Content and processes in problem-based learning: a comparison of computer-mediated and face-to-face communication

Abstract  There has been an increasing interest in the use of computer-mediated communication (CMC) in problem-based learning. One line of research has been to introduce synchronous, or simultaneous, communication attempting to create text-based digital real-time interaction. Compared with face-to-face (F2F) communication, CMC may be a poorer medium regarding coordination of the activity. Still, we are in need for more knowledge on the possible advantages and problems regarding such digital communication processes. In the present study, we compared activities in digital and F2F problem-based learning (PBL) regarding the content of the communication, turn-taking processes and the emergence of learning issues. The results indicate that when students discussed in the digital learning environment, they focused more on technical and organizational questions, produced relatively more initiatives but less responses, and produced less elaborated and specified learning issues than when they participated in F2F meetings.

[1]  Hubert Steinke,et al.  Why, What and How? , 2004 .

[2]  Jerry Andriessen,et al.  Learning through synchronous electronic discussion , 2000, Comput. Educ..

[3]  Fadi P. Deek,et al.  Problem-Based Learning and Problem-Solving Tools: Synthesis and Direction for Distributed Education Environments , 2002 .

[4]  Timothy Koschmann,et al.  Problematizing the Problem , 2003, CSCL.

[5]  Giuseppe Riva,et al.  From real to Virtual Communities: Cognition, Knowledge, and Intention in the World Wide Web , 2001 .

[6]  Howard S. Barrows,et al.  Is it Truly Possible to Have Such a Thing as dPBL? , 2002 .

[7]  C. Hmelo‐Silver.  Problem-Based Learning: What and How Do Students Learn? , 2004 .

[8]  Jörg Zumbach,et al.  Influence of Feedback on Distributed Problem Based Learning , 2003, CSCL.

[9]  C. Kneser,et al.  The Tutor's Role: An investigation of the power of Exchange Structure Analysis to identify different roles in CMC seminars , 2001 .

[10]  R. Pilkington,et al.  Facilitating debate in networked learning: Reflecting on online synchronous discussion in higher education , 2003 .

[11]  Uday S. Murthy,et al.  Divergent and Convergent Idea Generation in Teams: A Comparison of Computer-Mediated and Face-to-Face Communication , 2004 .

[12]  D. Randy Garrison,et al.  Critical Inquiry in a Text-Based Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education , 1999, Internet High. Educ..

[13]  D. Kuhn,et al.  What's So Good About Problem-Based Learning? , 2004 .

[14]  D. Garrison,et al.  Methodological Issues in the Content Analysis of Computer Conference Transcripts , 2007 .

[15]  Kara L. Orvis,et al.  Communication patterns during synchronous Web-based military training in problem solving , 2002, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[16]  Steven M. Crooks,et al.  Distributed problem-based learning at Southern Illinois University School of Medicine , 1999, CSCL.

[17]  Helge I. Strømsø,et al.  Changes in student approaches to learning with the introduction of computer‐supported problem‐based learning , 2004, Medical education.

[18]  Timothy Koschmann,et al.  Paradigm shifts and instructional technology : An introduction , 1996 .

[19]  Angela Cora Garcia,et al.  The Eyes of the Beholder: Understanding the Turn-Taking System in Quasi-Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication , 1999 .

[20]  H. Coates,et al.  A Critical Examination Of The Effects Of Learning Management Systems On University Teaching And Learning , 2005 .

[21]  Y. Carter,et al.  Why? What? and How? IT provision for medical students in general practice , 1999, Medical education.