a 4 and two with a 3.

Students were also asked an open-ended question. The results appear in Table 2.

The following section reports the observations and reflections by the three lecturers

concerned in the paper. The first part deals with student use and the second part

reflects on features of the FRAP software itself.

The FRAP template not only allowed the students to capture and record their PBL

process, it also provided direction for creating the final ‘digital product’. At first

students appeared to have some difficulty installing FRAP on their computers.

However, once that problem was solved students found the template easy to use

and could navigate their way through the program without difficulty. They learnt

how to add additional nodes and change the template to suit their investigations.

Students had no difficulty inserting photos and graphs. They were encouraged to use

hyperlinks, linking a node to other nodes within the same file. Hyperlinking in this

way within the file allowed students to demonstrate their awareness of relationships in

the PBL process and the links between a science and technology investgation while


Tab

le1

.P

art

of

the

scie

nce

inve

stig

atio

nas

sess

men

tm

atri

x

Co

mp

on

ent

1m

ark

2m

arks

3m

arks

4m

arks

5m

arks

Ove

rall

inve

stig

atio

nP

arti

cip

ate

in

inve

stig

ativ

e

acti

viti

es,

e.g.,

stu

den

tsw

ou

ld

atte

mp

tan

inve

stig

atio

n,

no

t

nec

essa

rily

lin

ked

toth

esc

enar

io

Co

ntr

ibu

te

mea

nin

gfu

lid

eas

and

acti

vely

par

tici

pat

ein

an

inve

stig

atio

n,

e.g.,

stu

den

tsw

ou

ldb

e

invo

lved

ina

sim

plist

ic

inve

stig

atio

nth

at

did

lin

kto

the

scen

ario

kn

ow

ing

that

they

mu

st

collec

t‘‘

dat

a’’

Init

iate

sas

pec

tso

f

inve

stig

atio

ns

wit

hin

asu

pp

ort

ive

fram

ewo

rk

un

der

stan

din

gth

at

this

isa

scie

nti

fic

acti

vity

,e.

g.,

inve

stig

atio

n

beg

ins

wit

ha

stu

den

tq

ues

tio

n,

isca

rrie

do

ut

wit

h

the

un

der

stan

din

g

that

‘‘ev

iden

ce’’

is

Req

uir

edto

answ

erth

e

qu

esti

on

Init

iate

san

dsu

stai

ns

inve

stig

atio

ns

wit

h

sup

po

rto

ver

dif

ficu

ltie

s,u

sin

g

som

esc

ien

ce

con

ven

tio

ns

and

valu

es,

e.g.,

inve

stig

atio

n

beg

ins

wit

ha

stu

den

tq

ues

tio

n,

isca

rrie

do

ut

ina

syst

emat

icw

ay

sup

po

rted

occ

assi

on

ally

by

the

tuto

r/le

ctu

rer

thro

ugh

coac

hin

g

qu

esti

on

s

Init

iate

san

dp

ersi

sts

wit

hsy

stem

atic

and

mea

nin

gfu

l

inve

stig

atio

ns

wit

h

lim

ited

sup

po

rt,

usi

ng

app

rop

riat

e

scie

nce

con

ven

tio

ns

and

valu

es,

e.g.,

stu

den

tsca

rry

ou

t

asy

stem

atic

inve

stig

atio

nth

at

iscr

uci

alin

solv

ing/a

nsw

erin

g

the

pro

ble

m.

Itis

bas

edo

nth

eir

ow

n

qu

esti

on

.

Co

ach

ing

qu

esti

on

sar

ise

fro

mw

ith

inth

e

gro

up

rath

erth

an

fro

mtu

tor/

lect

ure

r

(con

tinued

)


Tab

le1

.(C

onti

nued

)

Co

mp

on

ent

1m

ark

2m

arks

3m

arks

4m

arks

5m

arks

Exp

lori

ng

the

situ

atio

n

Co

ntr

ibu

tere

leva

nt

ob

serv

atio

ns,

e.g.,

view

inve

stig

atio

ns

ina

very

sim

plist

ic

way

Un

der

take

tria

ls,

mak

eo

bse

rvat

ion

s

and

beg

into

see

pat

tern

so

r

rela

tio

nsh

ips,

e.g.,

stu

den

tskn

ow

that

ase

ries

of

tria

ls

mu

stb

ed

on

ean

d

that

on

em

ust

‘‘lo

ok’’

atth

ed

ata

tose

arch

for

a

pat

tern

or

tren

d

Car

ryo

ut

ase

qu

ence

of

tria

ls:

mak

e

accu

rate

ob

serv

atio

ns

and

loo

kfo

rp

atte

rns

or

rela

tio

nsh

ips,

e.g.,

stu

den

ts

dem

on

stra

teso

me

care

inca

rryi

ng

ou

t

ase

ries

of

tria

ls

that

may

pro

du

ce

accu

rate

dat

a

Car

ryo

ut

pu

rpo

sefu

l

tria

ls,

mak

e

rele

van

t,ac

cura

te

and

det

aile

d

ob

serv

atio

ns,

loo

k

for

and

sugges

t

pat

tern

san

d/o

r

rela

tio

nsh

ips,

e.g.,

stu

den

ts

dem

on

stra

teth

e

skills

and

un

der

stan

din

g

nec

essa

ryto

pro

du

cere

leva

nt

asw

ell

asac

cura

te

dat

a

Car

ryo

ut

ase

ries

of

pu

rpo

sefu

ltr

ials

,

mak

ein

crea

sin

gly

focu

sed

and

det

aile

d

ob

serv

atio

ns

rela

ted

to

per

ceiv

edp

atte

rns

or

rela

tio

nsh

ips,

e.g.,

stu

den

ts

dem

on

stra

tea

‘‘th

roro

ugh

nes

s’’

inca

rryi

ng

ou

t

tria

lsso

that

accu

rate

and

reliab

led

ata

are

ob

tain

ed.

Th

e

‘‘d

epth

’’is

evid

ent


maintaining the integrity of each investigation. Links could also be made between

information about technological impact on society and the technological knowledge

and understanding so as to identify the overlap of those two areas within the

Figure 2. Screen shot showing part of a student’s FRAP (version 1.0) ‘digital product’

Table 2. Student reponses to the open-ended question ‘‘As a teacher trainee, do you think this

programme can be used in primary schools with children to ‘‘log’’ their thinking on projects?’’

Response

1 Yes, on the basis that the students know how to create new nodes and move it to the

appropriate place

2 Yes, as long as the children know how to make new nodes and work within the

Challenge FRAP

3 Yes! Different form in recording ideas for others to receive and comment. Helps

higher order thinking be captured and recorded

4 Definitely. It was simple. Children would have more time to spend on investigations

than on setting up the computer

5 Yes! Good, logical, sequential programme where things are clearly set out, and is

easy to use

6 Yes, it is straightforward to use and pretty much self-explanatory, though teacher

demonstration would be needed at first for some students

7 Yes, with adequate instruction

8 Possibly


technology curriculum. It provided demonstrable evidence that fulfilled one of the

indicators in the assessment criteria for the ‘Information Technology’ aspect, as well

as providing a holistic view of the PBL process (e.g., the complexity of the scenario)

that the students experienced. In the earlier version of FRAP used in this study

hyperlinking was not as intuitive as it could be so some students chose to omit that

aspect from their products. However, for the users who were creating their first digital

product the FRAP groups appeared to be in control of the software and not the other

way around. There was also anecdotal evidence that the FRAP students did not

develop the ‘software anxiety’ that students using PowerPoint for the first time had

experienced, as the project drew to an end with the final submission.

The lecturers found the students’ files easy to navigate and assess. The ‘node tree’

was very useful for providing an overview of the group’s work at a quick glance. The

‘window’ where the student placed their work was small and therefore it meant that

scrolling was the norm when assessing this. Hyperlinking to other nodes was not as

intuitive as it could be. It was excellent to have an attached window (‘Lecturer/Tutor

Comment’ box) with each node so that they could give feedback when assessing, but

lecturers would have preferred a bigger ‘comment’ box and to be able to use different

fonts with all the other normal formatting tools that are available for use in the student

window.

Case Study 2. Using Challenge FRAP to assist with the teaching

of plant disease diagnosis

Description of the Project

The study was taken over the 2004 and 2005 teaching years and contained ten and

eight students, respectively. All were enrolled on a ‘Plant protection’ course at The

University of Queensland. The students were asked to select a plant disease case from

up to 14 problems submitted for consideration by a range of horticultural clients from

southeast Queensland. Each student was provided with brief details of their selected

case along with the contact details of their client. Students were also provided with the

Challenge FRAP diagnostic template and had been previously exposed to some

laboratory diagnostic cases. As an initial scaffolding mechanism the FRAP template

was designed with a conventional diagnostic pathway (Figure 3), illustrated via nodes,

and the node contents contained suggestions and guidance on the significance of what

they might observe. The elements of the pathway identified in this flowchart and their

logical interrelationship are essential to the completion of a complete diagnostic case.

Students were given access to all laboratory and glasshouse facilities required to

carry out their individual tasks and were able to consult with the client and the

academic and, where necessary, receive guidance and relevant training on techniques

to assist with their case. Where required, access to digital photography and photomi-

crography was also provided.

Students were invited to submit a draft of their template (assignment) to gain

constructive feedback and further guidance from the academic. Students were able to


use the discussion/feedback box available for each screen to raise questions or

concerns about individual components of their diagnostic case. The availability of this

tool promoted learner reflection throughout their reasoning process. Constructive

feedback and counter-questioning on these and other issues could then be provided

by the academic to scaffold the students towards a more polished outcome. After

reflection on the feedback from the academic and, if required, further investigation of

the problem, students submitted a final version of their diagnostic case FRAP file.

An example of a part of a submission is shown in Figure 4. This final submission

was then assessed by the academic using a specifically designed set of assessment

criteria, as shown in Table 3.

Student attitudes to this particular learning approach were investigated through

the use of two questionnaires. The first, containing nine open-ended questions,

examined student attitudes to this exercise, its conduct, and resource issues and was

completed by the students upon submission of the draft diagnostic case FRAP

template.

The second, a more searching examination of the value of the learning exercise,

which measured the success of the template as a mechanism for case development

and the overall benefit of this case study approach, was a mixture of qualitative and

open-ended questions. The opportunity for students to provide constructive feedback

on the mechanisms used in this exercise was also given. This questionnaire was

Figure 3. Flowchart describing the logical approach to the diagnosis of a plant disease problem


Figure 4. Screen shot showing part of a student’s FRAP (version 1.0) diagnostic assessment

Table 3. Assessment criteria for diagnostic assignment

Criterion Details

Introduction of problem The plant problem and the context within which it occurs

should be clearly introduced by the student

Client consultation Evidence of ability to consult with client should be

demonstrated by the relevance and quality of information

sought by the student.

Accessing information Appropriate information sources to support this case should

be accessed and evidence of this presented within the

assignment

Laboratory (skills) performance A methodical approach to the laboratory phase of this

investigation should be demonstrated, along with the correct

choice and use of laboratory techniques

Diagnostic reasoning The conclusions drawn from the diagnostic investigation

should be justified and be relevant and appropriate to the

information collected by the student

Validity of recommendations The management programme must be realistic and relevant

both to the production system, the crop being grown and

the problem(s) to be managed.

Dedication to project The student’s dedication to the project through the quality of

interaction with the client and lecturer and effort in the

laboratory should be demonstrated

Feedback to client The student should provide evidence of feedback on the

case to the client


completed by 17 of the 18 students over the two years studied upon submission of the

case template.

Results

As this paper is primarily concerned with the use of Challenge FRAP as a scaffolding

tool to facilitate this exercise, only the student responses relating specifically to the

software will be presented here. The full results of the student evaluation will be

reported elsewhere. The data related to this paper is available in Table 4.

As can be seen from the responses, the FRAP software and the diagnostic template

were viewed very favourably.

It was evident from the case study templates submitted by students that they

succeeded in embracing the philosophy and approach to conducting diagnostic

Table 4. Student response to the diagnostic FRAP template

Question

Strongly

agree Agree Uncertain Disagree

Strongly

disagree Pa

The template provided a logical

structure to this project

10 7 0 0 0 5.00

The template provided a useful

way to record my

observations and thoughts

during the project

10 5 2 0 0 5.00

The structure within the

template served as a model of

common tasks and

procedures which assisted me

with my investigation

8 7 2 0 0 5.00

The template assisted me

(helped me focus) when

seeking information

from the client

6 8 3 0 0 5.00

The comments and guidelines

initially provided within the

template were useful to me

8 8 1 0 0 5.00

The feedback/discussion feature

was useful to me

7 9 1 0 0 5.00

The multimedia

capabilities allowed me to

better document the problem

7 7 3 0 0 .01

The fact that the template

structure could be altered to

reflect my own investigation

was a good feature

12 5 0 0 5.00

The template was easy to use 8 9 0 0 5.00

aBased on one-way w2.


evaluations of plants with diseases which were previously unknown to them. As an

e-learning tool the FRAP template not only captured a record of their work, but also

provided opportunities to embed appropriate levels of scaffolding for students to

successfully complete the diagnostic procedure and to allow constructive teacher

feedback at key decision-making points.

Summary

As these two case studies have indicated, Challenge FRAP is a flexible e-learning tool

for PBL that promotes the use of scaffolding techniques, provides progressive learner

feedback, promotes student reflection at key decision-making points, and supports

both self-directed and group-based PBL learning designs. As an editing software

Challenge FRAP allows the production of an electronic report template that can both

guide the students through a problem-solving task and record their observations,

progress, and reflections. The tree structure of the activity nodes are powerful in how

they can visually demonstrate how tasks relate to one another and flexible in how they

can be moved, changed, and manipulated by the learner as they progress their

thinking. Dynamic work in progress files are easily passed between teacher and

student and student to student, facilitating asynchronous dialogue, feedback,

reflection, and teamwork during the course of the investigation.

Student feedback confirmed that, overall, the software was useful and easy to use

and navigate, and in the latter case students appeared to be impressed with the way

the template assisted and recorded their engagement with the problem task. The

feedback/discussion tool, multimedia capabilities, and potential to edit the template

to reflect their own investigative path were perceived as useful features of the product.

There were some limitations of the FRAP version (version 1.0) used in the case

studies, which caused installation and hyperlink problems. These problems have been

addressed in the current version (version 2.0). However, in group use it is still not

currently possible to track which learners changed what aspects of the template

(useful for assessing individual contributions to group tasks). One way around this is

to use different coloured text for the different contributions of individual members,

hence clearly identifying their input. A further consideration for potential users is the

level of input required from content experts in establishing templates for different

disciplinary areas.

On the other hand, the software has the potential for use beyond what was

demonstrated through the cases. For example, we are now experimenting with

postgraduate students developing problem templates as a learning task in-of-itself and

using these for undergraduate learners. One student in the plant protection area has

indicated their intention to use the software to establish a library that documents their

problem-solving approaches to plant disease in their own professional context.

Overall, the FRAP software, as illustrated by the case studies above, enhanced

problem-based learning designs through the provision of scaffolding tools that

assisted learners to actively engage in investigation and inquiry and to use high level

cognitive thought processes to solve real-life problems in professional contexts.


The Challenge FRAP program and example templates are available free of charge

from the website http://challenge.massey.ac.nz.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thanks Madhumita Bhattacharya and Lindsay Brears on their

work with case study 1.

References

Boud, D., & Feletti, G. (1991). The challenge of problem-based learning. London: Kogan Page.

Dewey, J. (1974). The relation of theory to practice in education. In R. Archambault (Ed.), John

Dewey on education: Selected writings (pp. 313 – 339). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Dods, R. F. (1997). An action research study of the effectiveness of problem-based learning in

promoting the acquisition and retention of knowledge. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,

20(4), 423 – 437.

Gagne, R. M. (1980). The conditions of learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Gallagher, S., Rosenthal, H., & Stepien, W. (1992). Content acquisition in problem-based learning.

Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(4), 195 – 200.

Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn. Educational

Psychology Review, 16(3), 235 – 266.

Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Barrows, H. S. (2006). Goals and strategies of a problem-based learning

facilitator. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1), 21 – 39.

Kain, D. L. (2003). Problem-based learning for teachers, Grades 6 – 12. Boston, MA: Pearson

Education.

Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. The

Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1), 9 – 20.

Schmidt, H. G., Machiels-Bongaerts, M., Hermans, H., ten Cate, T. J., Venekamp, R., &

Boshuizen, H. P. (1996). The development of diagnostic competence: Comparison of a

problem-based, an integrated, and a conventional medical curriculum. Academic Medicine,

71(6), 658 – 664.

Simons, K. D., & Ertmer, P. (2006). Scaffolding disciplined inquiry in problem-based learning

environments. International Journal of Learning, 12(6), 297 – 305.

Stewart, T. M., & Bartrum, P. (2002). CHALLENGE. An authoring tool for problem-based

scenarios delivered alone, or over the WWW. In Proceedings of thee IEEE International Conference

on Computers in Education (pp. 197 – 201). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society.


enhancing problem-based learning designs with a single e-learning scaffolding tool: two case studies...

Documents