Reflections on the use of problem-based learning

Here Andrew Scott (University of East Anglia), co-ordinator of the UKCLE PBL working group, reflects on his experiences of using PBL – see his case study for further information and examples of his methods. To find out more or discuss any issues raised contact Andrew on e-mail: a.d.scott@uea.ac.uk.

Problem-based learning (PBL) has been used on the core constitutional and administrative law unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA) for two academic years. We have attempted to maintain a similar amount of teaching contact hours to that undertaken in previous years. If our experience to date has taught us anything it is the need for continuing reflection on the aims, the methods, and ultimately the success of our teaching practice. Working with PBL is a process of ongoing adjustment. We hope that this discussion of our practice – which is far from perfect – might prove to be of some value to fellow law teachers.

Preparing the ground: developing problems

To ‘get started’ in the use of PBL we found it helpful to sketch the necessary syllabus as we saw it (in this case covering introductions to judicial review and civil liberties). Having this schema pre-prepared allowed us to pinpoint those matters upon which our problems must focus, and to ensure that collectively our problem set encompassed every significant issue on the syllabus. Notwithstanding this tailoring, however, we didn’t seek to write perfectly neat or ‘closed’ problems. Rather, we sought to mirror situations imaginable in practice, knotty and open-ended as they may be. Moreover, each successive problem reiterated to some degree material previously encountered. On reflection, there has been no better means to assess the suitability of a problem than actually using it and witnessing how well (or otherwise) students pick up such aspects as we intended. There can be a tension between intervening to steer groups towards what we perceive as the more ‘pertinent’ issues and merely ‘going with the flow’. I have found it more natural to intervene, albeit not immediately; perhaps this is unwarranted and counter-productive, but it feels appropriate.

Preparing the ground: preparing ourselves

This last comment draws attention to one notable factor in respect of our practice at UEA. While we have each undertaken generic teaching courses, neither myself nor – I think – my colleagues have pursued training specifically to prepare us for PBL practice. Such staff development workshops are available in the university here as I’m sure elsewhere. It would no doubt be beneficial to be more structured in our approach. Indeed, I feel our relative under-preparedness has been the most significant drawback in our implementation of the PBL method. This is something we are now looking to rectify.

What we have done, in addition to familiarising ourselves well with available literature, is act as an effective ‘peer panel’ for one another. Before setting out we brainstormed regarding prospective difficulties, and now discuss problematic or interesting issues and observations as they arise. Such mutual support has been invaluable.

Preparing the ground: preparing our students

One of the tasks we face each year is introducing our students to the PBL approach. We are not helped by the fact that we use PBL methods only in the second semester, and none of the remaining first year units adopt similar methods. Students have become familiar with the standard lecture/seminar mode regarding notionally ‘discrete’ subject units, and are now asked to shift towards a more holistic approach to legal study. To prepare the way, we hold interactive lectures with the entire group at the end of the first semester. During this time we introduce the PBL concept, consider its costs and benefits, outline how it is used on this unit and explain the process of individual reflection and group reporting. We highlight online resources where students can learn more, and in particular one or two websites which discuss groupworking. Throughout the discussion we encourage comments and questions and follow this up with a discussion on Blackboard (more generally, the use of an electronic package of this nature has proved vital in the facility it offers for us to communicate with students and to make resources widely available, as well as for students to interact with one another).

Overall, each year at this stage the response from students has been mixed – although generally very positive – with a fair dose of trepidation. Here again though, a greater level of preparedness would probably be beneficial. We are currently contemplating the inclusion of an initial seminar focused specifically on the groupworking process into our overall scheme. From the students’ feedback this would seem an important development.

Feedback to students

At the culmination of the problem cycle each subgroup meets with their tutor to discuss their solution to the problem, a written version having being submitted one or two days previously. This session – part interrogation of solution, part feedback – lasts around 30 minutes. Students are also provided with short written comments on their written work and a ‘model’ answer devised by faculty. Part of a following lecture is devoted to reviewing the problem and highlighting its key lessons.

Students are encouraged to provide feedback to one another on their respective contributions to the groupworking process. While the most efficient and ‘manageable’ means of doing this may well be during class time, our attempt to maintain a similar number of teaching hours to previous years has effectively precluded this approach. Instead, we have used a pro forma submission to Blackboard. This form encourages students to reflect on their own contribution and such lessons as they might draw for future group practice. It also asks them to comment on the participation of each of the other members of their group. Commentary on each student is then collated from the forms submitted by their peers, moderated if necessary (extremely seldom), and returned to the student electronically. This has proved an extremely time-consuming process. An alternative would be to allow anonymous posting of comments on each group’s closed space on Blackboard, but the difficulties of moderating such a forum pose a danger of dysfunctional groups spiralling out of control in cyberspace!

Feedback from students

Feedback received from students – formal and otherwise – has been invaluable in our development of the use of PBL. It is notable that when invited to be constructively critical students don’t disappoint; in the first year of operation we were inundated with comment. Much of this was contradictory, implying students drew different things from the exercise. From course evaluations, around 60% of our students were either positive or very positive regarding the PBL classes to the point where they would recommend wider adoption. At the same time, 26% were either negative or very negative, and we were made aware of some quite significant perceived drawbacks. Notable among these were the difficulties posed by ‘non-committal’ group members; the tendency of group members to divide the work but not to collate their respective findings with the result that only a partial knowledge was gained by each individual, and the sense of loss of an overall syllabus framework. Each of these problems was thematic in students’ comments. There were also a range of specific comments relating to particular elements of our practice. We did make a number of alterations in our approach between years 1 & 2, and no doubt will be re-evaluating again in the early summer. If ‘learning by doing’ is good for the students, then we can’t complain if we face the same conundrum.

Last Modified: 4 June 2010