Journal of Interactive Online Learning Volume 9, Number 2, Summer 2010

www.ncolr.org/jiol ISSN: 1541-4914

Synchronous Problem-Based e-Learning (ePBL) in Interprofessional

Health Science Education

Sharla King, Elaine Greidanus, Mike Carbonaro, Jane Drummond,

Patricia Boechler, and Renate Kahlke
University of Alberta

Abstract
Health Science teams are increasingly interprofessional and often require use of information
communication technology. These shifts result in a need for health science students to learn
online interprofessional teamwork skills early in their training. In response, one interprofessional
communication skills course was remodelled from traditional Problem-based learning (PBL) to
include learning in an online collaborative (team-based) environment (Elluminate). This study
evaluates the types of interactions facilitated by an interprofessional e-problem-based learning
(ePBL) activity. A qualitative analysis of recorded discussions in Elluminate yielded two major
categories of results. First, the online learning environment was shown to facilitate small-group
collaborative interactions by updating older tools, in terms of offering intuitive, accurate, and
multiple communication tools, and enabling novel forms of interaction. Second, the online
learning environment prompted discussion of technology-facilitated communication difficulties
in a way that led to the remediation of these difficulties. These results suggest that, while there is
a need for further research on the relationship between online synchronous (real-time) learning
environments and collaborative learning, ePBL can enable positive and novel forms of student
interaction and facilitate student learning.

133
 Journal of Interactive Online Learning King et al

Introduction

Technology in Healthcare Teams/Training

Modern health science workplaces are interprofessional, complex problem-solving, and
technology infused environments. In the reform of health service delivery, the focus is
increasingly on teamwork and collaboration. Online computer-mediated technologies will also
be used to enable health care teams to work together at a distance (Iedema, Meyerkort & White,
2005; Valaitis, Sword, Jones & Hodges, 2005). Therefore, health professionals must possess
discipline specific clinical skills, interprofessional team skills, and fluency with information
technology. Accordingly, health science education now emphasizes interprofessional group
problem solving (Cook, 2005). Students who learn these skills in a technology infused learning
environment are at an advantage when entering the workplace.
Research indicates that computer-mediated online learning environments and face-to-face
learning environments often result in similar learning outcomes when variables such as learner
styles, gender, group dynamics and task complexity are taken into account (Bernard et al, 2004;
Tallent-Runnels, et al., 2006; Luppicini, 2007). The emphasis on group problem solving has also
necessitated a shift to using problem-based learning (PBL) strategies. In response to an increased
emphasis on technology and problem based work environments, this paper proposes electronic
problem-based learning (ePBL) as an innovative training method in the context of
interprofessional health teams. These team-based interprofessional health science ePBL activities
use an actor referred to as a standardized patient (SP). A synchronous (real-time) peer-to-peer
desktop virtual classroom learning environment, Elluminate Live® was used as the online
computer-mediated communication delivery platform for the PBL scenarios.
Investigation of e-learning has shifted from the question of whether such learning
environments are “as good” as face-to-face learning environments (Cook, 2005), to specifying
factors that affect computer mediated learning (Luppicini, 2007), course environments (Tallent-
Runnels, et al., 2006), and online group learning dynamics and collaboration (Graham, 2005;
Harvard, Du, & Xu, 2008). In the study reported in this paper, these factors are explored within
the context of an interprofessional health sciences course. The study was based on the
understanding that learning occurs as a process of constructing knowledge within a social and
environmental context. The purpose was to explore how participants used the synchronous
technology to learn interprofessional team skills in the context of an ePBL scenario involving a
standardized patient. We focused the inquiry on identifying themes of technology use. The study
used qualitative methods to answer the questions: In what ways did the Elluminate learning
environment facilitate or interfere with students learning interprofessional collaboration skills in
clinical scenarios? Insights gleaned from this study provide specific recommendations for training
and future research in workplace e-learning of interprofessional health science teams.

Rationale and Background

Traditional interprofessional health sciences course. The context for the study is an
interprofessional Health Sciences course. Approximately 800 students are enrolled in over 20
sections and the course is required for nine Health Science programs: Nutrition, Medicine,
Dentistry, Dental Hygiene, Nursing, Pharmacy, Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy, and
Medical Laboratory Science. It is optional for students in the Faculty of Physical Education and
Recreation, and Human Ecology. Each team includes no more than one member of each
discipline (six to eight students). Within each classroom, six interprofessional teams are overseen
134
 Journal of Interactive Online Learning King et al

by at least two facilitators from different professions (one faculty member and one clinical
practitioner). See Figure 1 for an example of three typical teams and one facilitator. The role of
the facilitators is to guide the students through the activities, providing feedback and assistance.

Figure 1. Online Classroom Network

The goal of the course is to develop interprofessional communication and teamwork skills
that facilitate group problem solving and planning. There are five key concepts covered in the
course: personal and team reflection, giving and receiving feedback, consensus decision making,
conflict resolution, and team roles. The interprofessional team interacts with a Standardized
Patient (SP) to create a treatment plan using the interprofessional communication skills
highlighted in the course material.
SP is a person trained to simulate an actual patient by performing the history, body
language, physical findings and emotional/personality characteristics of a patient. SPs have been
used for over 40 years to provide effective, safe and supportive learning environments in health
care education (Cantrell & Deloney, 2007; Heard et al., 1995). An SP is used for safe and
supportive instruction, assessment, or examination of skills of a health care provider. Students’
appreciation for each profession’s role in patient care increased as a result of completing
interprofessional SP interviews and developing a patient care plan (Westberg, Adams, Thiede,
Stratton & Bumgardner, 2006). In the traditional course, SPs interacted with student teams with
respect to an ethical dilemma and provided feedback to the student teams regarding team process
and communication skills.

135
 Journal of Interactive Online Learning King et al

Problem-based learning in the traditional interprofessional education. The

interprofessional team interacts with the SP in order to provide a more realistic interaction than a
paper based scenario can provide. The team determines if all or a portion of the team will interact
with the standardized patient. Any team members not participating will act as observers to
provide feedback to the team. The SP will also provide feedback to the team. The team has the
option of using a ‘time out’ in order to discuss strategies for the interview and then a ‘time in’ to
continue with the interview.
The PBL scenarios emphasize a student-driven learning process within the context of
small student groups who share knowledge and ideas to collaborate on solutions to ill-structured
problems. Because PBL scenarios often require less structure, they allow a collaborative group to
naturally evolve into various solution states. Students in PBL environments are focused on
meaning-making rather than fact-collecting. Group dynamics are often a critical part of the PBL
experience and involve students developing communication and social skills. Theoretical models
of PBL suggest that students learn content and problem-solving strategies when engaged in
authentic PBL (Hmelo-Silver, 2004; Taylor et al., 2004).

Mapping problem-based learning into an e-learning environment. Developing

individual and team roles and interaction skills in an interprofessional context is challenging
offline, and can be even more challenging online (Jennings, 2006; McConnell, 2002). When
designing online learning activities, one must carefully match the goals of the activity with the
learning environment (Luppicini, 2007). The medium interacts with the course design so that
specific technologies support specific types of learning (Bernard et al., 2004; Veermans &
Cesareni, 2005). For example, students often encounter difficulty establishing their identity in
asynchronous textually based online environments (Rourke, Anderson, Garrison & Archer,
1999). Students in a PBL online environment often perceive synchronous discussions as critical
for group decision-making and to clarify their understanding of information. (Beaumount &
Cheng, 2006; Valaitis et al., 2005).
In an online context, developing individual and team roles and interaction skills can be
even more challenging (Jennings, 2006; McConnell, 2002). The communication technology to
support PBL online should provide a platform for exchange, organization, and processing of
students’ ideas and knowledge (Beaumont & Cheng, 2006). As Harvard, Du, and Xu (2008)
indicate, selecting an appropriate delivery format becomes even more pronounced when the
students are engaged online in a collaborative learning environment that requires a real-time
interchange of ideas.
Strijbos, Martins, and Jochems (2004) suggested six steps when designing instruction for
an interactive online group-based learning environment. These steps provided the framework that
guided our design of interactions and activities in an online setting (see Appendix 1.).
In mapping the traditional version of the course to the online implementation it became
readily apparent that some steps in Appendix 1 were much simpler to map than others.
Implementing the PBL activities and selecting the right delivery format were the most
challenging aspects of the design process. The following describes the resulting ePBL model for
the Interprofessional Health Sciences course.

136
 Journal of Interactive Online Learning King et al

Blended version of the Interprofessional Health Sciences Course. The blended

delivery format encompassed a combination of traditional face-to-face and online (asynchronous
and synchronous) interactions. Three out of the 10 class periods were identified to remain face-
to-face. The remaining seven classes were redesigned for an online synchronous delivery format.
The same objectives and PBL scenarios were discussed as in the traditional course delivery.
The synchronous online classes used the Elluminate desktop virtual classroom
environment as their delivery format. Elluminate allows participants, (students, facilitators, and
SP) to communicate peer-to-peer online in real-time through a combination of voice, video,
interactive white board and instant messaging. Elluminate enables a virtual classroom modelled
around the group/team configurations used in traditional class settings for this course. It is
important to maintain these team configurations because the pedagogical strategy using a group
dynamics educational model is well established and effective in the traditional course (Carbonaro
et al., 2008).
Elluminate was configured so one person could speak at a time but at any time a student
could virtually “raise their hand” and their request to speak would be logged in ascending order.
Figure 2 shows a typical Elluminate interactive session for the course. On the left hand side, in
the participant information box, an individual student would have access to the microphone,
instant messaging, and both writing on and viewing the whiteboard. The whiteboard can be used
to display PowerPoint slides, Websites, or for the instructor and students to write information to
share with the class.

Breakout Interactive
teams Whiteboard

Text Chat

Figure 2. Elluminate Screen Caption

137
 Journal of Interactive Online Learning King et al

The online classes began in the main room, where the facilitator introduced the activity.
The facilitator then sent the small groups into the breakout rooms, where only team members can
communicate with each other using the virtual classroom features. The groups planned for the SP
interview in the breakout rooms and when the group indicated readiness, the SP joined the
breakout room. Following the interview, the SP left and the group discussed the interview and
created a treatment plan. The SP then returned to the breakout room to provide the team with
feedback.
Being able to create these virtual breakout rooms was a critical interactive feature because
it allowed course designers to maintain the team-based configurations during PBL activity. For
example, Figure 2 shows a team interacting during a PBL activity on core values. Students
interacted with the SP to refine their team process skills to resolve patient care issues.

Method
Given that ePBL in Interprofessional Health Sciences Education is a novel instructional
approach and that technological tools that support learning delivery formats are rapidly changing,
qualitative research can define processes and variables that result in new hypotheses (Tallent-
Runnels et al., 2006). In areas of emerging instructional models, qualitative research methods are
best suited to provide the breadth of analysis that identifies trends and variables that form the
basis of future research. This study specifically explored the interactions between the social
context (group PBL) and the environmental context (the Elluminate environment). The data for
this analysis were the contents from the transcripts of the online communication and interactions
of the 20 students in 4 independent class sessions in the online component of the interprofessional
Health Science course. Content analysis was used in this study to identify concepts and patterns
within the text that provide insight regarding the study questions (Stemler, 2001). Content
analysis is a method of describing a large body of data into themes (content categories) based on
explicit rules of coding (Stemler, 2001). For this project, categories were established following a
preliminary examination of the data. This process is known as emergent coding (Stemler, 2001).
Two researchers read the text and combined their notes to establish rules of coding with which to
categorize key themes. These rules were applied to the text with the assistance of the QSR
NVivo™ qualitative data analysis program to organize the text and summarize the results.
Coding units were defined by the natural end of meaning unit. Most of the data in this project
was text based (either transcribed verbal statements or typed textual statements), but some of the
units of meaning were diagrams or typed work on the Elluminate whiteboard. In the case of text,
the coding units were complete paragraphs. In the case of the whiteboard content, the completed
unit of representation was taken as one unit of coding. Reliability (95% agreement) was
established between two raters using the same set of rules to identify codes. The instances of
coding were then summarized using quantitative methods to describe the relative frequencies of
occurrences of each coded theme.

Procedure
Camtasia (a recording software program) was used to record four online classes via
continuous screen capture. The recordings were transferred into a textual representation by
transcribing the verbal data, copying the text-based data, and describing the visual data. The final
transcripts were checked for accuracy by comparing them to the original recordings by a second
researcher.
The transcripts were read initially and themes were identified based on units of analysis
(words, events, images, occurrences). These themes were discussed and revised by the team of
138
 Journal of Interactive Online Learning King et al

researchers and rules of coding were established. Two separate researchers then initially coded
part of the text. The researchers discussed inconsistencies and the text was recoded until the
coding was consistently agreed upon between the researchers. The rest of the text was coded on
paper by a single researcher. A second researcher then transferred the codes into NVivo and
checked the coding for consistency. Code reports were printed and used to facilitate qualitative
descriptions of the themes and quantitative information regarding the relative frequency of the
themes. One of the themes emerged as particularly important to answering the research
questions, so researchers returned to the original texts and recordings to elaborate the description.

Results
Two overarching themes emerged from the data as distinct from each other: discussion of
technology-facilitated communication difficulties and technology facilitates group interaction.
The themes are summarized in Table 1. The themes were not coded exclusively, therefore
individual instances may have been coded as more than one theme.

Table 1. Summary of ePBL Themes

Theme Subthemes Description and examples

Technology facilitates Technology updates Whiteboard slides used as PowerPoint might

group interaction previous educational be used in a classroom.
tools Students use hand icons to “raise their hand”
Students send files back and forth as they
might pass documents between each other
Technology Whiteboard slides edited by students.
facilitates novel Whiteboard can be used to write
forms of interactions “anonymously.”
Whiteboard is the same in all rooms.
All members can write on the whiteboard
simultaneously.
Text messages can be used when voice
something doesn’t work.
Text messages tend to contain less “formal”
information/exchange.
Text messages used to provide
feedback/ideas in a less direct manner.
Emoticons used in text messages.
Lack of visual cues decreases the sense of
physical “Presence” and allows observers to
observe without interference.
Facilitators can “control” students by
moving them to different rooms and by
controlling the “mic.”
Students can signal people in other rooms.
Icons ( e.g., happy faces, sad faces can
indicate emotional tone more than a “hand
139
 Journal of Interactive Online Learning King et al

up” vote).
Room jumping by facilitator

Discussion of technology- Students describe to each other how to

facilitated communication access files on desktop.
difficulties Students discussed features of Elluminate.
Students discuss how to share files.
Students request that volume be raised or
lowered.

The relative frequencies of the coding occurrences are summarized in Figure 3.

Discussion of Technology-
facilitateCommunication
Difficulties

Technology Facilitates group

Interactions

Technology Updates Previous

Tools

Technology Facilitates
Novel Interaction
s

0 5 10 15 20
0 0 0 0

Figure 3. Technology themes for ePBL

Discussion of technology-facilitated communication difficulties. This theme includes

all instances where students discussed the use of technology, including students providing
feedback on sound volume levels and helping each other access files. This theme is best
understood within the context of course development. Most of these instances occurred when
140
 Journal of Interactive Online Learning King et al

students were not yet adept at managing the audio component of the technology environment and
were therefore unable to distinguish between voices because of microphone and sound quality
issues. Using Elluminate’s Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) technology as part of the virtual
classroom was new to all students. Students worked from their home systems; as a result there
was no standard desktop configuration. For example, some students used a hardwired Internet
connection and computer headset with a microphone (which worked well) while others connected
via a home wireless and used the built-in laptop microphone. This variability resulted in a higher
than expected number of unforeseen technology issues early on in the course (e.g., the Elluminate
system was sensitive to home wireless bandwidth speeds and signal interference that resulted in
random disconnections). These issues decreased over time. This decrease is likely related to the
students’ discussions of technology-facilitated communication difficulties, where team members
supported each other when there were technology problems. Students were able to identify many
technological “problems” and use feedback to problem-solve in the midst of the rest of the course
content. Whereas many studies of technology-enhanced communication have found technology
problems to be a theme, this finding is unique in revealing that students decreased these problems
by communicating about them. One possible explanation for this difference relates to the
student’s “problem solving mode” that occurs in the context of PBL. In other words, the
instructional setting encouraged students to work collaboratively in a team to solve problems.
This real-time ‘problem-solving process’ was mutually respectful and indicated a high level of
team-building.

Technology facilitates group interaction. Within this theme two subthemes were
differentiated based on whether the coded instance was similar to what may have occurred in a
face-to-face classroom or the instance was unique to the technology enhanced environment. The
subtheme technology updates previous educational tools describes instances of technology use
where the result is not qualitatively different than a type of interaction that occurs in traditional
classrooms. By contrast, the subtheme technology allows novel forms of interaction describe an
online pedagogy that does not tend to occur in traditional classrooms. One example is the
students’ ability to cue each other during the standardized patient interview by using the text
message box. This allowed the students to prompt each other to ask questions, or provide real
time feedback without interrupting the flow of the interview, as such feedback would do in a
face-to-face environment.
The most interesting finding was that technology facilitates novel forms of interaction.
This finding relates to Elluminate’s capacity to establish real-time/synchronous broadband
connectivity for direct voice/video communication, text messages (private and public) and
interactive whiteboard sharing, to create teams in private virtual rooms (folders in Elluminate),
and to allow for monitoring. These Elluminate features resulted in unique dynamics between
teams, SPs and facilitator that would be difficult, if not impossible, to operationalize in a face-to-
face setting. See Table 1 for examples.

Discussion
The design of the learning activity (pedagogy) and delivery format (technology) are
critical components in developing what Savin-Baden and Wilkie (2006) refer to as the
technopedagogy of PBL. More specifically, Tallent-Runnels, et al. (2006) remind us that the
selection of the most appropriate delivery format or combination of formats should be driven by
research:

141
 Journal of Interactive Online Learning King et al

A key element in online courses is providing effective communication and

interaction. A variety of formats are available for online interaction, and many have been
used to supplement face-to-face courses for the past several years. However, research
needs to be conducted to determine which format provides the highest level of interaction
and the most effective learning experiences for various kinds of students. In addition,
future studies need to show which format best fits a particular pedagogy used by
instructors (p. 117).
Researchers have found that technology must be chosen based on the effect that specific
features have on the learning processes and goals (Groen, Tworek, & Soos-Gonczol, 2008;
Bernard et al, 2004). Asynchronous delivery using text-based learning interactions often takes
place using course management software such as WebCT/Blackboard (Luppicini, 2007).
Research on synchronous learning/instruction has focused on chat (e.g., instant messaging or
discussion boards) with some examples of video or teleconferencing (Bernard et al., 2004;
Tallent-Runnels et al., 2006; Roblyer, Freeman, Donaldson & Maddox, 2007; Yang & Liu,
2007), and more recently, in the use of online real-time environment game designed worlds
(Annetta, Murray, Laird, Bohr, & Park, 2008).
Previous research has demonstrated that desktop peer-to-peer synchronous technologies
(Elluminate Live) could be effectively used to teach health sciences students’ team process skills
when real-time interactions are required (Carbonaro et al., 2008). This study extends that
research to elucidate how PBL was combined with technology in an interprofessional Health
Science course to form ePBL. The most significant design challenge was mapping a face-to-face
PBL simulated learning activity into an online learning environment while maintaining the
integrity of the interactivity that occurs in the face-to-face learning environment. This was
primarily due to the necessity for real-time interactions between the SP and the student team.
The theme technology facilitates group interactions ties directly to the use of the design
for interaction framework proposed by Strijbos, Martins, and Jochems (2004). In a PBL
environment interactions are required to focus the group on problem solving, clear
communication, and collaboration, all of which are essential components for learning in this
context. In face-to-face groups, members often have the advantage of physical proximity,
nonverbal-communication, and the ability to co-manipulate physical space (e.g., a student may
highlight a section of a book and pass it around to the others). However, when students meet in a
virtual environment, their abilities to communicate depend on the characteristics of the virtual
space and communication medium itself (Savin-Baden & Gibbon, 2006).
Peer-to-peer desktop text/voice/video technologies enable PBL online synchronous
activities to function in a more dynamic interactive environment (Anderson et al., 2006; Yang &
Lui, 2007). It is clear from the themes that emerged from the data that ePBL in a synchronous
context can preserve many of the necessary characteristics of face-to-face PBL. In fact, new
forms of communication were present in the ePBL interactions. This supports Cousin’s (2005)
assertion that there have always been strong links between technology and pedagogy dating back
to the first use of tools to support and enhance instruction. Technology either contributes to or, in
some cases, directs the instructional strategy (how often do you see an instructor write on
PowerPoint slides the way they once did on overhead slides). In the context of this study we
noted that the lack of physical “presence” creates a context that limits some forms of
communication, but also creates new opportunities for different group dynamics, for example:
• Interactions between the SP and the team may be different without the physical presence
of the facilitator "watching"

142
 Journal of Interactive Online Learning King et al

• The team may interact with each other ("sliding each other notes") using the text box
during the interview with the standardized patient, possibly cuing each other on questions
to ask, etc. "without the standardized patient seeing"
• A shy person might also be more likely to "talk" if they can't be seen - in the virtual
environment, or may “text” a response that they would not have said in person
• The team is able to look up other information (e.g., on Google or in their text books)
during the interview, while another person is talking
In a PBL activity where students are working though a typical dilemma the level of
interaction is extensive. Students ask the SP probing questions in order to understand the issues.
In a normal face-to-face situation the students would see each other, the SP, and the facilitator.
Physical communication indicators (facial expression, voice intonation, etc.) would facilitate the
interpretation of behaviours and statements. Therefore, the more indicators that technology
translates, the more information is available for students (and facilitators) to understand each
other. Interactions where technology updates previous educational tools resulted in an
identifiable theme in the ePBL model designed for this class. In the virtual classroom, Elluminate
provides tools and techniques that differ only marginally from what would occur in a face-to-face
situation. For example, the opportunity to utilize an interactive whiteboard, to raise your hand by
using the hand icon tool, or the pass/share documents back and forth, are all typical interactions
one could normally do in a face-to-face setting. In this sense the technology simply provides a
medium to facilitate these types of interactions.

Implications
E-learning provides flexible opportunities for health practitioners to learn team-based
collaborative professional development. However, the time necessary to learn the technology
used in the delivery of these programs often creates challenges. In the UK, the National Health
Service (NHS) and the National Health Service University (NHSU) indicate a trend towards
earlier utilization of e-learning for professional practice (Childs et al., 2005). The NHS also
developed a shared strategy for e-learning and identified e-learning as a central strategic delivery
mechanism for potentially reducing the work related time to learn new technologies. Finally,
communicating and collaborating at a distance is increasingly a requirement for health
practitioners. Therefore developing these online team-based skills early in the careers of Health
professionals are increasingly necessary to support patient care.

Recommendations and Conclusions

Our findings suggest there are benefits to using online synchronous technologies in the
context of interprofessional skill development in an interprofessional health sciences course.
However, more research is needed to understand how the delivery format can impact learning in a
variety of instructional groups.
Based on this research, three key recommendations are outlined. First, technological
issues should be tested and resolved in a tutorial and practice session prior to the actual SP
sessions to minimize the disruption of technology related problems. This would also allow
students to become familiar with the features of Elluminate so they can focus on the problem-
solving process rather than the technology.
Second, aside from the technical aspects of online group work, students should be given a
tip sheet on how to use certain features of the online application to express responses or attitudes
that would be typically expressed automatically as non-verbal behavior in face-to-face
environments. Students should be made aware that, to lessen misunderstandings and to fully
143
 Journal of Interactive Online Learning King et al

express themselves, they need to make more conscious choices about their communications than
they do in face-to-face environments.
Finally, in a PBL activity where students are working though a typical dilemma the level
of interaction is extensive. Therefore, students should be able to meet face-to-face before the
online sessions so they have a sense of each other as group members. If this is not possible, there
should be an introductory activity within the online sessions that helps students form an
impression of each of their classmates. Including a photograph or unique icon for each student
along with a descriptor (eg., their professional area) will help students develop an identity online.
This will encourage group interaction within the online sessions.
Overall, online team-based collaboration that requires real-time synchronous interaction
needs to be understood in an instructional context. A more complete understanding of
collaboration in this complex environment may lead to more effective practitioner and patient
interactions in care settings that occur at a distance.

144
 Journal of Interactive Online Learning King et al

References

Anderson, L., Fyvie, B., Koritko, B., McCarthy, K., Paz, S. M., Rizzuto, M., Tremblay, R., &
Sawyers, U. (2006). Technical evaluation report: Best practices in synchronous
conferencing moderation. International Review of Research in Open Distance Learning,
7(1), 1-6.
Annetta, L., Murray, M., Gull Laird, S., Bohr, S. & Park, J. (2008). Investigating student
attitudes toward a synchronous, online raduate course in a multi-user virtual learning
environment. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education. 16 (1), 5-34.
Beaumont, C., & Cheng, C. S. (2006). Analysing the use of communication tools for
collaboration in PBLonline. In M. Savin-Baden & K. Wilkie (Eds.). Problem-based
learning online, Berkshire, England: Open University Press.
Bernard, R.M., Abrami, P.C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., Wallet, P.A.,
Fiset, M., & Huang, B. (2004). How does distance education compare with classroom
instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research,
74, 379-434.
Cantrell,M.J. & Deloney, L.A. (2007). Integration of standardized patients into simulation.
Anesthesiological Clinics of North America, 25(2), 377-383.
Carbonaro, M., King, S., Taylor, L., Satzinger, F., Snart, F., & Drummond, J. (2008) Integration
of e-learning technologies in an interprofessional course: A pilot study. Medical Teacher,
30(1), 25-33.
Cook, D.A. (2005). Models of interprofessional learning in Canada. Journal of Interprofessional
Care, (Suppl. 1), 107 - 115.
Cook, D.A. (2005). The research we still are not doing: An agenda for the study of computer-
based learning. Academic Medicine, 80, 541 - 548.
Cousin, G. (2005). Learning from cyberspace. In R. Land and S. Bayne (Eds). Education in
Cyberspace. New York, New York: Routledge Falmer.
Graham, S. (2005). Learning together in practice: A survey of interprofessional education in
clinical settings in South-East England. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 19(3), 223-
235.
Groen, J., Tworek, J. & Soos-Gonczol, M. (2008). The effective use of synchronous classes
within an online graduate program: Building upon an interdependent system.
International Journal on E-Learning. 7 (2), 245-263.
Harvard, B., Du, J., & Xu, J. (2008). Online collaborative learning and communication media.
Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19(1), 37-50.
Heard, J. K., Cantrell, M., Presher, L., Klimberg, V. S., San Pedro, G. S., & Erwin, D. O.
(1995). Using standardized patients to teach breast evaluation to sophomore medical
students. Journal of Cancer Education, 10(4), 191-4.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn?
Educational Psychology Review, 16, 235-266.
Iedema, R., Meyerkort, S., & White, L. (2005). Emergent modes of work and communities of
practice. Health Services Management Research, 18(1), 13-24.
Jennings, D. (2006). PBLonline: a framework for collaborative e-learning. In M. Savin-Baden
& K. Wilkie (Eds.), Problem-based learning online, Berkshire, England: Open
University Press.
Luppicini, R. (2007). Online Learning Communities (Ed.). Greenwich: Information Age
Publishing.
145
 Journal of Interactive Online Learning King et al

Mayer, R.E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The
case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14-19.
McConnell, D. (2002). Action research and distributed problem –based learning in continuing
professional education. Distance Education, 23 (1), 59-83.
Offir, B., Lev, Y., & Bezalel, R. (2008). Surface and deep learning processes in distance
education: Synchronous versus asynchronous systems. Computers & Education, 51(3),
1172-1183.
Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R. & Archer, W. (1999). Assessing social presence in
asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education 14 (2)
50-71.
Penman, M. & Lai, K. W. (2003). Synchronous communication and higher-order thinking in a
tertiary course in occupational therapy. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 14(4),
387-404.
Roblyer, M. D., Freeman, J., Donaldson, M. B, & Maddox, M. (2007). A comparison of
outcomes of virtual school courses offered in synchronous and asynchronous formats.
Internet and Higher Education, 10 (4), 261-268.
Savin-Baden, M., & Gibbon, G. (2006). Online learning and problem-based learning:
complementary or colliding approaches. In M. Savin-Baden & K. Wilkie (Eds.) Problem-
based learning online, Berkshire, England: Open University Press.
Stacey, E. (2005). Problem-based learning online, In T. Evans, P. Smith & E. Stacey (Eds.),
Research in Distance Education: selected refereed papers from the 2004 Research in
Distance Education conference, 59-70, Geelong, Australia: Deakin University.
Stemler, S. (2001). An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment, Research &
Evaluation, 7(17). Retrieved from http://PAREonline.net/getvn. asp?v=7&n=17.
Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L. & Jochems, W. M. G., (2004). Designing group based learning:
Six steps to designing computer-supported group based learning. Computers &
Education, 42, 403-424.
Trinidad, S., & Pearson, J. (2004). Implementing and evaluating e-learning environments. Paper
presented at Beyond the Comfort Zone: Proceedings of the 21st ASCILITE Conference,
Perth, Australia.
Tallent-Runnels, M. K., Thomas, J. A., Lan, W.Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T.C., Shaw, S. & Liu, X.
(2006). Teaching courses online: A review of the research. Review of Education
Research, 76, 93 - 135.
Taylor, E., Cook, D., Cunningham, R., King, S., & Pimlott, J. (2004). Changing attitudes – health
sciences students working together. Internet Journal of Allied Health Sciences &
Practice, 2(3).
Valaitis, R. K., Sword, W. A., Jones, B., & Hodges, A. (2005). Problem-based learning online:
Perceptions of health science students. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 10, 231-
252.
Veermans, M. & Cesareni, D. (2005). The nature of the discourse in web-based Collaborative
Learning Environments: Case studies from four different countries. Computers &
Education, 45, 316-336.
Westberg, S. M., Adams, J., Thiede, K., Stratton, T. P., & Bumgardner, M. A. (2006).
Innovations in teaching: An interprofessional activity using standardized patients.
American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 70(2), Article 34.
Yang, Z., & Liu, Q. (2007). Research and development of web-based virtual online classroom.
Computers & Education, 48, 171-184.
146
 Journal of Interactive Online Learning King et al

Appendix A

Designing Instruction for Computer-mediated Communication group-based learning

Strijbos, Martins, and Jochems (2004) INTD Course

1. Determine (1) What type of skills will be taught? Objectives:

learning objectives Open skills: argumentation, Develop Open Skills including:
negotiation, discussion of multiple • Communication ( e.g.,
alternatives feedback)
Closed skills: acquisition of basic • Consensus building
skills, basic procedures (long
division), concept learning • Problem solving in group
context
• Self-reflection
• Conflict resolution
(2) Are all students required to learn Yes
the same skill(s)?
(3) Must all students individually No, all students are required to
display mastery of the learning demonstrate competence, not
objectives? mastery of skills.

2. Determine the (4) Specify the expected interaction The majority of the interactions is
expected (changes according to three levels if applicable. conceptualized as a combination
in) interaction of temporal communication
structures, both two-way reactive
and interactive reciprocal (Level
two) and content or discourse
analysis of the communicative
statements or acts (Level three).
(5) Will the interaction focus on Feedback from group members
feedback ( e.g., commenting and SP
draft/final version)?
(6) Will the interaction focus on Yes
exchanging (or creating) ideas (or
findings)?
(7) Will the interaction focus on Yes
discussion, argumentation of multiple
alternatives/opinions?

147
 Journal of Interactive Online Learning King et al

(8) Does interaction require co- Yes

ordination of activities whilst solving
a complex problem?
(9) Does interaction require a No report, but a shared
collaboratively written report (report understanding is represented
written together with other students)
representing shared understanding?

3. Select the task (10) Which task-type is best suited PBL scenarios that involve a
type for teaching the selected skills? typical case such as that shown in
Appendix A.
Open skills: ill-structured task with
no clear solution, multiple
alternatives, outcomes, opinions or No clear solution to the PBL
procedures activities (there could be multiple
Closed skills: well-structured task alternatives)
with (few) one possible solution(s)
outcome(s) or procedure(s)
(11) Are all students required to Yes
study the same material?
(12) Will they have to solve a Yes
complex and ambiguous problem
with no clear solution?
(13) Will the chosen learning Yes
objectives and task-type require
communication?
4. Determine (14) Will the chosen learning Yes
whether and how objectives and task-type require co-
much pre- ordination?
structuring is
needed
(15) Determine to what extent the Interactions have a low level of
group interaction processes will be structuring. Problem solving is
pre-structured in advance? based on discussion of an ethical
dilemma presented by a SP.
e?
High level of pre-structuring: student
interaction is prescribed by the
teacher (giving or receiving
feedback, suggestions or
help), content focussed (content-
based roles, resource
148
 Journal of Interactive Online Learning King et al

interdependence)
Low level of pre-structuring:
students shape their groups’
interaction processes with little or no
teacher involvement
(knowledge building, case based
discussion of multiple alternative
solutions, PBL)
(16) Are students each assigned to a No, the group interacts as an
portion of the material? interdisciplinary team
(17) Are students each assigned Students have professional
individual responsibilities for differences, but no pre-specified
interaction and group performance? roles in the group
(18) Are students dependent on each Part of the course
other during the whole course or only
a part of the course?
(19) How will the students be Individual and group participation
graded: individual test-scores, one and performance
group-score for the group’s
performance, individual-
score for each members’
participation and contribution,
or a combination?

5. Determine group (20) Is interaction with other group Obligatory

size members obligatory (‘positive
interdependence’) or optional?
(21) Is there a set minimum for Yes, participants are required to
group interaction participation ( e.g., interact in order to provide
discussion entries)? responses to the dilemma posed.
(22) Is the effort of all group Yes
members needed to achieve the
learning objectives?
(23) Is the interaction focus on Providing feedback is a skill to be
feedback (dyads preferred), idea practiced and enhanced.
generation (large group preferred) or Achieving consensus is more
consensus important than exhausting all
possible ideas.
generation and negotiation (small
group preferred)?

149
 Journal of Interactive Online Learning King et al

(24) Will all members have to Yes, there should be relatively

contribute equally? equal contributions depending
upon the student’s discipline and
the content of the scenario.
(25) Is there a need for diversity in Both diversity and idea exchange
opinion (discussion) or more focus are equally important to ensure
on exchange of ideas (feedback)? everyone’s perspectives are
included.

6. Determine how (26) How are students supposed to Via computers

computer support ‘collaborate’: at a computer or via
can be applied to computers?
support CSGBL
(27) Will Communication be mainly Combination, but mainly CMC
face-to-face, computer mediated The majority of the interactions are
(CMC) or a combination? synchronous, but asynchronous
Is student interaction same time/ interactions will occur.
same place (face-to-face: with and at
computer)?
Is student interaction same
time/different place
(synchronous/real time CMC)?
Is student interaction different
time/different place (asynchronous
CMC)?
(28) What kind of support is A combination, but mainly
required: file sharing, communication.
communication, or a combination?
(29) Which tool e.g., newsgroup, Chat was the tool that supported
groupware or chat supports the this group-based learning best.
group-based learning setting best?

150