Active Learning in Higher Education

http://alh.sagepub.com Learning to teach with problem-based learning

Rachel Spronken-Smith and Tony Harland Active Learning in Higher Education 2009; 10; 138 DOI: 10.1177/1469787409104787 The online version of this article can be found at: http://alh.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/10/2/138

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Active Learning in Higher Education can be found at: Email Alerts: http://alh.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://alh.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav Citations http://alh.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/10/2/138

Downloaded from http://alh.sagepub.com by Roberto Hernandez Sampieri on October 17, 2009

Learning to teach with problem-based learning

University of Otago, New Zealand

Copyright 2009 SAGE Publications (Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore and Washington DC) Vol 10(2): 138153 DOI: 10.1177/1469787409104787 ARTICLE

RACHEL SPRONKEN-SMITH AND TONY HARLAND

A B S T R A C T This research explores the experiences of a group of academics learning to teach with problem-based learning (PBL) and how a community of practice (COP) supported this transition. An action-research project evaluated both PBL experiences and group processes. Teachers were enthusiastic about PBL but experienced a variety of problems during the transition. Those new to teaching had particular difficulty taking on the PBL role of facilitator. All teachers struggled to work within the rules of PBL. Of specific concern was the varied input teachers provided for their tutor groups and possible inequalities for student learning. The COP enabled professional learning about teaching PBL, but the dynamics of the group were perceived as too hierarchical. The group could have functioned better if it had adopted the principles underpinning a COP so that teachers could take a more critical stance towards how they operated within the group and how they taught PBL. KEYWORDS: communities of practice, inquiry, problem-based learning, teacher, transition

The nature of problem-based learning

Problem-based learning (PBL) encourages knowledge construction by starting each learning experience with a complex real-life problem that is typically presented to a small group of students in a tutorial setting. Students take responsibility for their own learning as they identify what they already know about the problem and then ascertain what they need to find out, what questions are relevant to their inquiry and what actions they need to take. Members of the student team tend to work independently as they research different aspects of the problem before bringing their findings back to the group and to the tutorial in order to co-construct new knowledge. The teachers main role in PBL is to facilitate the tutorials in which the 138
Downloaded from http://alh.sagepub.com by Roberto Hernandez Sampieri on October 17, 2009

SPRONKEN-SMITH & HARLAND: PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING

pedagogical aim is to create a space for reasoned discourse in which they can evaluate student learning, develop problem-solving skills and promote critical thinking. The PBL curriculum progresses with a sequence of independent inquiries and regular tutorials. The teacher seeks to gradually withdraw their support and expertise while encouraging students to accept more responsibility for group facilitation as a key part of their learning experiences (Barrows, 1988; Barrows and Tamblyn, 1980; Hmelo-Silver and Barrows, 2006). Although PBL has become firmly embedded as a strategy for teaching in higher education, it remains on the fringes of mainstream activity (Savery, 2006). The adoption of PBL is a complicated business because of PBLs strong philosophical and epistemological foundations that challenge the dominant cultures of university teaching. Consequently, for curriculum teams adopting PBL, Moesby (2004) advocates the necessity to develop a collective vision about the desired learning outcomes of the PBL programme, ensure the necessary skills, incentives and resources are available for teachers, and develop an action plan for implementation. When adopting PBL, teachers may need to overcome what has been called the implementation hurdle (Ertmer and Simons, 2006) and, in the university context, the shift from lecturer to facilitator requires new thinking about the role of the teacher (Harland, 1998; Matthew-Maich et al., 2007; Savin-Baden, 2000; Savin-Baden and Wilkie, 2004). Change can be complex, especially for those who hold a more conventional teacher-centred or didactic conception of teaching and learning (Kember, 1997). For example, when teachers relinquish control over curriculum content knowledge they are no longer required to be knowledge-givers and this can challenge their values and expertise (Bernstein et al., 1995; Clouston, 2007; Kaufman and Holmes, 1996).

A community of practice for professional learning

Although some of the practical and theoretical difficulties of changing a curriculum to PBL can be anticipated, much of the complexity will only emerge over time through experience as the new practice develops. The teachers transition could be supported by establishing a community of practice (COP) (Lave and Wenger, 1991). In a COP, learning is situated in the social group and for the individual it is brought about by participating with others in a common enterprise. Collective action and collaboration help to develop a common identity and create new knowledge, as experiences, which reflect an individuals learning, are shared with others in the community (Fuller et al., 2005). Some COPs are formally constituted while others are less so and evolve over time. Individuals can participate as 139
Downloaded from http://alh.sagepub.com by Roberto Hernandez Sampieri on October 17, 2009

ACTIVE LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION

10(2)

core members or be on the margins of a group; roles can vary and members can move between expert and beginner depending on the task at hand. Matthew-Maich et al. (2007) studied the facilitation of a change to PBL through a community faculty development programme. They attributed the success of this programme to systematic evaluation of teachers learning needs, the support and confidence that colleagues gave each other and establishing a common culture among participants. Thus, in the case of a move to PBL, we predicted that a COP could create a rich learning environment for the social construction of knowledge. Teachers would bring different types of knowledge and expertise, would learn from observing others in their classrooms and share accounts of their practice. The key process for learning in a COP was seen as systematic reflection on experiences. Many questions remain unanswered about teachers experiences of learning to teach PBL (Rowan et al., 2007), despite the fact that teacher development is likely to be the key to PBLs success (Savin Baden and Major, 2004). A comprehensive review of research on the tutor in PBL found that, although most studies focused on questions of teacher expertise and the process of facilitation, there was a lack of qualitative data that could help researchers and practitioners gain an in-depth insight into teacher conceptions and roles (Dolmans et al., 2002). Accordingly, the primary objective of this study was to use qualitative methods to examine in-depth the experiences of a team teaching PBL for the first time. A secondary objective was to examine the nature of the COP that formed to assist this transition. The PBL programme and the research methodology used in this study are now described.

The PBL programme

The programme was a semester-long geography research methods course for third-year students at a New Zealand university. Until the change to PBL the course had been taught in a traditional format using lectures, laboratories and a field course with group projects. It typically recruited about 3060 students. Student evaluations showed that the course had not been performing well, with particular criticism aimed at the lecture and laboratory components. However, the group project was highly valued by the students. When an opportunity to overhaul the course arose the course co-ordinator (RSS) decided to build on the group project experience and adopt a PBL approach. The new curriculum was based on a set of authentic research problems developed in conjunction with an external professional agency (Harland, 140
Downloaded from http://alh.sagepub.com by Roberto Hernandez Sampieri on October 17, 2009

SPRONKEN-SMITH & HARLAND: PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING

2002; Spronken-Smith, 2005). The learning outcomes included an ability to undertake geographical research and engage in team work. The whole class met to discuss the goals of the course and the PBL approach. A representative of the agency then introduced a series of research questions. Students ranked questions of interest and accordingly were placed into groups of 68 and assigned a tutor. Project groups met with their tutor for a two-hourly meeting each week for the duration of the semester. There were two occasions when students worked together on residential courses. The first occurred after two weeks and focused on the research process, and the second was a residential conference at the end of the course in which student groups reported their research outcomes. Assessment for the course consisted of individual components (comparative critique of the literature, 15%; reflective critique on project work and their learning in the course, 15%) and group components (oral presentation, 15%; poster, 15%; project report, 40% but half of this grade was for product (that is, the report) and half for process (i.e. contribution to the group judged by self- and peer assessment using the scheme available at http://www. uctl.canterbury.ac.nz/adg/infoseries/infoseries.html and see Information Series 400/2).

Formation of the COP

With the advent of PBL, and an increase in student numbers, the teaching team expanded from five to eight tutors (three women and five men). Six were lecturers (ranging in experience from a new lecturer to two experienced teachers at professorial level), one was a teaching fellow (contracted to do undergraduate teaching) and the other was a doctoral student. Five members of the teaching team were involved in the initial planning of the course; one had some theoretical knowledge and another had a small amount of PBL teaching experience. Three teachers joined the team just prior to the start of teaching. While the teaching team constituted a community of practice, this was more of an informal arrangement and the ideals of a COP were not made explicit to the group. The core structure for the teaching group was a series of meetings that initially focused on planning the new curriculum. Teachers were also invited to a seminar on the theory of PBL, introduced to readings from the PBL literature (Barrows and Tamblyn, 1980; Macdonald, 2001) and given a series of documents on how to facilitate groups. Once teaching began, the focus for the group shifted to sharing experiences and an exploration of the emerging problems for teaching. Informal spaces for professional learning included corridor conversations, socializing outside of meetings and team-teaching on two residential field courses. 141
Downloaded from http://alh.sagepub.com by Roberto Hernandez Sampieri on October 17, 2009

ACTIVE LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION

10(2)

Research methodology
The practitioner action research was informed by the work of McNiff (1993), and RSS was the lead researcher. The research took place over a year, and one of the outcomes is the case study presented here, which examines the PBL transition experiences of geography teachers and the impact of systematic collaboration on this process. Data were collected from a range of sources that included the lead researchers (RSS) field notes, minutes or tape recordings of teaching team meetings, course documents, PBL handouts and email correspondence between members of the teaching team and RSS. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with each of the teachers at the end of the programme. All those who took part maintained reflective diaries that remained private to the individual (Harland, 2005). However, diary entries were sometimes referred to during meetings, and extracts were also quoted directly during interviews. Interview discussions focused on an exploration of transition experiences and the collaboration process. Each interview lasted about an hour, and tapes were transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed by the two authors of this article using an inductive approach in which emergent themes were determined by a systematic reading of all data and guided by the broad focus for the study (Thomas, 2006). Apart from the course coordinator (RSS), pseudonyms are used for all teachers.

Results
This section starts with some general comments about transition to teaching PBL and then deals more specifically with two interrelated themes that emerged from the study: the rules of PBL and facilitating groups. We then present an analysis of the COP and how this impacted on transition experiences and teachers learning.

1 Transition to PBL Most teachers said that they had enjoyed teaching with PBL and found it rewarding. They were pleased with how the course went and a couple said it had been fun, while another said he had laughed a lot and that it was pleasant teaching. The social aspect of getting to know a group of students was also appreciated. Most teachers were involved in other (nonPBL) teaching at the same time as this course, but none had any great difficulty switching teaching modes. One found facilitating PBL group work wonderfully relaxing (Kaufmann and Holmes, 1996) but other teachers experienced anxiety and stress generated by the perceived lack of structure (see Bernstein et al., 1995).
142
Downloaded from http://alh.sagepub.com by Roberto Hernandez Sampieri on October 17, 2009

SPRONKEN-SMITH & HARLAND: PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING

PBL rules
Thirdly, the Code is more what youd call guidelines than actual rules. Welcome aboard the Black Pearl, Miss Turner. (Pirates of the Caribbean, on the Pirates Code)

Coming to understand a new teaching approach seemingly based on a system of rules had important consequences for transition of teaching practices. PBL was seen to be different enough from conventional practice to force a major rethink about teaching and learning, and this required careful support in the group. Teachers were introduced to PBL in its original form (Barrows and Tamblyn, 1980): the starting point for inquiry is a problem the problem is presented to a group of students students are encouraged to be self-directed as they tackle the problem tutors take on a facilitative role that allows students the freedom to learn independently.

These foundational ideas were presented in an initial seminar and through readings. PBL theory was also discussed during the meetings and in email communications. Given such a thorough preparation it is not surprising that a team relatively inexperienced in PBL saw this as a teaching system characterized by a set of fixed steps. Teachers wanted to adhere to the rules even though experience quickly showed that these were at best broad guidelines, and this realization triggered some frustration. Yet the rules were invoked in a more instrumental manner time and again during discussions about practice and appropriate teacher actions.
PBL is more formal than anything I have done in the past. And so there are rules which in some ways I dont necessarily agree with. [Matthew]

Data showed that all teachers wanted to stick to the rules out of a concern for the new initiative, for equality of opportunity for students and to ensure convergence of teaching practices so that everyone did a similar job. It was argued that students might then have similar opportunities for learning and assessment. For example, some teachers were perceived to be giving more help to their students and the quality of these interventions was seen to vary too much. It was thought that if a teacher intervened less and let their students learn more by making mistakes and reflecting on them, the end result for this group might be a lower grade for the group components, but hopefully better (different) learning outcomes. In contrast, a more interventionist teacher could help to produce better-quality work with a higher grade, even though their students might not have had as rich a learning experience. Such differences were seen to undermine PBL and it was believed 143
Downloaded from http://alh.sagepub.com by Roberto Hernandez Sampieri on October 17, 2009

ACTIVE LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION

10(2)

that students understood this and saw it as unfair. In this case the rules were seen as inadequate but the solution was to suggest even more rules to sort the problem out.
. . . maybe in this course where we have so many tutors we probably need more guidelines. [Steven] . . . it might be quite nice to have a guide book for tutors to say well this is how deep you need to go, this is how much intervention you should produce. [Sam]

Adherence to rules seemed to overcome good sense and professional judgement, and we wonder whether or not the same issues would have arisen if the curriculum change had been about, for example, supervising a group research project in a conventional course rather than tutoring a group in a PBL programme. We suggest that the perceived radical nature of the change and the powerful PBL rubric initially rendered most of the team as novices. Exercising better judgement about teaching came later after experiences were shared with others. Importantly, although the question of rules usually provided a starting point for discussion, this focus may have also closed down space for a more radical critique of practice. Towards the end of the programme two teachers concluded that PBL was not so different from their normal teaching. One said that the department has being doing PBL for years but weve never called it that, and the other stated:
[I have] always done PBL in one form or another, just for it to be termed as such and to be officially written down and to be knowing you are doing it is different . . . to have a strict protocol is new. [Ben]

This teacher clearly felt that he had already been involved in PBL in his more conventional teaching although this was his first genuine experience. If such observations about rules apply more widely, at a certain level PBL may not be amenable to any rule-making or rule-following. In other words there may never be a definitive way of acting in a PBL situation and any guidelines or protocols are likely to quickly become redundant as they are assimilated in more personalized forms of knowledge.
Experiences of facilitation
Changing roles from givers of information to facilitators and resource providers is a difficult transition for many teachers, so begin where you feel most comfortable. (Rogers, 1969)

There were two main discussions about facilitating PBL groups. The first concerned the power to control learning activities, and the second concerned when and how to make interventions. The fundamental difficulty 144
Downloaded from http://alh.sagepub.com by Roberto Hernandez Sampieri on October 17, 2009

SPRONKEN-SMITH & HARLAND: PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING

appeared to be that teachers were not sure of what they were trying to achieve in terms of the purposes of PBL and this was complicated by the need to work as members of a course team. During the implementation stage the key concern for the majority was coming to terms with having less control over student-learning activities and content knowledge. The two less experienced teachers managed their groups much more closely than others. One even set the agenda for each student meeting and both tended to direct the group rather than take a back seat role preferred by the more experienced teachers. Ben commented:
I think I started on a little bit too, too hands on I think I approached this with a little bit too much of my other teaching style, which is quite autocratic I like to try and take control of things and to try and lead them a little bit more and very quickly I realized that I was doing a lot more than some of the other tutors were . . . so at that stage I took a bit more of a back seat and acted more as a facilitator.

He recognized that he lacked expertise but also said that teachers want their ideas to go into student work. However, Ben also said that as you gain experience you sort of tend to think there is more value in them learning more and more themselves. He gained a useful insight from a more experienced teacher who took over his class as part of the collaborative group exercise:
. . . like in a two hour meeting I would turn up for the whole time, for example, I know James took my group on one occasion and he took his marking and did that and went away and came back, whereas I was more, would sit there the whole time and then if they were spending half an hour on a tangent I would push them onto a more relevant tangent and say maybe they should look at this and aim to get certain items finished by the end of the meeting.

A hands-off approach was alien to Ben since most of his practice to date had involved a great deal of preparation and teaching structured sessions with high factual content. When he realized that facilitation of student learning could look very different he suggested that it would be possible to turn up to teach PBL with little preparation and do nothing or simply be on-call for the group. Maudsley (2002) has suggested that new teachers may see facilitation as no more than trying not to teach. Of the experienced teachers, Sam, said I never assumed control and similarly James said I made a pretty conscious effort to make sure it [the control] was on their [the students] shoulders. However, neither teacher let go immediately. Sam commented that he had control for most of the course but took a back seat as time went on. 145
Downloaded from http://alh.sagepub.com by Roberto Hernandez Sampieri on October 17, 2009

ACTIVE LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION

10(2)

. . . initially you naturally feel that you should be saying something or doing something . . . it wasnt difficult but it was strange sitting there . . . there is that sort of wanting to get in there but obviously you dont want to do that from the beginning and dominate the whole proceedings . . . [Sam]

Making judgements about intervention was variously described as frustrating and painful. However, Sam felt that this problem was also a team issue and he commented that you will have staff who are reluctant to give in at all, and then students will be left to wander about this quagmire of data . . . and then there will be other people who perhaps leap in too early and tell them what to do the whole way through. Knowing how much guidance to give was never resolved for anyone, and a new kind of teaching authority seems to be necessary for PBL which requires confidence that there will be other various and long-term benefits to student learning that may be simply too difficult to evaluate at the time.

2 Reflections on COP The initial thinking behind the change to PBL was based on the idea that it would be best accomplished through the collective efforts of the people affected (Evans and Taylor, 1996). Establishing a COP provided opportunities for sharing experiences, identifying problems and working out how to manage these. Those who took part already practised in various informal communities, but for the curriculum change the group was formalized with the specific aim of enhancing teacher transition and socially constructing new knowledge. There was also another complex dimension to this initiative as the group leader (RSS) wanted to examine the group processes as part of her action research:
[I] need to bring staff onside and do some action research tell them it is educational research and ask whether they can help no pressure either way, and explain my interests. I will be operating on two levels one as the teacher and another as a researcher. [field note]

Colleagues understood this and agreed to both purposes. Overall the collaborative process was seen to be worthwhile, and group members contributed in various ways that helped develop teaching expertise. They learned from sharing stories and from the attitudes and values displayed by their colleagues although these values were not always seen as positive. Teachers also developed a shared language (Wenger, 2000) for learning but not all had the same commitment to group goals or felt able to identify their own learning needs. Only five of the eight teachers were involved in planning and designing the PBL curriculum. They attended the seminar, planning meetings and the meeting to discuss the draft of the action research proposal. The initial 146
Downloaded from http://alh.sagepub.com by Roberto Hernandez Sampieri on October 17, 2009

SPRONKEN-SMITH & HARLAND: PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING

collegiality and goodwill in the group towards the action research and the course change provided a positive start. However, the course co-ordinator noted that:
[I was] uneasy about the relative lack of unease in the teaching team are they truly okay with the idea of the course or is it that they dont know what they are in for . . .? [RSS, field note]

Just before teaching started, three teachers were assigned to the course and joined the team, but they experienced a sense of being on the outside of a well-established group. One had some difficulty in buying into the ideals of PBL, and another never felt the same commitment as those involved from the start:
I was less engaged than others who perhaps had spent some time working through what was required. So I think it is probably important to get people on board early on in the process so that they sort of own part of it. [Sam]

All three saw this initiative as belonging to the course co-ordinator and that they were helping out, and this legacy lasted for the duration of the course. In retrospect, a more considered approach should have been adopted to involve the newer team members, both in the group and the new programme. Without a sense of ownership their experiences did not appear to result in a deep understanding of what was being attempted and they did not seem to feel a genuine commitment to others. Integration should have been a group responsibility. However, once the course was running, it was noted that the teachers who joined later (and others) would meet socially in the departmental coffee room, and PBL was often a topic of conversation and an opportunity for swapping stories. The whole teaching team also spent time together during the two residential courses and it became clear that informal discussions were important experiences for everyones learning. During the formal meetings teachers frequently deferred to the course co-ordinator for her guidance, and there was over-reliance on this one person as a source of knowledge, which caused the group to feel hierarchical. Chris said If there was anything I wasnt sure about I would have just come and seen you. Part of this over-reliance could be attributed to less than ideal professional relationships between group members. For example, it was reported that the two most experienced teachers attitudes sometimes alienated others, who then dealt with issues outside group meetings. Yet a key goal was for those less experienced (in teaching) to learn from those with more experience, despite the fact that nearly everyone was new to PBL. An initial assumption was that an experienced teacher could transfer some of their knowledge and skills to the problems of teaching PBL and 147
Downloaded from http://alh.sagepub.com by Roberto Hernandez Sampieri on October 17, 2009

ACTIVE LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION

10(2)

guide others. Furthermore, the group process should have ensured that those on the periphery would feel that they too had something to offer as they gained experience. Overall, it seemed that those with most experience had least to learn (or the most to unlearn?). Attitudes were quite public, and Matthew, a more experienced teacher, did not feel that his practice had altered during the year although he said that he still valued the meetings, especially at the start of teaching. One teacher suggested that the course team should have experienced PBL (in the same way as the students) before teaching it. Although this makes good sense, the problem-orientated activities of the teachers in the COP essentially mirrored those of the students in their PBL groups, but there was no awareness of this at the time. Expertise was shared in meetings but in the early stages this was often given rather than discussed. This later changed when the two key issues of rules and facilitation emerged. Even so, some still preferred to talk confidentially outside the group.
. . . at that first meeting James was talking and Pat was talking and I could see wow there were differences in how these two people were approaching the situation and I was sort of half way between and maybe I should back a bit more from that position. [Ben]

Ben said nothing about this in the group and later talked privately to Pat (both these academics were relatively new to teaching) to try to work out how much help to give students. Although he acknowledged learning from the meetings, his informal conversations with Pat were more important to him as he made the philosophical shift to focusing on the student learning process.

Discussion
The aim of this action research was to explore the experiences of a group of teachers as they made the transition to PBL and to examine how systematic collaboration supported learning during this process. The intention was to provide an authentic account of practice that reflected the thoughts and concerns of the teachers involved. Three important findings emerged: the struggle with the perceived rules of PBL; the difficulties in facilitation; and the operation of the COP, which was hierarchical, in contrast to expectations of student learning in PBL groups. Teachers struggled to varying degrees as they came to terms with the complex issues of how they should practise as a PBL teacher. This finding is in agreement with previous research. For example, Bernstein et al. (1995) noted the anxiety generated by the perceived lack of structure, and Azer (2001) discussed the uncertainty and potential stress with the unknown. 148
Downloaded from http://alh.sagepub.com by Roberto Hernandez Sampieri on October 17, 2009

SPRONKEN-SMITH & HARLAND: PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING

However, unlike previous studies, we found that teachers felt restricted with PBL because they tried to adhere to what came to be understood as a set of rules. The main reason given for adherence was that rules would ensure equality of student-learning outcomes and convergence of practice for all, which we propose is an unlikely aim for any established teaching. Paradoxically, some teachers wanted more rules to ensure that everyone offered the same input to their student groups. Thus, in the context of change, the powerful PBL rubric seemed to result in a compliance situation where rules were both followed and resisted but nevertheless had the effect of driving teaching behaviours as well as teacher thinking. The problem of applying rules was most evident with regard to the idea of teacher as facilitator and there seemed to be no easy answer to facilitation issues, although discussions helped some teachers engage critically with their experiences and make changes as the project progressed. New teachers had particular difficulty relinquishing control. This is contrary to the findings of Kaufmann and Holmes (1998) who suggested that experts would tend to present and explain material more frequently. In our study, five out of the six experienced teachers were more comfortable in a facilitative role. Thus these more experienced teachers appeared to have a student-centred philosophy of teaching (Kember, 1997). In contrast, the two new teachers (and one more experienced) displayed characteristics of a teacher-centred approach, and thus struggled with the desire to give students more control over their learning. The second facilitation problem was frustration or difficulty with knowing when to intervene. This problem is discussed by Maudsley (2002) and Khoo et al. (2001), who all comment on the emotional difficulties of taking on a facilitating role, and Kaufmann and Holmes (1996), who, as a result of observed difficulties, identified the need of further training in intervening appropriately. While the COP provided a valuable means for professional learning about teaching PBL, it could have operated far better. Ideally, as Moesby (2004) suggests, the teaching team should collectively develop a vision about the aims and outcomes of the course. While this was possible with five of the team, the late entry of three tutors meant that they had little ownership of the initiative. This is where an awareness of COP principles could have guided these three teachers to consider their commitment to the initiative. They participated in formal group meetings but were more comfortable approaching colleagues in informal settings. Although such private community spaces were recognized and valued, they were not integrated as a legitimate part of the main enterprise, and the course coordinator could have worked the private spaces between formal group meetings to achieve a better experience for all (Wenger et al., 2002). However, such an active role for the group leader might have created its own 149
Downloaded from http://alh.sagepub.com by Roberto Hernandez Sampieri on October 17, 2009

ACTIVE LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION

10(2)

challenges, as the study suggested that teachers had relied too much on her for guidance. The COP principles would certainly have helped here and perhaps reminded the course team that certain community values also mirrored their own expectations for student group work in PBL. For instance, too much telling when a group forms usually has a negative impact on how it operates and on developing a good balance of hierarchy, co-operation and autonomy (Heron, 1989: 27). On the whole, the collaborative group exercise provided a useful social space and a catalyst for professional learning as teachers made the transition to PBL. Using an action research methodology enhanced the understanding and practice of those who took part in this study. However, ideally action research should also make a contribution to knowledge and theory. In our study, theory evolution was limited because we only reported one cycle of the research over the first year. Within the research design there was a limitation for interpretation, because the main phenomenon (in our case transition) was identified before the research started and did not emerge from the concerns of the group. Furthermore, participants were learning to be action researchers as they inquired into their own and joint practices, and this necessarily frames thoughts and actions as transitional. This study has explored the experiences of a team of eight teachers learning to teach PBL for the first time. Thus the findings should be interpreted within the context of this case study. Nevertheless, this study has highlighted some issues that should be considered by both PBL co-ordinators and teachers, and some practical recommendations are provided in the next section.

Conclusions and implications for practice

This study of teacher transitions to PBL has added to the sparse literature that uses a qualitative approach to gain an in-depth understanding of teacher experiences of PBL. A key finding, new to the literature, was the perception that PBL teaching is characterized by a set of rules in order to ensure convergence of teaching practice and equality of opportunity for students. Teachers struggled to adhere to these rules and, paradoxically, wanted more rules to try to ensure equitable input by tutors. A second important finding was that the COP, while useful to facilitate professional learning, could have operated better to assist teachers in transition. Ideally the whole course team should have met early in the planning process to collectively achieve the following: Develop a vision for the PBL course. In particular educational values and educational intent need to be explored so that teachers can begin to justify what they hope to achieve in their practice (McNiff, 1993; Moesby, 2004). 150
Downloaded from http://alh.sagepub.com by Roberto Hernandez Sampieri on October 17, 2009

SPRONKEN-SMITH & HARLAND: PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING

Discuss the formation of a COP. This should include consideration of the principles underpinning a COP to hasten the process of the group becoming self-aware of its own practices. Strive to maintain open discussion about teaching and learning issues. This last point is particularly important if there are teachers holding teachercentred conceptions of PBL teaching so that they can be supported as they grapple with a transition towards the required student-centred approach. This study has focused on a small group of tutors teaching PBL for the first time within a geography programme. Further qualitative studies are needed to capture experiences of first-time PBL tutors in other settings. An examination of the different experiences and conceptions of new and experienced teachers could assist PBL course co-ordinators in helping tutors adjust to teaching PBL. Savin-Baden and Major (2004) suggested that learning about PBL may require practitioner insight into how the individual has positioned themselves within higher education, with respect to their beliefs, values and orientation to change. The relationship between a teachers educational values and their practice is a worthy area for new empirical research in PBL. This study highlighted a difficulty of ensuring legitimate participation for all, particularly teachers new to the initiative. Despite good planning, it is often the case that teachers join a curriculum team just prior to teaching. Thus future research could examine how teacher experiences and knowledge gained through informal communities can be brought into the formal COP setting to ensure legitimate participation for all members.

Acknowledgements
Special thanks are due to Sarah Stein, Ranald Macdonald, Lynne P Baldwin and the anonymous referees for comments on the manuscript.

References
(2001) Problem-Based Learning Challenges, Barriers and Outcome Issues, Saudi Medical Journal 22: 38997. BARROWS, H. S. (1988) The Tutorial Process. Springfield, IL: Southern Illinois University School of Medicine. BARROWS, H. S. & TAMBLYN, R. M. (1980) Problem-Based Learning An Approach to Medical Education. New York: Springer. 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: 2457. CLOUSTON, T. J. (2007) Exploring Methods of Analysing Talk in Problem-Based Learning Tutorials, Journal of Further and Higher Education 31(2): 1839.
AZER, S. A. DOLMANS, D. H. J . M., GISJELAERS, W. H., MOUST, J. H. C., DE GRAVE, W. S., WOLFHAGEN, I. H. A. P. & VAN DER VLEUTEN, C. P. M. (2002) Trends in Research

151
Downloaded from http://alh.sagepub.com by Roberto Hernandez Sampieri on October 17, 2009

ACTIVE LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION

10(2)

On the Tutor in Problem-Based Learning: Conclusions and Implications For Educational Practice and Research, Medical Teacher 24(2): 17380. ERTMER, P. A. & SIMONS, K. D. (2006) Jumping the Implementation Hurdle: Supporting the Efforts of K-12 Teachers, The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning 1(1): 4054. EVANS, P. A. & TAYLOR, D. C. M. (1996) Staff Development of Tutor Skills For Problem-Based Learning, Medical Education 30: 35666. FULLER, A., HODKINSON, H., HODKINSON, P. & UNWIN, L. (2005) Learning as Peripheral Participation in Communities of Practice: A Reassessment of Key Concepts in Workplace Learning, British Educational Research Journal 31(1): 4968. HARLAND, T. (1998) Moving towards Problem-Based Learning, Teaching in Higher Education 3(2): 21929. HARLAND, T . (2002) Zoology Students Experiences of Collaborative Enquiry in Problem-Based Learning, Teaching in Higher Education 7(1): 617. HARLAND, T. (2005) Developing a Portfolio to Promote Authentic Enquiry in Teacher Education, Teaching in Higher Education 10(3): 32737. HMELO-SILVER, C. E. & BARROWS, H. S. (2006) Goals and Strategies of a Problem-Based Learning Facilitator, The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning1(1): 2139. HERON, J. (1989) The Facilitators Handbook. London: Kogan Page. KAUFMAN, D. M. & HOLMES, D. B. (1996) Tutoring in Problem-Based Learning: Perceptions of Teachers and Students, Medical Education 30: 3717. KAUFMAN, D. M. & HOLMES, D. B. (1998) The Relationship of Tutors Content Expertise to Interventions and Perceptions in a PBL Medical Curriculum, Medical Education 32: 25561. KEMBER, D. (1997) A Reconceptualisation of Research into University Academics Conceptions of Teaching, Learning and Instruction 7: 25575. KHOO, H. E., CHHEM, R. K., GWEE, M. C. E. & BALASUBRAMANIAM, P. (2001) Introduction of Problem-Based Learning in a Traditional Medical Curriculum in Singapore Students and Tutors Perspectives, Annals Academy of Medicine Singapore 30: 3714. LAVE, J. & WENGER, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. New York: Cambridge University Press. MACDONALD, R. (2001) Problem-Based Learning: Implications For Educational Developers, Educational Developments 2(2): 15. MCNIFF, J. (1993) Teaching as Learning: An Action Research Approach. London: Routledge.
MATTHEW-MAICH, N., MINES, C., BROWN, B., LUNYK-CHILD, O., CARPIO, B., DRUMMOND-YOUNG, M., NOESGAARD, C. & LINTON, J. (2007) Evolving as

Nurse Educators in Problem-Based Learning Through a Community of Faculty Development, Journal of Professional Nursing 23(2): 7582. MAUDSLEY, G. (2002) Making Sense of Trying to Teach: An Interview Study of Tutors Ideas of Problems-Based Learning, Academic Medicine 77: 16272. MOESBY, E. (2004) Reflections on Making a Change towards Project Oriented and Problem-Based Learning (POPBL), World Transactions On Engineering and Technology Education 3: 26978. ROGERS, C. (1969) Freedom to Learn. New York: Merrill Publishing Company. ROWAN, C., MCCOURT, C., BICK, D. & BEAKE, S. (2007) Problem-Based Learning in Midwifery the Teachers Perspective, Nurse Education Today 27: 1318.

152
Downloaded from http://alh.sagepub.com by Roberto Hernandez Sampieri on October 17, 2009

SPRONKEN-SMITH & HARLAND: PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING

(2006) Overview of Problem-Based Learning: Definitions and Distinctions, Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning 1(1): 920. SAVIN-BADEN, M. (2000) Problem-Based Learning in Higher Education: Untold Stories. Buckingham: Society For Research into Higher Education and Open University Press. SAVIN-BADEN, M. & MAJOR, C. H. (2004) Foundations of Problem-Based Learning. Buckingham: Society For Research into Higher Education and Open University Press. SAVIN-BADEN, M. & WILKIE, K. (2004) Challenging Research in Problem-Based Learning. Buckingham, Society For Research into Higher Education and Open University Press. SPRONKEN-SMITH, R. A. (2005) Implementing a Problem-Based Learning Approach for Teaching Research Methods in Geography, Journal of Geography in Higher Education 29: 20321. THOMAS, D. (2006) A General Inductive Approach For Analyzing Qualitative Evaluation Data, American Journal of Evaluation 27(1): 110. WENGER, E. (2000) Communities of Practice and Social Learning Systems, Organisation 7(2): 22546. WENGER, E., MCDERMOTT, R. & SNYDER, W.M. (2002) Cultivating Communities of Practice. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
SAVERY, J. R.

Biographical notes
RACHEL SPRONKEN-SMITH

is an Associate Professor at the University of Otago, New Zealand. Her research interests are in teaching and learning through inquiry and the forms that inquiry takes, such as problem-based learning (PBL). During the research period of the present paper, she was teaching geography at a New Zealand university. Address: Higher Education Development Centre, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. [email: rachel.spronken-smith@otago.ac.nz]

TONY HARLAND is an Associate Professor at the University of Otago. He has had a long interest in PBL practice and research. Address: Higher Education Development Centre, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. [email: tony.harland@stonebow.otago.ac.nz]

153
Downloaded from http://alh.sagepub.com by Roberto Hernandez Sampieri on October 17, 2009