You are here:

WebMail Versus WebApp: Comparing Problem-Based Learning Methods in a Business Research Methods Course
Article

, George Mason University, United States

Journal of Interactive Learning Research Volume 18, Number 4, ISSN 1093-023X Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC

Full Text

Abstract

This study examined the impact of two Problem-Based Learning (PBL) approaches on knowledge transfer, problem-solving self-efficacy, and perceived learning gains among four intact classes of adult learners engaged in a group project in an online undergraduate business research methods course. With two of the classes using a text-only PBL workbook distributed through Web-based e-mail (WebMail PBL) and two using a custom-developed multimedia Web-based software application (WebApp PBL), knowledge transfer was assessed by comparing learner scores on a problem-solving final exam scenario. Problem-solving self-efficacy was gauged from a survey grounded in the work of Bandura (2001) and Heppner (1988) and administered pre-and postproject, while perceived learning gains were gauged from a postproject survey based on the University of Wisconsin-Madison Student Assessment of Learning Gains (SALG) questionnaire. Results indicate that while project method does impact knowledge transfer and perceived learning gains, it has little impact on adult learners with already-strong perceptions of their problem-solving abilities.

Citation

Williams van Rooij, S. (2007). WebMail Versus WebApp: Comparing Problem-Based Learning Methods in a Business Research Methods Course. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 18(4), 555-569. Waynesville, NC: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 15, 2022 from .

© 2007 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  2. Bandura, A. (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  3. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
  4. Bandura, A. (2001). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales (Rev. Ed.). (Available from Frank Pajares, Emory University)
  5. Barrows, H. (1985). How to design a problem-based curriculum for the pre-clinical years. New York: Springer.
  6. Blackhurst, A.E., & Morris, T.E. (1996). Using anchored instruction to teach about assistive technology. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 11(3), 131-141.
  7. Bransford, J.D., Sherwood, R.D., Hasselbring, T.S., Kinzer, C.K., & Williams, S.M. (1990). Anchored instruction: Why we need it and how technology can help. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education, and multimedia (pp. 115-141). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  8. Brown, B.L. (1999). Self-efficacy beliefs and career development. ERIC Digest No. 205. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED429187).
  9. Capon, N., & Kuhn, D. (2004). What’s so good about problem-based learning? Cognition and Instructions, 22(1), 61-79.
  10. Chernobilsky, E., Nagarajan, A., & Hmelo-Silver, C.E. (2005, June 2). Problem-based learning online: Multiple perspectives on collaborative knowledge construction. Proceedings of the 2005 Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Learning 2005: the Next 10 Years! (pp. 53-62), Taipei, Taiwan.
  11. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19(5), 2-10.
  12. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt Learning Technology Center (1993). Anchored instruction and situation cognition revisited. Educational Technology, 33(3), 52-70.
  13. Connor-Greene, P.A. (2002). Problem-based service learning: The evolution of a team project. Teaching of Psychology, 29(3), 193-197.
  14. Dabbagh, N., & Jonassen, D. (2000). Assessing a problem-based learning approach to an introductory instructional design course: A case study. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 13(3), 3-27.
  15. Dunlap, J.C. (2005). Problem-based learning and self-efficacy: How a capstone course prepares JILR1804interior4 7/30/07 10:35 AM Page 569 WebMail Versus WebApp: Comparing Problem-Based Learning Methods 569
  16. Etheris, A.I., & Tan, S.C. (2004). Computer-supported collaborative problem solving and anchored instruction in a mathematics classroom: An exploratory study. International Journal of Learning Technology, 1(1), 16-39.
  17. Gallagher, S. (2004, March). Online distance education market update: A nascent market begins to mature. Boston: Eduventures, Inc.
  18. Heppner, P. (1988). The problem-solving inventory (PSI) – research manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.
  19. Heung, W. (2000). Problem-based learning for training teachers of students with behavioural disorders in Hong Kong. In J. Marsh (Ed.), Implementing problem-based learning. Proceedings of the First AsiaPacific Conference on Problem-Based Learning (pp. 269-298), Hong Kong.
  20. Hung, D. (2002). Situated cognition and problem-based learning: Implications for learning and instruction with technology. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 13(4), 393-414.
  21. Hung, D., & Der-Thanq, C. (2001). Situated cognition, Vygotskian thought and learning from the communities of practice perspective: Implications for the design of web-based e-learning. Educational Media International, 38(1), 3-12.
  22. Knapp, J.V. (2002). Situated learning: Red-eye Milton and the loom of learning: English professor expertise. Retrieved June 11, 2007, from the Northern Illinois University website: http://www3.niu.edu/acad/english/jvk/projects.htm #milton
  23. Knapper, C.K., & Cropley, A.J. (2000). Lifelong learning in higher education (3rd ed.) London: Kogan Page Limited. (Original work published 1985)
  24. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  25. March, J.G. (1994). Primer on decision making: How decisions happen. New York: The Free Press.
  26. Myers, J., & Well, A. (2003). Research design and statistical analysis (2nd ed., chapter 3). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  27. National Center for Education Statistics. (2004, June 1). The condition of education 2004 (NCES 2004077). Washington, DC: Author Noru˘sis, M.J. (2005). SPSS 13.0 guide to data analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  28. Rose, M.A. (2004). Comparing productive online dialogue in two group styles: Cooperative and collaborative. The American Journal of Distance Education, 18(2), 73-88.
  29. Savery, J.R., & Duffy, T.M. (1996). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. In B.G.Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design (pp. 135-150). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology
  30. Wilson, A. (1993). The promise of situated cognition. In S.B. Merriam (Ed.), Update on adult learning theory (pp. 71-79). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read

Related Collections