The discrepancy between students’ understanding of domain knowledge and their actual competencies to use tacit knowledge for a given task has been an issue to consider when instruction is designed, implemented, and revised. In this study, the researcher examines teaching and learning processes in which a Problem-Based Learning (PBL) design model was crafted and used for an advanced instructional design course in the educational technology field. The focus is on the researcher‘s ongoing and recursive reflective experiences in reviewing design components of the model, analyzing the motivators and difficulties students faced, and offering alternative methods to improve the initial design. The findings show that the PBL approach played an instrumental role in creating real challenges that the target professionals may experience. On the other hand, observed difficulties in PBL include intrinsic and extrinsic cognitive loads associated with the complexity of the instructional design process, self-regulated learning skills, learning beliefs, and supporting strategies used for team dynamics. The patterns identified in the behaviors and perceptions of effective and struggling students are interpreted. Based on the findings, new constructs of the model were suggested for further improvement.
AlbaneseM. (2000). Problem-based learning: Why curricula are likely to show little effect on knowledge and clinical skills. Medical Education, 34(9), 729–738. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2000.00753.x
2.
APA Work Group of the Board of Educational Affairs (1997, November). Learner-centered psychological principles: A framework for school reform and redesign. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
3.
ArielyD.WertenbrochK. (2002). Procrastination, deadlines, and performance: Self-control by precommitment. Psychological Science, 13(3), 219–224. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00441
BanduraA. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W H Freeman/Times Books/ Henry Holt & Co.
6.
BarrowsH. S. (1986). A taxonomy of problem-based learning methods. Medical Education, 20, 481–486.
7.
BarrowsH. S. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview. In WilkersonL.GijselaersW. H. (Eds.), Bring problem-based learning to higher education: Theory and practice (pp. 3–12). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
8.
BarronB.SchwartzD.VyeN.MooreA.PetrosinoA.ZechL.BransfordJ., & The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1998). Doing with understanding: lessons from research on problem- and project-based learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3&4), 271–311.
9.
BerinatoS. (2018, January-February). Negative feedback rarely leads to improvement: An interview with Paul Green. Harvard Business Review.
10.
BrownA. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 141–178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0202_2
11.
BrownellJ.JamesonD.A. (2004). Problem-based learning in graduate management education: An integrative model and interdisciplinary application. Journal of Management Education, 28, 558–577.
12.
BrushT.SayeJ. (2014). An instructional model to support problem-based historical inquiry: The persistent issues in history network. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 8(1), 79–103. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1409
13.
BuckinghamM.GoodallA. (2019). The feedback fallacy. Harvard Business Review, 97(2), 92–101.
14.
CarmichaelS. G. (2014, June). Everything you need to know about giving negative feedback. Harvard Business Review.
15.
ChappelowC.McCauleyC. (2019). What good feedback really looks like. Harvard Business Review.
16.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992). The Jasper experiment: An exploration of issues in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 65–80.
17.
CollinsA. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In ScanlonE.O’SheaT. (Eds.), New directions in educational technology (pp. 15–22). New York: Springer-Verlag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-77750-9_2
18.
CollinsA.BrownJ. S.NewmanS. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In ResnickL. B. (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
19.
CronjeJ. (2006). Paradigms regained: toward integrating objectivism and constructivism in instructional design and the learning sciences. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(4), 387–416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-9605-1
20.
DavidsonJ. E.SternbergR. J. (1998). Smart problem solving: How metacognition helps. In HackerD. J.DunioskyJ.GraesserA. C. (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 47–68). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
21.
DelclosV. R.HarringtonC. (1991). Effects of strategy monitoring and proactive instruction on children’s problem-solving performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 35–42. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.83.1.35
22.
Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.
23.
DorseyL. T.GoodrumD. A.SchwenT. M. (1997). Rapid collaborative prototyping in an instructional development paradigm. In DillsC. R.RomiszowskiA. J. (Eds.), Instructional development paradigm. (pp. 445–466). Educational Technology Publications.
24.
DuffyT. M.CunninghamD. J. (1996). Constructivism: implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In JonassenD. (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 170–198). Macmillan.
25.
DuffyT.JonassenD. (1992). Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation. Philadelphia, PA: Lawrence Erlbaum.
26.
DunlapJ. C. (2005). Problem-based learning and self-efficacy: How a capstone course prepares students for a professor. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(1), 65–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504858
27.
ErtmerP. A.GlazewskiK.Ottenbreit-LeftwichA.GoktasY.CollinsK.KocamanA. (2009). Facilitating technology-enhanced problem-based learning (PBL) in the middle school classroom: An examination of how and why teachers adapt. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 20(1), 35–54. Retrived from http://www.edci.purdue.edu/ertmer/docs/AECT07_PBL-Challenges.pdf
28.
FoshayW.R.SilberK. H.StelnickiM. (2003). Writing training materials that work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
29.
GagneR. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
30.
GeorgiouS. N.ChristouC.StavrinidesP.PanaouraG. (2002). Teacher attributions of student failure and teacher behavior toward the failing student. Psychology in the Schools, 39(5), 583–595.
31.
GeX.LandS. M. (2004). A conceptual framework for scaffolding ill-structured problem-solving processes using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504836
HansenM. (2021, May 18)). The U.S. education system isn’t giving students what employers need. Harvard Business Review.
34.
HannafinM.LandS.OliverK. (1999). Open learning environments. In ReigeluthC. M. (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 2, pp. 115–140). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hmelo-SilverC. E.BarrowsH. (2006). Goals and strategies of a problem-based learning facilitator. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1004
37.
Hmelo-SilverC. E.DuncanR. G.ChinnC. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.
38.
HornM. (2014, August 14). Disruption in higher ED is growing, but not instantaneous. Forbes.
39.
HungW. (2011). Theory to reality: A few issues in implementing problem-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(4), 529–552.
40.
HungW. (2006). The 3C3R model: A conceptual framework for designing problems in PBL. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1), 55–77. PBL theory to reality 549. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1006
41.
JonassenD. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 65–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299613
42.
JonassenD. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02300500
43.
JohnsonAragonShaikPalma-Rivas. (2000). Comparative analysis of learner satisfaction and learning outcomes in online and face-to-face learning environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 11(1), 29–49.
44.
KampR. J.DolmansD. H.Van BerkelH. J.SchmidtH. G. (2013). The effect of midterm peer feedback on student functioning in problem-based tutorials. Advances in Health Sciences Education : Theory and Practice, 18(2), 199–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-012-9364-1
45.
KapranosP. (2015). PBL for doctoral students in collaboration with SMEs: “thinking like a professional engineer.”Open Journal of Social Sciences, 3, 57–63. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2015.36012
46.
KingA. (1991). Effects of training in strategic questioning on children’s problem-solving performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 307–317. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.83.3.307
47.
KirschnerP. A.SwellerJ.ClarkR. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
48.
KolbD. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
49.
KuhlmannT. (2013a). Do you really need an instructional design degree? The Rapid E-Learning Blog. Retrieved from http://www.articulate.com/rapid-elearning/do-you-really-need-an-instructional-
design-degree/.
50.
KuhlmannT. (2013b). How to overcome the challenge of working with subject matter experts. The Rapid E-Learning Blog. https://blogs.articulate.com/rapid-elearning/how-to-overcome-
the-challenge-of-working-with-subject-matter-experts/?utm_source=REL&utm_medium=
Email&utm_campaign=RELFEED.
LahteenmakiM.UhlinL. (2010). Developing reective practitioners through PBL in academic and practice environments. In BarrettT.MooreS. (Eds.), New approaches to problem-based learning (pp. 158–171). Routledge.
53.
MaclellanE.SodenR. (2003). Expertise, expert teaching and experienced teacher's knowledge of learning theory. Scottish Educational Review, 35(2), 110–120.
54.
MaudsleyG. (1999). Roles and responsibilities of the problem based learning tutor in the undergraduate medical curriculum. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 318(7184), 657–661. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7184.657
55.
MerrillM. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02505024
56.
MolendaM. (2009). Origins and evolution of instructional systems design. In Handbook of improving performance in the workplace (Vol. 1, pp. 53–92). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
PerkinsD. N.HancockC.HobbsR.MartinF.SimmonsR. (1986). Conditions of learning in novice programmers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2(1), 37–55.
60.
ReigeluthC. M. (1992). The imperative for systemic change. Educational Technology, 32(11), 9–13.
61.
ReigeluthC. M. (1997). Instructional theory, practitioner needs, and new directions: Some reflections. Educational Technology, 37(1), 42–47.
62.
ReigeluthC. M. (1999). What is instructional-design theory and how is it changing. Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory, 2, 5–29.
63.
ReigeluthC. M.FrickT. W. (1999). Formative research: A methodology for creating and improving design theories. In ReigeluthC. M. (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models (Vol. 2). A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 633–651). Erlbaum.
64.
RicheyR.C.KleinJ.NelsonW. (2004). Developmental research: Studies of instructional design and development. In JonassenD. (Ed.) Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 1099–1130). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
65.
Ruiz-GallardoJ.González-GeraldoJ. L.CastañoS. (2016). What are our students doing? Workload, time allocation and time management in PBL instruction. A case study in science education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 53, 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.10.005
66.
SayeJ. W.BrushT. (2002). Scaffolding critical reasoning about history and social issues in multimedia-supported learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 77–96.
67.
SaveryJ. R. (2009). Problem-based approach to instruction. In ReigeluthC. M.Carr-ChellmanA. A. (Eds.), Instructional design theories and models: building a common knowledge base (Vol. 3, pp. 143–165). Routledge. Taylor and Francis, Publishers, NY & London.
68.
SchunkD. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational psychologist, 26(3-4), 207–231.
69.
SmitherJ. W.LondonM.ReillyR. R. (2005). Does performance improve following multisource feedback? A theoretical model, meta-analysis, and review of empirical findings. Personnel Psychology, 58(1), 33–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.514_1.x
70.
SmithP. L.ReganT. J. (2005). Instructional design. Wiley Jossey-Bass Education. USA.
71.
SongL.HannafinM.HillJ. R. (2007). Reconciling beliefs and practices in teaching and learning. Education Technology Research Development, 55, 27–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-9013-6
72.
StrobelJ.van BarneveldA. (2009). When is PBL more effective? A meta-synthesis of meta-analyses comparing PBL to conventional classrooms. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1046
73.
SuB.BonkC. J.MagjukaR. J.LiuX.LeeS. -h. (2005). The Importance of interaction in Web-Based education: A program-level case study of online MBA courses. Journal of interactive online learning, 4(1).
74.
TessmerM.WedmanJ. F. (1990). A layers of necessity instructional development model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(2), 77–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02298271
75.
TurnerP.MerrillM. (2021, May 25). Using structure to promote equity and engagement in live remote sessions. Educause Review.
76.
van Merrienboer (1997). Training complex cognitive skills: A four-component instructional design model for technical training. Educational Technology Publications.
77.
van MerrienboerJ. J. G.KirschnerP. A.KesterL. (2003). Taking the load off a learner’s mind: instructional design for complex learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_2
78.
WangF.HannafinM. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5–23.
79.
WuY.-T.TsaiC. C. (2006). University students’ internet attitudes and internet self-efficacy: A study at three universities in Taiwan. Cyber Psychology and Behavior, 9(4), 441–450. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2006.9.441
