Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

GTravels towards Problem Based Learning in Medical Education (VPBL)

  • Published:
Instructional Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper reports the results and insights ofan exploratory investigation of theeffectiveness of a prototypic virtualproblem-based learning (VPBL) exercisedelivered via the WWW, that uses HypermediaAssisted Instructional Technologies (HAIT). The study targeted all first year medicalstudents at a south-central University Schoolof Medicine who were enrolled in the humanphysiology course during the Spring 2000 (n =150). A quasi-experimental, post-test onlyresearch design compared the VPBL and atext-based version of the same PBL exercise onstudents' achievement, as measured by a set ofselected physiology examination items, andtheir perceptions of the learning environment,as measured by the Teaching and LearningEnvironment Questionnaire (TLEQ) (Chauvin &Bowdish, 1998). Findings suggest that the VPBLis equally as effective as the text-basedversion for enhancing students' learning andtheir learning environment in small group, PBLsessions. In this paper, we examine theevidence supporting the VPBL innovation andexplore what constitutes necessary andsufficient evidence that an educationalinnovation should be incorporated appropriatelyinto the medical educational practice of aschool. We examine instructional design issuessuch as learner control, instructional control,and teacher and learner roles as related toinstructional development for the WWW, bycomparing and contrasting our observations ofthe VPBL design experiment with theprofessional literature.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Albanese, M.A. & Mitchell, S. (1993). Problem-based learning: A review of literature of its outcomes and implementation issues. Academic Medicine 68(1): 52-81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, P.A., Kulikowich, J.M. & Jetton, T.L. (1994). The role of subject matter knowledge and interest in the processing of linear and nonlinear tests. Review of Educational Research 64: 201-252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barab, S.A., Bowdish, B.E., Young, M.F. & Owen, S.V. (1996). Understanding kiosk navigation: Using log files to capture hypermedia searches. Instructional Science 24: 377-395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrows, H. (1986). A taxonomy of problem-based learning methods. Medical Education 20: 481-486.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrows, H. (1988). The Tutorial Process. Springfield, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B.S. (1976). Human Characteristics and School Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonwell, C.C. & Eison, J.A. (1991). Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1.Washington, D.C.: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development. ED419529.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowdish, B.E., Chauvin, S.W. & Vigh, S. (1998). Comparing Student Learning Outcomes in Hypermedia and Analog Assisted Lectures (HAL & AAL). IR019153, 143, 150.

  • Bowdish, B.E., Chauvin, S.W. & Vigh, S. (2000, April). Discriminating the effect of Hypermedia-assisted lectures and analog-assisted lectures on students' learning across three years: Phase II. A paper presentation at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, Louisiana.

  • Bowdish, B.E., Harrison, J. & Chauvin, S.W. (1997, October). How does instructional technology influence student achievement and their learning environment? Presentation at the Association of American Medical Colleges annual meeting, Washington, D.C.

  • Bridges, E.M. (1992). Problem-based learning for administrators (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EA 023 722).

  • Bruner, J.S. (1973). Beyond the Information Given. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camp, G. (1996). Problem-Based Learning: A Paradigm Shift or a Passing Fad? MEO 1996; 1:2. http://www.med-ed-online.org/f0000003.htm

    Google Scholar 

  • Campanizzi, J.A. (1978). Effects of locus of control and provision of overviews in a computerassisted instruction sequence. AEDS Journal 12: 21-30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, J.B. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Board 64: 723-733.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chauvin, S.W. & Bowdish, B.E. (1998). Initial development of an instrument for obtaining students' perceptions of effective learning environments. Association of American Medical Colleges annual meeting, Washington, D.C.

  • Colliver, J.A. (2000). Effectiveness of problem-based curricula: Research and theory. Academic Medicine 75: 259-266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, T.D. & Campbell, D.T. (1979). Quasi-Experimentation: Design & Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L.J. & Snow, R.E. (1977). Aptitudes and Instructional Methods: A Handbook for Research on Interactions. New York: Irvington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, D.W. (1990). The effects of cooperative learning strategies on achievement and attitudes during interactive video. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction 17: 8-16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, D.W. & Hannafin, M.J. (1985). The effects of computer-assisted instruction on the self-esteem and achievement of remedial junior high school students: An exploratory study. Association for Educational Data Systems Journal: 172-182.

  • Dick, W. & Carey, L. (1990). The Systematic Design of Instruction, 3rd edition. Scott, Foresman and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driscoll, M. (1998). Web-Based Training: Using Technology to Design Adult Learning Experiences. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellett, C.D., Loup, K.S. & Chauvin, S.W. (1991). System for Teaching and learning Assessment and Review (STAR): Annotated Guide to Teaching and Learning (Teaching Internship and Statewide Teacher Certification Program Form). Second Revision. College of Education, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, K.A. & Paulsen,M.B., eds (1994). Teaching and Learning in the College Classroom. Needham Heights, MA: Ginn Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernald, P.S., Chiseri, M.J. & Lawson, D.W. (1975). Systematic manipulation of student pacing, the perfection requirement, and contact with a teaching assistant in an introductory psychology course. Teaching of Psychology 2: 147-151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fowler, J.F. (1983). Use of computer-assisted instruction in introductory management science. Journal of Experimental Education 52: 22-26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, B.J., Treagust, D.F., Williamson, J.C. & Tobin, K.G. (1987). Validation and application of college and university classroom environment inventory (CUCEI). In B.J. Fraser, ed., The Study of Learning Environments, Volume 2. Perth, Australia: Curtin University of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gay, G. (1986). Interaction of learner control and prior understanding in computer-assisted video instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology 78: 225-227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J.J. (1986). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (Original work published 1979), Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goetzfried, L. & Hannafin, M. (1985). The effect of the locus of CAl control strategies on the learning of mathematics rules. American Educational Research Journal 22: 273-278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, S.H. (1987). The effect of sequence control on computer assisted learning. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction 14: 54-56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, S.H. (1988). Sequence control menus and CAl: A follow-up study. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction 15: 57-60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hak, T. & McGuire, P. (2000). Group process: The black box of studies of problem-based learning. Academic Medicine 75: 769-772.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannafin, M. (1984). Guidelines for using locus of instructional control in the design of computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Instructional Development 7: 6-10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higginbotham-Wheat, N. (1990). Learner control: When does it work? Proceedings of the Annual Convention of Association for Educational Communications and Technology, pp. 251-258.

  • Hmelo, C.E. & Evenson, D.H. (2000). Introduction. In D.H. Evenson & C.E. Hmelo, eds, Problem-based Learning: A Research Perspective on Learning Interactions. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, B. & Ritchie, D. (1997). Using multimedia to overcome the problems with problem based learning. Instructional Science 25: 97-115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, E.H., Robson, E.H. & Steward, A.P. (1985). Learner control in computer-assisted learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 1: 99-107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T. & Smith, K.A. (1991). ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4. Cooperative Learning: Increasing College Faculty Instructional Productivity. Washington, D.C.: Association for the Study of Higher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Judd, W.A., Bunderson, C.V. & Bessent, E.W. (1970). An investigation of the effects of LC in CAl prerequisite math. Mathematics Technical Report No. 5.

  • Kamin, C., Deterding, R. & Wade, T. (1998). Project LIVE. Presentation at the annual Slice of Life Conference. Tampa, Florida.

  • Kamin, C.S., O'Sullivan, P.S., Younger, M. & Deterding, R. (2001). Measuring critical thinking in problem-based learning discourse. Teaching and Learning in Medicine 13(1): 27-35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, J.M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C.M. Reigeluth, ed., Instructional Design Theories and Models: An Overview of Their Current Status. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinzie, M. (1988). Requirements and benefits of effective interactive instruction: Learner control, self-regulation, and continuing motivation. Educational Technology Research and Technology 38: 1-21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinzie, M., Sullivan, H. & Berdel, R. (1988). Learner control and achievement in science computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology 80: 299-303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinzie, M., Sullivan, H., Beyard, K.C., Berdel, R. & Hass, N.S. (1987, April). Learner versus program control in computer assisted instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.

  • Knowles, M.E. (1980). The Modern Practice of Adult Education, pp. 57-58. Cambridge: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lahey, G.F. (1976). Learner control of lesson strategy: A model for PLATOIV system lessons. San Diego: Navy Personal Research and Development (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 125-543).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S. & Lee Y. H. (1991). Effects of learner-control versus program-control strategies on computer-aided learning of chemistry programs: for acquisition or review? Journal of Educational Psychology 83: 491-498.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S. & Wong, S.C. (1989). Adaptive program vs. learner control strategy on computer aided learning of gravimetric stoichiometry problems. Journal of Research on Computing in Education 21: 367-379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lepper, M.R. (1985). Microcomputers in education: Motivational and social issues. American Psychologist 40: 1-18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowman, J. (1995). Mastering the Techniques of Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loup, K.S., Ellett, C.D., Culross, R. & Evans, R.L. (1994). Initial development and piloting of a learning centered, classroom-based assessment and consultation system: New perspectives on the rhetoric of improving instruction in higher education settings. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, Louisiana.

  • Mager, R.F. & Clark, C. (1963). Explorations in student-controlled instruction. Psychological Reports 13: 71-76.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCann, P.H. (1981). Learning strategies and computer-based instruction. Computers and Education 5: 133-140.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCann, P.H., Lahey, G.F. & Hurlock, R.F. (1973). A comparison of student option versus program controlled CAl training (SRR 73-17). Navy Personnel and Training Research Lab, San Diego.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M.D. (1983). Component display theory. In C.M. Reigeluth, ed., Instructional-design Theories and Models: An Overview of Their Current Status. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M.D. (1975). Learner control: Beyond aptitude-treatment interactions. AV Communications Review 23: 217-226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M.D. (1984). What is learner control? Instructional development: The state of the art, II. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 298 905).

  • Meyer, R. (1976). Differences in breadth of transfer due to advance organizers and subject control of frame sequence. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association.

  • Milheim, W.D. (1989). The effects of pacing and sequence control in an interactive video lesson. ETTI 37: 7-19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newkirk, R.L. (1973). A comparison of learner control and machine control strategies for computer-assisted instruction. Programmed Learning and Educational Technology 10: 82-91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, G.R. & Schmidt, H.G. (1992). Academic Medicine 67(9): 557-565.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, 0. & Tennyson, R.D. (1980). Adaptive design strategies for selecting number and presentation order of examples in coordinate concept acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology 72: 386-370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, J.C. & Sullivan, H.J. (1990). practice mode and learner control in computer-based instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology l5: 251-260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C.M. & Stein, F.S. (1983). The elaboration theory of instruction. In C.M. Reigeluth, ed., Instructional-design Theories and Models: An Overview of Their Current Status. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, R.A. (1984). Reducing student procrastination in a personalized system of instruction course. Educational Communications and Technology Journal 32: 41-49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, R.A. & Sullivan, H.J. (1977). Effects of self-pacing and instructor-pacing in a PSI course. Journal of Educational Research 71: 8-12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritchie, D.C., Norris, P. & Chestnutt, G. (1995). Incorporating technology into problembased learning. In D.A. Willis, B. Robin and J. Willis, eds, Technology and Teacher Education Annual. Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, S.N. (1984). Matching the lesson to the student: alternative adaptive designs for individualized learning systems. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction 11: 42-48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, S.N. & Rakow, E.A. (1981). Learner control versus program control as adaptive strategies for selection of instructional support on math rules. Journal of Educational Psychology 73: 745-753.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, S.N., Rakow, E.A. & Bush, A.J. (1980). Instructional adaptation for self-managed learning systems. Journal of Educational Psychology 73: 312-320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sasscer, N.F. & Moore, D.N. (1984). A study of the relationship between learner-control patterns and course completion in computer-assisted instruction. Programmed Learning and Educational Technology 21: 28-33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savery, J. (1994, May). What is problem-based learning? Paper presented at the meeting of the Professors of Instructional Design and Technology, Indiana State University, Bloomington, IN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savery, J.R. & Duffy, T.M. (1995). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educational Technology 35(5): 31-37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher 27(2): 4-13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shyu, H.Y. & Brown, S.W. (1993) A study of interactive learning: IVS and diagrams. Computers in the Schools 9(4): 71-80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shyu, H.Y. & Brown, S.W. (1993, December). Learner control in multimedia instruction: The effects on learning a procedural task. Presented at the 1993 International Conference on Computers in Education: Applications of Intelligent Computer Technologies. Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C. (also published in proceedings).

  • Shyu, H.Y. & Brown, S.W. (1995) Learner-Control: The effects on learning a procedural task during computer-based videodisc instruction. International Journal of Instructional Media 22(3): 217-231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinberg, E.R. (1977). Review of student control in computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction 3: 84-90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland, T.E. & Bonwell, C.C., eds (1996). Using Active Learning in College Classes: A Range of Options for Faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick B.G. & Fidell L.S. (1996). Using Multivariate Statistics, 23rd ed. New York: Harper and Row Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tennyson, R.D. & Buttrey, R. (1980). Advisement and management strategies as design variables in computer-assisted instruction. Educational Communication and Technology Journal 28: 169-176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tennyson, R.D. & Rothen, W. (1979). Management of computer-based instruction. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction 5: 126-134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tobias, S. (1976). Achievement treatment interaction. Review of Educational Research 46: 61-74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tobias, S. (1981). Adapting instruction to individual differences among students. Educational Psychologist 16: 111-120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vernon, D.T.A. & Blake, R.L. (1993). Does problem-based learning work? A meta-analysis of evaluative research. Academic Medicine 68(7): 550-563.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilcox, W.C., Richards, B.F., Merrill, N.D., Christensen, D. & Rosenvall, J. (1978). Learner control of the number of instances in a rule-using task (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 201 531).

  • Wilkerson, L. & Gijselaers, W.H., eds (1996). Bring Problem-based Learning to Higher Education: Theory and Practice. New Directions for Teaching and Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, M.F. (1994). Instructional design for anchored instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development 41(1): 43-58.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Tulane University School of Medicine, TW-30, 1430 Tulane Avenue, New Orleans, LA, 70112-2699, USA

    Bruce E. Bowdish, Sheila W. Chauvin, Norman Kreisman & Mike Britt

Authors
  1. Bruce E. Bowdish
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sheila W. Chauvin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Norman Kreisman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mike Britt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bowdish, B.E., Chauvin, S.W., Kreisman, N. et al. GTravels towards Problem Based Learning in Medical Education (VPBL). Instructional Science 31, 231–253 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024625707592

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024625707592

Search

Navigation