Collaborative Problem-based Learning in a Peacekeeping
Environment: The Role of the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre
in International Peacekeeping Training
Marshall Conley, Ann Livingstone, and Sarah Meharg*
Presented at the 6th International Conference on Knowledge,
Culture and Change in Organisations
Prato, Italy, July 10-14, 2006.
Abstract:
The Pearson International Peacekeeping Centre in Canada has recently adopted a
"problem-based learning" approach in the training of United Nations and other
personnel involved in peace operations. This workshop will explain this important
approach to adult education and show its relevance to retention levels and
effectiveness when personnel are called upon to deliver programmes in the field.
This approach will highlight all of the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre's training in
the future. It is being effectively implemented in the PPC courses offered in
Ghana, Argentina, and Canada, and will be offered in its remaining courses
worldwide during 2006.
Introduction:
Since the early 1970s adult learning theory has evolved substantially.
Unfortunately for many of us who were exposed to university lecturing since
then, there has not been the change expected in the classroom. The electronic
revolution has enabled the lecturer to capture a variety of information unheard of
in previous times. However, there has been only a slow progress to utilizing other
aspects of information technology and linking it to adult education theory.
The Pearson Peacekeeping Center (PPC), in its role as an international training
centre, focuses on training adults for posting/deployment to peace operations.
Training is supported by research understanding of principles that define and
support how adults learn. The PPC's programs are noteworthy as the classroom is
composed of individuals from a variety of Nation-States, whose educational
backgrounds vary considerably, and whose working cultures (military, civilian and
police) and experiences in field operations are equally dissimilar. This results in a
challenging milieu where we endeavour to find a balanced approach to training
that honours the distinct backgrounds of the participants, and yet
trains/facilitates to the common foundations of peace operations.
Adult learning principles gained attention in the academic and practitioner
community during the l960s and early 1970s with the writings/research of Carl
Rogers1 (1969) and Malcolm Knowles2 (1970). In his seminal text, Freedom to
Learn, Rogers identified two primary ways of learning: cognitive and experiential.
He noted that cognitive learning was most frequently evidenced in the academic
community ("thinking"), while experiential learning was equated with "doing". In
Rogers' analysis, experiential learning was characterized by "… personal
involvement, self-initiated, evaluated by the learner and having pervasive effects
on the learner" (O'Brien). According to Rogers, all human beings have a natural
propensity for learning; it is incumbent on the facilitator/teacher to create the
environment where that can occur. The Rogerian facilitator/teacher was
responsible for:
• Setting up a positive climate for learning;
• Clarifying the purposes of the learner;
• Organising and making available the learning resources;
• Balancing intellectual and emotional components of learning;
• Sharing feelings, and/or thoughts with learners, but not dominating the
learning environment.
This approach to learning was revolutionary, especially among the professorial
community whose didactic style generally controlled a classroom from a
hierarchical position and did little to empower the learner. Rogers' position that a
student participated directly in the learning process, and even exercised control
over the nature and direction of his/her learning was intimidating to many within
the academic community. When his research indicated that better learning took
place when the student/learner directly engaged the practical, social, personal or
research problem as the primary means of finding the answer, rather than relying
on indirect research analysis the educational system was thrown into an
upheaval.
According to Knowles, adult problem-based learning is predicated upon a number
of principles.
1. As they mature, adults tend to prefer self-direction. The role of the instructor
is to engage in a process of inquiry, analysis, and decision-making with adult
learners, rather than to transmit knowledge.
2. Adults’ experiences are a rich resource for learning. Active participation in
planned experiences— such as discussions or problem-solving exercises, an
analysis of those experiences, and their application to work or life situations—
should be the core methodology for training adults. Adults learn and retain
information more easily if they can relate it to their reservoir of past experiences.
3. Adults are aware of specific learning needs generated by real-life events such
as marriage, divorce, parenting, taking a new job, losing a job, and so on. Adult
learners’ needs and interests are the starting points and serve as guideposts for
training activities.
4. Adults are competency-based learners, meaning that they want to learn a skill
or acquire knowledge that they can apply pragmatically to their immediate
circumstances. Life or work-related situations present a more appropriate
framework for adult learning than academic or theoretical approaches.3
Problem-based learning (PBL) as a teaching strategy and curricular design began
over thirty years ago at McMaster University Medical School in Hamilton, Canada.
Using problems based on actual clinical cases as focal points in a medical
program evolved after years of medical faculty and student frustration with the
traditional lectures and challenging clinical experiences. Imparting and absorbing
the immense amount of content inherent in a medical education was becoming
more unrealistic and improbable. The medical curriculum shifted from a facultycentered approach to a student-centered, interdisciplinary process.4
Adaptation of the McMaster PBL approach has occurred at many institutions in
the ensuing years. Using the opportunities provided through every student
having a notebook computer and by complete computerization of the campus,
Acadia University in Nova Scotia, Canada introduced the Acadia Advantage in
1996.5 The Acadia Advantage is an academic initiative unique in Canada that
2
integrates the use of notebook computers into the undergraduate curriculum. It
is an exciting undertaking that enhances the University's teaching and learning
environment. It allowed for the integration of Information Communication
Technologies with problem-based learning formats. This was most appropriately
seen in the development of The Digital Agora.6 The Pearson Peacekeeping Centre
work in PBL builds on such experiences, and on the Harvard Medical School use
of PBL, and that of the work done at Case Western Reserve University7. At Case
Western University, faculty at the School of Medicine employed an
interdisciplinary lab and a variety of teaching strategies to educate students.
Harvard expanded upon these experiences by integrating PBL problems with
didactic, discussion and experiential sessions.8
The continued use of PBL arises from the recognition that students retain minimal
information obtained from traditional didactic teaching 9 and have difficulty
transferring knowledge to new experiences 10 . According to Schmidt, PBL
provides an environment in which students can draw upon prior knowledge, learn
within the real-world context, and reinforce the knowledge through independent
and small group work.11
We start our discussion with a basic explanation and comparison between
traditional and problem-based learning environments. Table One12 suggests such
a comparison.
TABLE ONE: COMPARISON OF TRADITIONAL AND PROBLEM-BASED
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
Traditional Classroom
Instructor assumes role of expert
or formal authority.
Faculty members tend to work
independently.
Faculty members transmit
information to learners.
Faculty members organize course
content into lectures based on
discipline content.
Students are viewed as passive
recipients of information.
Students work mostly
independently and often in
isolation.
PBL Environment
Faculty member is a facilitator, guide, colearner, mentor, coach.
Faculty members work in teams together and
with others from outside the discipline.
Faculty structure is supportive and flexible.
Faculty members are involved in changing the
instructional culture though the development of
assessment tools that is congruent with PBL
principles, including peer review.
Students take responsibility for learning,
creating partnerships with teachers.
Faculty members develop learning scenarios
designed to empower students to seek
information and to integrate what they find.
Student motivation is enhanced through
providing scenarios from real life, and thereby
activating prior knowledge.
Faculty members support students,
encouraging initiative, guiding learning to
enable students to transfer knowledge.
Students interact with faculty and peers, thus
facilitating the provision of immediate feedback
and leading to remediation and improvement.
3
Students absorb, transcribe,
memorize, and repeat information
to accomplish content-specific
tasks such as tests, exams, and
quizzes.
Learning is individualistic and
competitive.
Students look for the “right
answer” in order to succeed in an
exam-driven context.
Performance is measured on
content-specific tasks.
Grading is summative and the
instructor is the only evaluator.
Lectures are based on one-way
communication with information
being conveyed to a student
group.
Faculty members design course materials
based on case scenarios, thus creating flexible
learning environments for students.
Students experience learning in a collaborative
and supportive environment.
Faculty members discourage one “right
answer”, assisting students to frame questions,
formulate learning issues, and explore
alternatives.
Students identify, analyze, and resolve learning
issues using knowledge from previous
experiences and learning, not relying solely on
recall.
Students evaluate their own contributions as
well as those of other group members.
Students work in groups of varying sizes to
approach the required learning task.
Students acquire and apply knowledge in a
variety of contexts.
Students discover resources with faculty
guiding them to the best information.
Students seek useful and relevant knowledge
to be able to apply into the future.
Norman and Schmidt have stated that there are three roles for PBL. The first is
the acquisition of factual knowledge, the second is the mastery of general
principles or concepts that can be transferred to solve similar problems, and
third, the acquisition of prior examples that can be used in future problem solving
situations of a similar nature.13
The decision to use PBL primarily as a delivery tool goes to the heart of why most
educators look for innovative alternatives to the teacher-centred didactic
approach of conventional educational environments. They perceive the
shortcomings of conventional educational approaches in delivery methods that
emphasize teaching rather than learning, passive learning roles and on having
rather than using or creating knowledge.14
The Pearson International Peacekeeping Centre and Training
The Pearson Peacekeeping Centre was established at the request of the
Government of Canada in 1994. The Centre was named in honour of Lester B.
Pearson, former Prime Minister of Canada, who, as Minister of External Affairs,
was the recipient of the 1957 Nobel Peace Prize. He received this in recognition of
the role he played in the establishment of the United Nations Emergency Force 15,
the first modern peacekeeping operation.
The increasing demands of conflict prevention and resolution, and the growing
scope of Canada’s involvement in all aspects of peace operations required the
creation of a focal point for education, training, and research activities. The
teaching environment needed to be multidisciplinary and international, providing
4
a location where persons from different professional, cultural, and national
backgrounds could learn together. This diversity reflected actual field conditions.
The Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies (CISS) was invited by the Canadian
government to establish an independent centre using facilities of the recently
closed Canadian Forces Base Cornwallis, Nova Scotia. Under the first President,
Colonel Alex Morrison, the Centre was officially opened on 24 April 1995.
In 1999, the Centre opened an office in Montréal to better serve the national and
international Francophone community. In 2001, the PPC severed its ties with the
CISS and was designated as an independent, not-for-profit organization in its
own right. Having long recognized a need for a presence in the National Capital
Region, the PPC opened its Ottawa Liaison Office in rented premises on the
campus of Carleton University in November 2003.
At the present time, the PPC operates from three locations, with Executive offices
in Ottawa, and administrative, and finance offices at Cornwallis. Cornwallis is also
the venue for residential courses conducted in Canada and for simulation
exercises conducted for various major military headquarters. The majority of the
Centre’s formal course offerings are now conducted abroad in Africa, Latin
America, and Eastern Europe.
The Pearson Peacekeeping Centre’s (PPC) programs cover essential peaceoperations issues, from Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration training,
United Nations Integrated Mission Staff Officers course, human rights and
cooperation and coordination, to negotiation and peacebuilding initiatives.
Participants acquire the knowledge and skills they need to be effective in complex
peace-operations environments.
As the field of contemporary peace operations is constantly changing, course
materials are updated on a regular basis to ensure relevancy to the needs of
participants and organizations in the field. Special emphasis is placed on best
practices. As well, the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre regularly adds new courses
or modules that deal with emerging issues.
The PPC learning environment is international, multidisciplinary and multicultural.
Over 7000 people from over 140 countries have participated in our courses to
date. Participants come from civilian, military, and police backgrounds, and
reflect the reality of working in the peace-operations field.
The PPC believes that training with persons from diverse professional, academic,
and national backgrounds offers participants the widest perspective on issues,
and helps them prepare for assignment.
The PPC’s principal residential courses are conducted at our Cornwallis Campus in
Nova Scotia. This retreat-like setting allows participants to focus on learning and
provides daily opportunities to gather socially to continue the discussions, ideas,
and concepts presented in the classroom. The benefit of this environment is the
support and encouragement for continuous learning. In addition, in capacity
building the PPC offers courses in Africa, Latin America, Japan, and elsewhere. 16
5
Realizing that we could not deal with “just-in-time-learning” with potential
peacekeepers who had no full understanding when they would be posted to a
mission we realized that we had to develop an alternative approach to our
training which would ensure a higher retention of content taught. We quickly
came to the conclusion that we needed to train for skills that would be
transferable to complex and varied situations. The traditional lecture approach,
augmented by what we have come to call “death by PowerPoint” did not address
the needs of adult learners, especially those who would be involved in peace
operations.
The then President of the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre, Sandra Densmore, made
the decision in 2005 that Problem Based Learning (PBL) methodology tied with
Adult Learning principles is a better way for educating and training our
participants. We subsequently delivered a PBL pilot course in Burkina Faso with
the Civilian Police Foundation course and the response was enthusiastic.
We then began to design, and in many cases, re-design, our courses using a PBL
format based on the following essentials:17
1.
Students must take responsibility for their own learning.
As the students in a PBL curriculum work with a problem, they should be
able to identify what they need to learn and what resources they are going
to use to accomplish that learning. In this way, students can design their
learning to meet individual needs and career aspirations.
This means that problem-based learning is not teacher-centered; the
teacher does not direct what students should learn or what resources they
should use.
Instead the teacher designs and provides the problem
simulations and problem experiences that challenge the students to learn
what is expected in the curriculum. Using facilitation skills, the teacher
guides them in their work with the problem.
2.
The problem simulations used in problem-based learning must be
loosely-structured and allow for free inquiry.
As with problems in the real world, problem-based learning problems must
be presented as ill-structured problems, with just the initial situation
allowing learners to generate multiple hypotheses about their cause and
possible solution.
These loosely-structured problems must be designed to allow students to
freely inquire through observation, interview, review of records or
documents, interaction with others, in order to obtain the information
needed to support or verify their hypotheses.
3.
Learning should be integrated from a wide range of disciplines or
subjects.
Problem-based learning should not occur within a single discipline or
subject. Information should be integrated from all the disciplines that are
relevant to the problems presented. Students should be able to access,
study and integrate information from all the disciplines that might be
6
related to understanding and resolving the problem – just as people in the
real work must recall and apply information integrated from diverse
sources in their work.
4.
Collaboration is essential.
Collaborative work can be the most rewarding and productive part of the
process as the students work together, helping each other to gain an
understanding of what they are learning and its application to the
problem. Each student is able to contribute their own knowledge and
experience to the resolution of the problem. This allows the students to
learn from each other, and from the facilitators, as peers.
5.
What students learn must be applied back to the problem with reanalysis and resolution.
Students must apply the concepts they have learned through interactive
discussions and practical problem-solving. This must be done in a way
that will provide a deeper understanding of the material and insure the
recall of that information when they are faced with similar problems in the
future.
6.
A closing analysis of what has been learned from working with the
problem and a discussion of what concepts and principles have
been learned is essential.
Before completing their work with a problem, the students should reflect
on what has been learned and determine if there are any things missing in
their overall understanding of the problem. In addition, they must reflect
on how their new learning relates to prior problems and prepares them for
future problems. In doing this, they can determine and discuss what
important overall concepts or principles have been learned.
This
important step helps convert procedural knowledge gained through
problem solving into declarative knowledge for use and recall with other
problems in the future.
7.
Self and peer assessment should be carried out at the completion
of each problem and at the end of every curricular unit.
The students must become proficient in assessing their individual learning
progress towards their established goals, as well as the progress of their
peers. Adults need to have a clear understanding of where they started
and where they are going so they can see what they have learned and
reflect on changes they may have experienced.
8.
The activities carried out in problem-based learning must be those
valued in the real world.
In problem-based learning, students must go through the same process,
steps and considerations that they would encounter in real situations. The
problems used must be relevant and important. This ensures that the
activities undertaken and the skills and knowledge acquired during the
training are applicable.
7
9.
Problem-based learning must be the pedagogical base in the
curriculum and not part of a didactic curriculum.
Problem-based learning should not be episodic, added on, or mixed in with
more traditional, didactic, teacher-directed, passive, memorization-based
and lecture-based educational methods. Problem-based learning requires
that students are active learners, responsible for their own learning and
have adequate time for self-directed learning.
The contrasting and
conflicting curricular and time demands of didactic teacher-directed
learning diminishes the value of problem-based learning. It prevents the
full realization of the value of problem-based learning and the excitement
and enjoyment the method can provide students.
In the preceding eighteen months we have offered 75 courses, of which 35 have
been offered in a collaborative problem-based learning format. The response has
been overwhelmingly positive and we plan that all of our future courses will be
offered using this approach. Our intention is to develop a group of facilitators who
are trained by the PPC to use this training approach in the courses we deliver in
Canada and elsewhere in the world.
In order to meet the need for new facilitators we have conducted a number of
problem-based learning workshops. These three-day courses are by invitation
only and are an attempt to identify possible future PBL facilitators. Each
workshop has between 15 and 25 participants. Out of this group we regularly
identify about 25% who we estimate to be excellent future facilitators in our
courses. We draw our facilitators from different cultures, professions,
backgrounds, ages, and all have deep theoretical or applied experience in
different global contexts and regions.
Two Sample Topics using PBL Methods:
THEME 1
ACTIVITY 2:
Time:
INTRODUCTION TO THE CONTEXT OF CONFLICT
60 minutes
Learning
Objectives:



Understand the sorts of actions that may negatively and
positively impact a conflict situation;
Understand that successful peace operations require
knowledge of background and history of a situation; the
relevant groups involved; the different perspectives of
these groups; the factors and trends that underlie
conflicts;
Identify areas where more information is required for
the success of a peace operation.
Materials:

Power Point presentation
8



Aide Memoire (in Red Handbook)
Flipchart paper
Marking pens

Facilitators are to lead a plenary discussion using the
following series of questions.
Participants should call out their answers.
Record these on a flip chart.
STEPS:
Plenary Discussion
15 minutes




Ask participants: What is conflict?
Ask participants: How can conflicts turn violent over
time? / What are the triggers toward violent conflict?
Presentation and Plenary Discussion
25 minutes
Begin PowerPoint presentation “Conflict_1” (Threats to
Peace and Security). Follow the speaker’s notes and ask
students to respond to the following questions as you move
through the presentation.
What triggers conflict? Armed conflict? Violent armed
conflict? Why?
Anticipated answers: Participants will bring different
backgrounds with unique personal experiences into this
conversation. The following triggers to conflict may be
raised by participants:
Before a conflict (causes): diseases, weakened states,
urbanization, marginalized groups, extremist groups, lack of
resources, agricultural problems, ethnic violence, and social
problems.
During a conflict: refugees, diseases, women, children and
elderly, weakened states, urbanization, societal problems,
agricultural problems, small arms, child soldiers, lack of
resources, ethnic violence, extremist groups.
After a conflict (effects): refugees, diseases, women,
children and elderly, weakened states, urbanization, societal
problems, agricultural problems, small arms, child soldiers,
lack of resources, ethnic violence, extremist groups.
Presentation and Discussion
20 minutes
Begin PowerPoint presentation “Conflict_2” (The Conflict
Cycle).
9
Facilitators are to ask participants where the ‘triggers of
conflict’ should be inserted into the conflict spectrum. The
following questions can be used to supplement the
discussion:








THEME 1:
Are there different triggers for each part of the
spectrum?
Are there some issues that may be placed in
different spots on the spectrum at the same time?
Why?
Are there some limited to a particular spot? Why?
What determines the creation and the evolution of
triggers and their effects during the course of armed
conflict?
What roles do the military play for each of these
issues?
Are there issues not concerning the military
mandate?
Are there some concerning only the military?
Which critical issues demand the intervention of
numerous international players?
ACTIVITY 5
THE PREVENTION
OF
SEXUAL
EXPLOITATION
&
ABUSE
Time:
120 minutes
Learning
Objectives:







To describe what constitutes sexual exploitation and
abuse;
To outline the UN policies on standards of conduct
concerning sexual exploitation and abuse;
To describe what is prohibited behaviour;
To explain the impact of misconduct on peacekeeping
operations and the host population;
To list the consequences for individuals and the mission
if mission personnel are directly or indirectly involved in
this form of misconduct;
To list the main responsibilities of personnel and
managers / staff officers to prevent and respond to
sexual exploitation and abuse;
To identify reporting mechanisms.
Materials:


PowerPoint presentation “The Prevention of Sexual
Exploitation and Abuse”
Flip chart and markers
10







Case studies
We are United Nations Peacekeepers
Ten rules – Code of personal conduct for blue helmets
Secretary General’s Bulletin on Observance by United
Nations forces of international humanitarian law
Secretary General’s Bulletin on Special measures for
protection from sexual exploitation and sexual abuse
Model Complaints Referral Form
Focal Point on SEA
STEPS:
Presentation/Discussion
50 minutes
1. PowerPoint presentation/discussion on SEA
Group Work//Debrief
40 Minutes
2. Distribute case studies to all participants.
3. Divide participants into groups of approximately 5
people (or table groups if applicable).
4. Ask participants to look at 1 or 2 of the case studies (if
time permits). As a group, they should identify which
behaviours in the case study are inappropriate, why they
are inappropriate, which documents express that the
behaviour is prohibited, and what the potential
consequences of the actions would be (both on the staff
member and on the victim/community). Give the
participants approximately 10-15 minutes.
5. Ask each group to present their findings back in the
plenary session.
6. Debrief each case with an emphasis on the standards of
behaviour within the UN and the zero-tolerance policy.
11
Note to Facilitators on possible outcomes:





Some of these topics may be very sensitive to participants. The issues need
to be addressed with a respect for cultural, religious and national differences,
but with a clear explanation of the UN position.
It is important to stress that employees of the United Nations are in a position
of power in the environments in which they are working. They have a
responsibility to the beneficiaries of their assistance and have an obligation to
protect them.
Although there can be discussion around the issue of sexual exploitation and
abuse, there is absolutely no room for ambiguity when it comes to acts that
are prohibited. Sex with children (anyone under the age of 18 – regardless
of the age of majority in both the staff member’s home country and the
country of deployment) is categorically forbidden.
There is likely to be some discussion around the prohibition on the exchange
of money, employment, goods, assistance or services for sex. This includes
sex with prostitutes. The U.N. has made an unequivocal statement on this
issue.
There is no such thing as “outside of working hours” when it comes to sexual
exploitation and abuse. Peacekeeping personnel are employed by the United
Nations and are responsible for upholding the codes of conduct at all times.
As can be seen in the two examples above, the actual work consists of group
meetings and self-directed learning. Participants (we do not call them students)
are divided into small groups (5 – 8 persons) that are given a case or a problem
related to the course topic. The case/problem triggers discussion about the
subject and therefore triggers the learning process. Based on discussion,
participants brainstorm for a while to make it clear what they already know about
the subject and what they still need to learn to better understand the
case/problem. Brainstorming allows the participants to identify what they already
know about the subject and where are the gaps in their knowledge. After
brainstorming, the participants set learning goals for themselves. These steps are
done in an opening session, which is followed by self-directed learning. During
the self-directed learning each participant studies to meet the agreed learning
goals. They can use whatever learning method they wish. We provide a “PBL
Toolbox” of various techniques which can be used. Thereafter the group meets
again for the closing session where the students discuss about what they have
learned. They try to make a synthesis of all knowledge they have and thus try to
better understand the case/problem. After the group has closed the case/problem
they get a new case.
A facilitator is present at group meetings to help participants with the learning
process. However, his/her role is rather as a facilitator and a domain expert than
a teacher. The facilitator is not expected to lecture or teach but facilitate group
meeting, for example, by asking questions/comments that gives participants
more fruitful direction to talk about.
Conclusion
One must be frank in admitting that the transition from the traditional lecture
method of training to the facilitation style of collaborative problem-based learning
12
is not always easy. Some excellent lecturers may not be able to make the change
because of their experience of being the “sage on the stage” and not the “guide
on the side”. Standing behind a lectern, with a comfortable set of detailed notes
and PowerPoint slides is totally different from being a participant in mutual
learning through group and self-discovery. Whenever possible, we still use such
“experts’ but only as invited lecturers/speakers.
The benefits of problem-based learning for participants far outweigh the
challenges that confront those who must make the transition from teacher to
facilitator. Consistently we have found that the participants are much more
engaged and also retain a deeper understanding of the topic covered. We totally
support the idea that adult learners must claim ownership of what they are
studying. The onus on those of us who are facilitators is to be adaptable and
willing to change content and style according to the needs of our clientele. The
rewards in peacekeeping operations training can be the difference between
survival and death for our participants. Our duty to all of them is to ensure that
they take away a set of skills that will allow them to problem-solve in the field –
no matter what the situation.
13
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Selected on-line resources:
What is PBL? http://edweb.sdsu.edu/clrit/learningresource/PBL/WhatisPBL.html
Advantages to PBL.
http://edweb.sdsu.edu/clrit/learningtree/PBL/PBLadvantages.html
Aldred, S. et al: The direct and indirect costs of implementing problem-based
learning into traditional professional courses within universities
Assessing the Value of a PBL Curriculum.
http://edweb.sdsu.edu/clrit/learningtree/PBL/webassess/curriculum.html
Assessment of PBL - students and classes.
http://edweb.sdsu.edu/clrit/learningresouce/PBL/webassess/WebAssessmentHom
e.html
Assessing PBL: A WebQuest (problem):
http://edweb.sdsu.edu/clrit/PBL_WebQuest.html
Barriers to PBL. http://edweb.sdsu.edu/clrit/learningtree/PBL/PBLBarriers.html
Björck, U.: On-line Problem-Based Learning in Social Economy.
Camp, G.(1996): Problem-Based Learning: A Paradigm Shift or a Passing Fad?
Cleary, T.: Problem Based Learning in a large teaching format
Creating an Appropriate Problem.
http://edweb.sdsu.edu/clrit/learningtree/PBL/Choosing_PBL_problem.html
Disadvantages of PBL. http://edweb.sdsu.edu/clrit/learningtree/PBL/DisPBL.html
Example & Facilitation of PBL.
http://edweb.sdsu.edu/clrit/learningtree/PBL/PBLFacilitatingExample.html
Harper-Marinick, M.: Engaging Students in Problem-Based Learning
How to Overcome Barriers and Implement PBL.
http://edweb.sdsu.edu/clrit/learningtree/PBL/PBLimplementing.html
How to Structure PBL.
http://edweb.sdsu.edu/clrit/learningtree/PBL/PBLStructure.html
Jolly, L.: How can problem based learning be thought of as flexible delivery?
Kirkpatrick, D. & McLaughlan, R.: Flexible Lifelong Learning in Professional
Education
On-line Course Issues.
http://edweb.sdsu.edu/clrit/learningtree/DCD/OnlineCourseIssues/OnlineCourseI
ssues.html
Post Conference Proceedings, 2nd Asia-Pacific Conference on Problem Based Learning
(Singapore)
Shanley, D.B. & Kelly, M.: WHY PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING?
14
Selected publications on PBL and Adult Learning
Acker, S. R., Slaa, P., & Bouwman, H. (1993, May). International academic joint
ventures: Using telecommunications and travel in a distributed work
environment. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Communication
Association. Washington, DC.
Albanese, M., & Mitchell, S. (1993). Problem-based learning: A review of the
literature on its outcomes and implementation issues. Academic Medicine. 68(1),
52-81.
Agocs, L., & Modis, L. (1994). New media in medical education. Educational
Media International, 31(3), 147-151.
Aspy, D.N., Aspy, C. B., & Quimby, P.M. (1993). What doctors can teach teachers
about problem-based learning. Educational Leadership, 50(7), 22-24.
Aspy, D. N., & Aspy, C. B. (1993). Problem based learning: A medically based
ally of invitational education. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice, 2(2),
69-77.
Barrell, J. (1995). Teaching for thoughtfulness: Classroom strategies to enhance
intellectual development (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman Publishers.
Bernstein, P., Tipping, J., Bercovitz, K., & Skinner, H.A. (1995). Shifting students
and faculty to a PBL curriculum: Attitudes changed and lessons learned.
Academic Medicine, 70(3), 245-247.
Blumberg, P., Solomon, P., & Shehata, A. (1994, April). Age as a contextual cue
in problem-based learning. Paper presented at the meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Bridges, E. M., & Hallinger, P. (1991, September). Problem-based learning in
medical and managerial education. Paper presented for the Cognition and School
Leadership Conference of the National Center for Educational Leadership and the
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Nashville, TN.
Bridges, E. M. (1992). Problem based learning for administrators. Eugene, OR:
ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management.
Buckland, M., & Dye, C.M. (1991, October). The development of electronic
distance education delivery systems in the United States. Recurring and
emerging themes in history and philosophy of education. Paper presented at
conference of the Midwestern Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Campbell, J. O., & Lison, C. A. (1994). New strategies for learning and
performance assessment of interpersonal problem-solving skills. In M. Orey
(Ed.), Proceedings of the Thirty-fifth ADCIS Conference (pp 7-10). Nashville, TN:
Omni Press.
15
Cohen, N. R. (1994). Problem-based learning and the distance-learner.
Biochemical Education. 22(3), 126-129.
Delafuente, J. C., Munyer, T. O., Angaran, D. M., & Doering, P. L. (1994). A
problem solving active learning course in pharmacotherapy. American Journal of
Pharmaceutical Education. 58(1), 61-64.
Dolmans, D. H., Gijselaers, W. H., & Schmidt, H. G. (1992, April). Assessing test
validity through the use of teacher's judgments. Paper presented at the meeting
of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Dolmans, D. H., Gijselaers, W. H., & Schmidt, H. G. (1992, April). Do students
learn what their teachers intend they learn? Guiding processes in problem-based
learning. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, San Francisco, CA.
Dolmans, D. H., Gijselaers, W. H., Schmidt, H. D., & Van Der Meer, S. B. (1993).
Problem effectiveness in a course using problem-based learning. Academic
Medicine. 68(3), 207-213.
Dolmans, D. H., Schmidt, H. G., & Gijselaers, W. H. (1994). The relationship
between student-generated learning issues and self-study in problem-based
learning. Instructional Science, 22(4), 251-267.
Dolmans, D. H. Wolfhagen, I.,& Schmidt, H. (1993, April). Validation of a rating
scale for tutor evaluation in a problem-based medical curriculum. Paper
presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Atlanta, GA.
Dolmans, D. H., Wolfhagen, I. H., & Snellen-Ballendong, H. A. (1994). Improving
the effectiveness of tutors in problem-based learning. Medical Teacher, 16(4),
368-377.
Eagle, C. J., Harasym, P. H., & Mandin, H. (1992). Effects of tutors with case
expertise on problem-based learning issues. Academic Medicine. 67(7), 465-469.
Edmondson, K. M. (1994). Concept maps and the development of cases for
problem based learning. Academic Medicine. 69(2), 108-110.
Engel, C. (Ed.). (1992). Annals of Community-Oriented Education Volume 5.
Network Community-Oriented Educational Institutions for Health Sciences. (pp.
193-198). Maastricht, The Netherlands: University of Limburg.
Farnsworth, C. C. (1994). Using computer simulations in problem-based learning.
In M. Orey (Ed.), Proceedings of the Thirty-fifth ADCIS Conference (pp. 137140). Nashville, TN: Omni Press.
Foley, R. P., Levy, J., Russinof, H. J., & Lemon, M. R. (1993 ). Planning and
implementing a problem-based learning rotation for residents. Teaching and
Learning in Medicine, 5(2), 102-106.
16
Fisher, R. C. (1994). The potential for problem-based learning in pharmacy
education: A clinical therapeutics course in diabetes. American Journal of
Pharmaceutical Education. 58(2), 183-189.
Friedman, C. P., de Blick, R., Sheps, C. G., Greer, D. S., Mennin, S. P., Norman,
G. R., Woodward, C. A., & Swanson, D. B. (1992). Charting the winds of change:
Evaluating innovative medical curricula. Annals of Community-Oriented
Education, 5, 167-179.
Gallagher, S. A., Stepien, W. J., & Rosenthal, H. (1992). The effects of problembased learning on problem solving. Gifted Child Quarterly. 36(4), 195-200.
Hendricson, W. D., Payer, A. F., Rogers, L. P., & Markus, J. F. (1993). The
medical school curriculum committee revisited. Academic Medicine. 68(3), 183189.
Hidetoshi, K. (1990). The 2nd international symposium on university distance
education "Technological innovation and life-long education". Proceedings of the
International Symposium on University Distance Education, Chiba, Japan, 1-145.
Hmelo, C. E., Gotterer, G. S., & Bransford, J. D. (1994, April). The cognitive
effects of problem-based learning: A preliminary study. Paper presented at the
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Holznagle, D. C. (1990). A depiction of distance education in the northwest
region. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Lab.
Lever, J. C. (1993), Distance Education Resource Guide. Computer-Based
Distance Education in Community Colleges: A Joint Project. Mission Viejo, CA:
League for Innovation in the Community College.
Lewis, M. E., Buckley, A., Kong, M., & Mellsop, G. W. (1992). Innovation and
change. Annals of Community-Oriented Education, 5, 193-198.
Mandin, H., Harasym, P., & Watanabe, M. (1995). Developing a "clinical
presentation" curriculum at the University of Calgary. Academic Medicine, 70(3),
186-193.
Mayo, P., Donnelly, M. B., Nash, P. P., & Schwartz, R. W. (1993). Student
Perceptions of Tutor Effectiveness in problem based surgery clerkship. Teaching
and Learning in Medicine. 5(4), 227-233.
Mennin, S. P., Friedman, M, Skipper, B, Kalishman, S., & Snyder, J. (1993).
Performances on the NBME I, II, and III by medical students in the problembased learning and conventional tracks at the University of New Mexico.
Academic Medicine, 68(8), 616-624.
Mennin S. P., Friedman, M., & Woodward C. A. (1992). Evaluating innovative
medical education programmes: Common questions and problems. Annals of
Community-Oriented Education, 5, 123-133.
17
Osterman, K. F. (1993, October). Communication skills: A key to caring,
collaboration, and change. Paper presented at the meeting of the University
Council for Educational Administration, Houston, TX.
Ostwald M.J., Chen, S.E, Varnam, B., & McGeorge W.D. (1992, November). The
application of problem based learning to distance education. Paper presented at
the world conference of the International Council for Distance Education,
Bangkok, Thailand.
Painter S. D. (1994). Microanatomy courses in U.S. and Canadian Medical
Schools 1991-1992. Academic Medicine. 69(2), 143-147.
Paulsen, M. F. (Ed.). (1992). From bulletin boards to electronic universities:
Distance education, computer-mediated communication, and online education
(American Center for the Study of Distance Education Monograph No. 7).
University Park, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University, College of
Education.
Pavelich, M. J., Olds, B. M., and Miller, R. L. (1995) Real-world problem solving in
freshman-sophomore engineering. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 61,
45-54.
Pease, P. S. (1991). TI-IN united star network final project report (October 1,
1988-September 30, 1990) for star schools program United States Department of
Education. San Antonio, TX: TI-IN Network, Inc.
Petrushin, V., & Dovgiallo, A. (Eds.), (1993). Computer technologies in education.
Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Technologies in
Education, Kiev, Ukraine, 1-217.
Pincus, K. V. (1995). Introductory accounting: Changing the first course. New
Directions for Teaching and Learning, 61, 88-98.
Rangachari, P. K. (1991). Design of a problem-based undergraduate course in
pharmacology: Implications for the teaching of physiology. Advances in
Physiology Education. 5(1), S14-S21.
Reithlingshoefer, S. J. (Ed.), (1992). The future of nontraditional/interdisciplinary
programs: Margin or mainstream? Selected Papers from the Tenth Annual
Conference on Nontraditional and Interdisciplinary Programs, Virginia Beach, VA,
1-763.
Schmidt, H. G., Van Der Arand, A., Moust, J. H., Kokx, I., & Boon, L. (1993).
Influence of tutors' subject matter expertise on student effort and achievement in
problem-based learning. Academic Medicine, 68(10), 784-791.
Schmidt, H. G., Henny, P.A., & de Vries, M. (1992). Comparing problem-based
with conventional education: A review of the University of Limburg medical school
experiment. Annals of Community-Oriented Education, 5, 193-198.
18
Schwartz, R. W., Donnelly, M. B., Sloan, D. A., & Young, B. (1994). Knowledge
gain in a problem-based surgery clerkship. Academic Medicine, 69, 148-151.
Simpson, R. J. (1993). Telecommunications networking for distance education. In
S. Selby & E. Marzotto (Eds.), Bridging Learning Opportunities: AMTEC `93
Conference Proceedings (pp. 1-171). Windsor, Ontario: Association for Media and
Technology in Education in Canada.
Sweeters, W., (1994). Developing computer-based learning courseware in a large
institution. In M. Orey (Ed.), Proceedings of the Thirty-fifth ADCIS Conference
(pp. 201-206). Nashville, TN: Omni Press.
Vernon, D. T. (1995). Attitudes and opinions of faculty tutors about problembased learning. Academic Medicine, 70(3) 216-223.
Vernon, D. T., & Blake, R. L. (1993). Does problem-based learning work? A
meta-analysis of evaluative research. Academic Medicine, 68(7) 550-563.
Wilkerson, L. (1992, April). Identification of skills for the problem-based tutor:
Student and faculty perspectives. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Wilkinson, T.W., & Sherman, T.M. (1991). Telecommunications-based distance
education: Who's doing what? Educational Technology, 31(11), 54-59.
Williams, R., Saarinen-Rahikka, H., & Norman, G. R. (1995). Self-Directed
learning in problem-based health science education. Academic Medicine, 70(2),
161-163.
Winslade, N. (1994). Large group problem-based learning: A revision from
traditional to pharmaceutical care-based therapeutics. American Journal of
Pharmaceutical Education. 58(1), 64-73.
19
ENDNOTES
*
Dr. Marshall Conley is the author of more than 135 publications and professional
papers. Prior to taking early retirement in June 2000, he was Professor of Political
Science at Acadia University (http://ace.acadiau.ca/polisci/conley/conley.htm)
where he taught courses on the United Nations, Human Rights, Peace Studies,
International Organization, Information Technology and Canadian Foreign Policy.
He
is
President
of
Conley-International
Education
Consultants.
(http://www.conley-international.org) Conley-International is a natural outgrowth
of the professional and volunteer work that Dr. Conley has undertaken in the last
30 years. During this period he has served on over 20 Canadian delegations to
the United Nations, held a variety of Executive positions on national and
international bodies, and been an advisor and consultant to Governments and
numerous international organisations. He has done training in a variety of venues
from Africa (Ghana, Namibia, Libya, The Gambia), Europe (Paris, Croatia, Serbia,
Bosnia-Herzegovina, Slovenia) and North America (Washington, Hawaii, Illinois,
Baltimore, Ottawa, Nova Scotia) on subjects ranging from rebuilding war-torn
societies, citizenship development, human rights reporting and teaching, to
ethical and rights issues on the human genome. He has been associated with the
Pearson International Peacekeeping Centre as a trainer and facilitator since its
creation in 1994.
Dr. Ann Livingstone joined the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre in March 2003. Ann,
an academic with 27 years of teaching experience at both the graduate and
undergraduate level, is Director of Research at the PPC. In addition, she is the
point of contact for visiting scholars and researchers.
Prior to joining the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre, Ann taught at Union University
in Tennessee, where she was instrumental in the design and development of the
Scholar-in-Residence program. In addition, she chaired the Interdisciplinary
Studies program. She was also involved in the development of several new
courses of study, including Politics of the Developing States, International
Organizations and Law, and the Politics, Philosophy, and Economics major. In
July 2002, she was invited to participate in a Syrian-American Professors’
Exchange program and taught for several weeks at Al-Ba’ath University (Homs)
and at Damascus University.
Ann also convened the “Town and Gown Lecture Series”, which offered monthlong seminars to the community on such topics of interest as Islam, the IsraelPalestine conflict, and environmental degradation. These seminars provided a
mechanism for the university and the community to share expertise and
experiences in these areas.
Ann received her M.A. in political science from Vanderbilt University where her
study focused on the role of third-party intermediaries in crisis situations,
specifically analyzing the Cyprus conflict. In her post-graduate study, she worked
with Dr. John Vincent of Nuffield College, Oxford. Ann took her Ph.D. in
international relations at Keele University.
Dr. Sarah Meharg is Senior Researcher at the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre. She
is a graduate of Queen’s University, the Royal Military College of Canada, and the
University of Guelph. She is an Adjunct Professor at the Royal Military College and
a Research Associate with the Centre for Security and Defence Studies (CSDS),
Norman Paterson School of International Affairs (NPSIA), Carleton University,
Ottawa. Dr. Meharg has conducted field research in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia,
20
Egypt, France, Germany, Italy, Kenya, Slovenia, Spain, and Turkey.
Rogers, C. R. (1969). Freedom to learn: A view of what education might
become. Columbus, OH: Charles Merrill.
1
Knowles, M. S. (1970). Modern practice of adult education: Andragogy versus
pedagogy. Chicago: Follett Publishing Company, Association Press.
2
Knowles, M. 1973. The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species. Houston, TX: Gulf
Publishing Company.
3
Cited on the webpage, Samford University, Alabama, PBL Background: Origins.
Accessed June 19, 2006. http://www.samford.edu/pbl/history.html.
4
See, http://www.acadiau.ca/advantage/, for a full description of the Acadia
Advantage.
5
See the article at: http://imej.wfu.edu/articles/1999/1/02/ for a description,
and http://plato.acadiau.ca/dagora/agora.html for the actual working of the
Digital Agora.
6
Boud, D. J. & Feletti, G. (1997) The Challenge of Problem-Based Learning, New
York: St. Martin’s Press.
7
Cited in http://www.samford.edu/pbl/history.html. Tosteson DC, Adelstein J,
Carver ST. New Pathways in Medical Education. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1994.
8
See, Bok, Sissela. (1989). A strategy for peace: Human values and the threat
of war. New York: Pantheon Books.
9
10
Schmidt HG. Problem-Based Learning: rational and description. Medical
Education 1983; 17:11-16. Schmidt summarizes PBL in terms of three essential
principles:
1. Activation of prior-learning via the problem; 2. Encoding specificity such that
the resemblance of the problem to intended application domains facilitates later
transfer (leading to an emphasis on authentic learning environments); and, 3.
Elaboration of knowledge via discussion and reflection to consolidate learning
experiences.
Samford University, Alabama, PBL Background: Origins. Accessed June 19,
2006. http://www.samford.edu/pbl/history.html.
11
Baptiste, Sue E. Problem-Based Learning: A Self-Directed Journey. Slack
Incorporated: New Jersey. (2003), pp. 50-51, adapted from Traditional Versus
PBL Classroom. Centre for Problem-Based Learning and Communications:
Birmingham, AL. (2003).
12
21
Norman, G.R., & Schmidt, H.G. (1992, September). The psychological basis of
problem-based learning: A review of the evidence. Academic Medicine, 67(9), pp.
557-565.
13
Marton, F., Hounsell, D., and Entwistle, N. (Eds.). (1997) The Experience of
Learning. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.
14
November 1956 – June 1967. UNEF I was established to secure and supervise
the cessation of hostilities, including the withdrawal of the armed forces of
France, Israel and the United Kingdom from Egyptian territory and, after the
withdrawal, to serve as a buffer between the Egyptian and Israeli forces
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/co_mission/unefi.htm
15
16
For a list of the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre courses please see:
http://www.peaceoperations.org/en/oc/oc_coursecalendar.asp.
Adapted from Problem Based Learning Initiative,
http://www.pbli.org/pbl/generic_pbl.htm.
17
22