Interactive Learning Environments Vol. 15, No. 1, April 2007, pp. 77 – 91
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. Steelc a
Massey 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 selfdirected 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 authoring 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] ISSN 1049-4820 (print)/ISSN 1744-5191 (online)/07/010077-15 Ó 2007 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/10494820601058780
78 T. M. Stewart et al. 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 constructivist 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 wellreasoned 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
Problem-Based Learning Designs
79
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
80 T. M. Stewart et al.
Figure 1. A FRAP (version 1.0) template showing a plant diagnostic pathway
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
Problem-Based Learning Designs
81
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).
82 T. M. Stewart et al. . . .
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? (1 ¼ not useful at all, 5 ¼ 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
1 mark
Participate in investigative activities, e.g., students would attempt an investigation, not necessarily linked to the scenario
Component
Overall investigation
Initiates and persists with systematic and meaningful investigations with limited support, using appropriate science conventions and values, e.g., students carry out a systematic investigation that is crucial in solving/answering the problem. It is based on their own question. Coaching questions arise from within the group rather than from tutor/lecturer Initiates and sustains investigations with support over difficulties, using some science conventions and values, e.g., investigation begins with a student question, is carried out in a systematic way supported occassionally by the tutor/lecturer through coaching questions
Initiates aspects of investigations within a supportive framework understanding that this is a scientific activity, e.g., investigation begins with a student question, is carried out with the understanding that ‘‘evidence’’ is Required to answer the question
Contribute meaningful ideas and actively participate in an investigation, e.g., students would be involved in a simplistic investigation that did link to the scenario knowing that they must collect ‘‘data’’
(continued)
5 marks
4 marks
3 marks
2 marks
Table 1. Part of the science investigation assessment matrix
Problem-Based Learning Designs 83
1 mark
Contribute relevant observations, e.g., view investigations in a very simplistic way
Component
Exploring the situation
5 marks Carry out a series of purposeful trials, make increasingly focused and detailed observations related to perceived patterns or relationships, e.g., students demonstrate a ‘‘throroughness’’ in carrying out trials so that accurate and reliable data are obtained. The ‘‘depth’’ is evident
4 marks Carry out purposeful trials, make relevant, accurate and detailed observations, look for and suggest patterns and/or relationships, e.g., students demonstrate the skills and understanding necessary to produce relevant as well as accurate data
3 marks Carry out a sequence of trials: make accurate observations and look for patterns or relationships, e.g., students demonstrate some care in carrying out a series of trials that may produce accurate data
2 marks Undertake trials, make observations and begin to see patterns or relationships, e.g., students know that a series of trials must be done and that one must ‘‘look’’ at the data to search for a pattern or trend
Table 1. (Continued)
84 T. M. Stewart et al.
Problem-Based Learning Designs
85
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 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Yes, on the basis that the students know how to create new nodes and move it to the appropriate place Yes, as long as the children know how to make new nodes and work within the Challenge FRAP Yes! Different form in recording ideas for others to receive and comment. Helps higher order thinking be captured and recorded Definitely. It was simple. Children would have more time to spend on investigations than on setting up the computer Yes! Good, logical, sequential programme where things are clearly set out, and is easy to use Yes, it is straightforward to use and pretty much self-explanatory, though teacher demonstration would be needed at first for some students Yes, with adequate instruction Possibly
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
86 T. M. Stewart et al. 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 photomicrography 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
Problem-Based Learning Designs
87
Figure 3. Flowchart describing the logical approach to the diagnosis of a plant disease problem
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
88 T. M. Stewart et al.
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 Evidence of ability to consult with client should be demonstrated by the relevance and quality of information sought by the student. Appropriate information sources to support this case should be accessed and evidence of this presented within the assignment A methodical approach to the laboratory phase of this investigation should be demonstrated, along with the correct choice and use of laboratory techniques The conclusions drawn from the diagnostic investigation should be justified and be relevant and appropriate to the information collected by the student The management programme must be realistic and relevant both to the production system, the crop being grown and the problem(s) to be managed. 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 The student should provide evidence of feedback on the case to the client
Client consultation
Accessing information
Laboratory (skills) performance
Diagnostic reasoning
Validity of recommendations
Dedication to project
Feedback to client
Problem-Based Learning Designs
89
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 The template provided a logical structure to this project The template provided a useful way to record my observations and thoughts during the project The structure within the template served as a model of common tasks and procedures which assisted me with my investigation The template assisted me (helped me focus) when seeking information from the client The comments and guidelines initially provided within the template were useful to me The feedback/discussion feature was useful to me The multimedia capabilities allowed me to better document the problem The fact that the template structure could be altered to reflect my own investigation was a good feature The template was easy to use a
Based on one-way w2.
Strongly agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Pa
10
7
0
0
0
5.00
10
5
2
0
0
5.00
8
7
2
0
0
5.00
6
8
3
0
0
5.00
8
8
1
0
0
5.00
7
9
1
0
0
5.00
7
7
3
0
0
.01
12
5
0
0
5.00
8
9
0
0
5.00
90 T. M. Stewart et al. 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.
Problem-Based Learning Designs
91
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.
