Article Critique in Full
Overview and Introduction:
The overview of the whole paper is succinct, and clearly establishes the outline of the study. The results are revealed in a balanced manner with both the positive and negative outcomes as well as proposing some caution about using problem-based teaching methods. The summary is perhaps lacking in a little more detail of the research methodology and whether it was qualitative or quantitative. We have to presuppose this by assuming ‘responses and perceptions’ means qualitative.
Within the introduction, although not overtly stated, the paper is coming from a cognitive background, perhaps more specifically a socially constructed. Evidence for this can be found when they propose learning paradigms such as – ‘from a teaching to learning focus’, ‘from instructing students to explaining learning’ and “from content centered to outcome based approaches’ (Oliver & Omari, 1999).
A citation is missing where they suggest ‘problem-solving and collaborative activities are seen to support higher order thinking and learning’ (Oliver & Omari, 1999). Support for these comments would add validity here. Another omission here and a more important one in the context of this paper is they talk of educators increasingly turning to learning technologies to support teaching large groups of learners. I think this glosses over the hundred years or so of correspondence learning and how this achieved the aims of teaching large disparate groups of students (Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, Zvacek, 2010).
Overall, however, we leave the introduction with a clear picture of the problem at hand and their motivation in addressing it.
Developing models for university learning
According to the article, Slavin (1997) suggests that “the reward structure inherent in collaborative environments have been found to have a positive effect on student motivation” (as cited in Oliver & Omari, 1999, p. 61). The authors have included a number of primary sources to support their claim. Hence, actively participating in learning activities, whether individually or in a group, creates a motivating setting that could encourage students to enrich their own learning and lead to higher order thinking.
The focus of this article is online technologies to support PBL and the writers identify their social constructivist approach in their research. This pedagogical approach allows for students to become problem solvers in order to investigate and discover meaning solutions to real-world issues. This constructivist approach develops critical thinking, increases motivation, helps students to become better problem solvers, as well allowing for transferability to new situations.
The authors raise a note of caution about the direct transfer of classroom materials to online materials, suggesting that the content is different and not all of the it can be carried over effectively.
Problem based learning
The authors clearly defined problem-based learning and show that sufficient literature reviews have been done with respect to their research. The authors also identify that there are critical elements in order to support effective problem based learning. This involves the successful implementation of a learning environment and the development of a problem based learning curriculum.
The article suggests an ill-structured approach as best suited to online environments and is more likely to result in good acquisition of knowledge. Oliver and Omari (1999) states “problem based learning and the use of authentic tasks have become an alternative to more content oriented approaches to education” (p.61). In addition, the writer states that “authentic problems tend to be ill structured with multiple solutions” (Oliver & Omari, 2009, p. 61). Students are challenged with these open-ended problems to explore a multitude of perspectives, as there is no one correct answer. This learning process promotes student motivation, critical thinking, and the ability for meaningful solutions to be discovered.
Research aims
This section neatly synthesizes the theoretical background of problem-based teaching, the context it will be applied and the problems the authors wish to address.
As we mentioned earlier in the introduction I do feel a brief overview of the research methodology is important. For example: participant numbers, length of study, was it qualitative or quantitative or a mixed-methods approach, research instruments used. Even bullet pointing these, to signpost that they are expanded upon in the next section would have been informative.
The learning activity
Throughout the paper the authors have used introduction sentences to good effect. This is no exception, describing as it does how the rest of the section unfolds. The writers also refer again and bring us back to the collaborative, outcome based learning theory they adopt when they talk of the activities needing to ‘meaningfully apply content in an authentic way (Oliver & Omari, 1999).
The figures presented are essential to the conceptualization of their research and although they would have benefited from a little more explanation, perhaps with arrows to point out key areas, they are clear enough to the reader. Additionally the figures do relate to the text and are not out of place.
The writers refer to text books each of the cohorts uses as a foundation , citing this would have been useful , or at least showing it clearly in the references would have been useful. Referring back again to the ‘ill-structures’ (Oliver & Omari, 1999), problems is a good organizational device, it reminds us of the grounding of the theoretical background to the research.
The authors refer to scaffolding and how this supports task completion. I think they missed an interesting opportunity to discuss how a problem-based collaborative methodology sits well with scaffolding. The focus questions they develop may be acting as the scaffolding although they don’t state this and peer support, collaboration and feedback may help with self-efficacy (Lin, 1999) which could lead to motivation in completing the task. It may also have been useful to discuss how scaffolding and guided questions may work against the ‘ill-structured’ methodology behind the problem –based question formation. It seems to me these would enhance one another, and may be a factor in how the learners develop their answers, especially as they will know that their peers are also ranking them over the course in terms of problem-solving capabilities. Related to this we do not know whether these grades go towards a final mark or act as a self-grade, this may affect extrinsic motivation on the collaborative tasks if they know it goes towards a final grade or that they are performing for their peers (Schunk, Pintrich, Meece, 2002).
In the final part of this section the writers talk of ‘interesting contrasts’ (Oliver & Omari, 1999) between the two classes. These contrasts, although not part of the research specifically, would be useful to know, especially as the writers are grounding their research in socially constructive theory. How each cohort manages the problem and the collaboration would inform how to adapt this course in the future, and at minimum inform future tutors of the course the diversity of problem-solving tasks to expect.
This section is successful in going into more detail about the research problem. It clearly shows the website layout in the figures and we understand better the context of the groups and the problems set, with an example answer to refer to. Some development of educational points raised is lacking that I feel would have informed us more about the issues they faced.
Outcomes
The research yielded a large amount of data, and the writers present this in five sections. Although both qualitative and quantitative research methods were applied we only see the quantitative results displayed. As mentioned earlier the lack of information on the research methodology also results here in a lack of clarity as to how the interview schedule was developed. We don’t know the questions and thus it’s hard for us to know the validity of the responses other than take the authors’ word.
It’s apparent from this section that the problem-solving approach was largely a success and the feedback positive. Other useful data showed the time differences spent on the task and the overall comfort level with the technology. The choice of developing ‘guide questions’ to cover the curriculum seems sensible, however, as I’ll discuss this choice could have a longer term effect on student motivation on higher-order thinking activities.
Its seems from the results, like in any group of students it has to be said, that intrinsically motivated individuals with a mastery orientation (Schunk, et al., 2002) were prepared to put time and effort into the collaborative tasks, whereas less motivated learners relied on others or did the minimum to pass the course.
Although the writer broke this part down into research sections, it may have benefited them to synthesize some of the results across these sections. For example they conflate motivation with enjoyment in the final section but is enjoyment a signifier of the success of a program? On an affective level research suggests this helps motivation, and social constructivist theories also suggest that collaboration in tasks supports learning and aspects of affect (Schunk, 2012). In spite of this the students here rated the collaboration and peer reviews slightly negatively and rated the less cognitively heavy tasks higher (weekly assessment tasks).
I think this is one of the most interesting aspects of this research: the fact that the writers believe collaboration and peer work will have a positive effect on higher order learning, yet at the same time these tasks are rated lower than lower-order thinking tasks by the students. Encompassing this dichotomy is the result that suggests students believe the personal skills of metacognition, literacy and self-regulation they get from the higher-order thinking activities are beneficial.
So does the collaborative, reflective, peer assessed approach truly help in learning or does it have a comparatively bigger effect on personal, lifelong skills development? Thus the content focus versus outcome focus mentioned earlier may need to be re-framed as the outcomes are not predicted expected by the process.
Ultimately no results are displayed to support whether this approach achieve better learning outcomes. I don’t see an assessment except for class discussions and student self-perception.
Discussion
Following their research findings, the authors begin by discussing the results that provide valuable insights in problem-based learning. They reveal three important issues that can impact student participation and subsequent learning outcomes such as problem selection, motivating activity, and peer assessment (Oliver & Omari, 2009).
These issues are valid but the authors’ neglect to mention other reasons why they believe cognitively demanding and challenging tasks lessen motivation and enthusiasm. Perhaps students simply have no prior knowledge to bring to the learning environment. Also, their research is to address the technological environment to support problem-based learning but there was no mention whether with that approach facilitators are able to cover as much material as a conventional delivery method. Although the authors do mention that they intend to pursue further studies, undoubtedly, there are more issues to uncover.
Summary and conclusions
The summary concludes the paper neatly. They refer to the positive aspects of the changed course environment and the fact the design ensured they spent more time on learning activities as well as the learners’ perception that the problem based approach supported learning. The writers correctly pay attention to the issue of face to face versus online and the value given to the formed over the latter. The writers suggest future course need to keep teacher-student communication as an integral part of the course.
As we mention in the ‘Outcomes’ critique I think they missed an opportunity to look at how collaborative approaches have clear benefits in affective aspects of learning , but make it harder to predict the actual outcome or acquisition of knowledge. Additionally a point they made but didn’t mention in this summary is how to remedy the lack of motivation among more passive ‘performance’ (Schunk et al., 2002) focused students.
References
Lin, C. M. (1999). Motivation and web-based instruction: A case study of using CANE model to assess motivation problems and find solutions. Educational Media International, 36(4), 287.
Oliver, R., & Omari, A. (1999). Using online technologies to support problem based learning: Learners’ responses and perceptions. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 15(1), 58-79.
Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning theories: An educational perspective (6th ed.). Upper Saddle Hill, NJ: Pearson Education,Inc.
Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2002). Motivation in education (3rd ed.). Upper Saddles River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.
Simonson, M., Smaldino, S. E., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2010). Teaching and learning at a distance. foundations of distance education (5th ed.). Boston,MA: Pearson.
.