Journal of Geography in Higher Education

ISSN: 0309-8265 (Print) 1466-1845 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjgh20

Implementing a Problem-Based Learning

Approach for Teaching Research Methods in
Geography
RACHEL SPRONKEN-SMITH
To cite this article: RACHEL SPRONKEN-SMITH (2005) Implementing a Problem-Based Learning
Approach for Teaching Research Methods in Geography, Journal of Geography in Higher
Education, 29:2, 203-221, DOI: 10.1080/03098260500130403
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03098260500130403

Published online: 22 Jan 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 607

View related articles

Citing articles: 44 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjgh20
Download by: [Universiti Sains Malaysia]

Date: 12 May 2016, At: 21:07

Downloaded by [Universiti Sains Malaysia] at 21:07 12 May 2016

Journal of Geography in Higher Education,

Vol. 29, No. 2, 203221, July 2005

Implementing a Problem-Based Learning

Approach for Teaching Research Methods
in Geography
RACHEL SPRONKEN-SMITH
Higher Education Development Centre, University of Otago, New Zealand

ABSTRACT This paper first describes problem-based learning; second describes how a research
methods course in geography is taught using a problem-based learning approach; and finally
relates student and staff experiences of this approach. The course is run through regular group
meetings, two residential field trips and optional skills-based workshops. Course evaluations
improved markedly following the introduction of this approach and students appreciated the
benefits of the problem-based learning approach, particularly through working in groups on
authentic problems that were relevant to future workplace scenarios. They were also able to
further develop a range of transferable skills, particularly in teamwork. However, they may not
have increased other transferable skills (such as in oral communication) as much as desired due
to the tendency for groups to draw on individual strengths to complete collaborative group tasks.
Other concerns were group size, the high workload and coping with group dynamics. Tutors
found the teaching to be enjoyable, relaxing and very rewarding but there were some anxieties
due to the unpredictable nature of the course as well as frustration at knowing when to
intervene. However, despite these difficulties for both students and staff, the authors are
sufficiently encouraged by the response to continue teaching using a problem-based learning
approach.
KEY WORDS : Problem-based learning, geography, research methods, group work

Introduction
In recent years there has been a move towards more student-centred approaches to
teaching. Geography has typically been quick to embrace innovation in teaching and with
strong traditions of small-group work, both through laboratory and field teaching, is well
placed to try such teaching methods as problem-based learning (PBL). This paper has
three objectives: to describe problem-based learning, discuss why it is of interest to
teachers and consider how relevant the technique is to the discipline of geography; to
describe how we teach a research methods course in geography using PBL; and to discuss
student and staff experiences of this approach.
Correspondence Address: Rachel Spronken-Smith, Higher Education Development Centre, University of Otago,
Private Bag 56, Dunedin, New Zealand. Email: rachel.spronken-smith@stonebow.otago.ac.nz
ISSN 0309-8265 Print/1466-1845 Online/05/020203-19 q 2005 Taylor & Francis Group Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/03098260500130403

204

R. Spronken-Smith

Downloaded by [Universiti Sains Malaysia] at 21:07 12 May 2016

What is Problem-Based Learning?

As Macdonald (2001, p. 1) notes, PBL, despite its large number of sometimes overzealous and even evangelical converts, has almost as many forms as places where it is
used. Despite the debate over exactly what form it takes, there is some agreement over
common elements of the approach. PBL organizes the curricular content around problem
scenarios, rather than by subjects or topics. It is a method of learning in which the problem
is encountered first and then there is a systematic, student-centred enquiry process. The
purpose is to stimulate learning of information and concepts brought out by problems. PBL
involves teaching both a method of approaching and an attitude towards problem-solving.
It is an approach that is characterized by its flexibility and diversity since it can be
implemented in a variety of ways in different subjects and disciplines (Savin-Baden,
2000).
The inherent characteristics of a PBL approach are given in Table 1. These include
features such as passing the responsibility of learning onto students so that the role of the
tutor is as a facilitator. Barrows & Tamblyn (1980) suggested one model of PBL:
1. The problem is encountered first in the learning process.
2. The problem is presented in a way that is relevant to professional practice. The
problem usually transcends disciplinary boundaries so that an interdisciplinary
approach is required to tackle the problem.
3. Students must work with the problem, reason and apply knowledge.
4. With the guidance of the tutor, students explore the problem, identifying
strengths and weaknesses in learning and using these as a guide to individualized
study.
5. The skills and knowledge acquired by this self-study are applied back to the
problem and evaluation of learning occurs.
6. Students reflect on the learning process and the content gained through working
on the problem.
To illustrate how this model of PBL works in action, consider the following. Ideally a
potential employer (or perhaps more commonly the lecturer) meets with the class to
introduce problems or issues. Groups are then selected (preferably through choice of
topic) so that teams of students (typically 4 6) are working on a particular problem. A
team of tutors work with the groupsthis may involve one tutor per group or one tutor
may oversee several groups. The groups must first decide how they are going to operate
as a group and they then begin research on their problem. Often this process begins with

Table 1. Characteristics of a problem-based learning approach

Learning builds on prior knowledge
Students take responsibility for their own learning
Learning is multidisciplinary
Theory and practice are inextricably intertwined
Focus on the process of knowledge acquisition (rather than on the products of such processes)
Staff role is that of facilitator
Movement towards student self- and peer-assessment
Focus on communication and interpersonal skills
Source: After Boud (1985).

Downloaded by [Universiti Sains Malaysia] at 21:07 12 May 2016

Implementing a PBL Approach for Teaching Research Methods

205

a brainstorming session in which group members find out what they know about the
problem, and where there are knowledge gaps. At the end of each group meeting the
students must have an action plan. This clearly identifies the tasks to be done before
the next meeting and who is going to do them. Students then go away and work on their
tasks and bring back their findings to the next group meeting. The group discusses the
new knowledge and decides on further action. Throughout the process students keep
reflective diaries to record thoughts about the group process and their learning in the
course.
While group work is an inherent ingredient of PBL, the use of group work in a course
does not equate to a PBL approach. Importantly, the philosophy of a PBL course must
be to offer students a rich learning experience by embedding the learning in group work
researching a problem and constructing new knowledge and gaining intellectual and
transferable (or enterprise) skills accordingly, rather than using a lecture format (where
experts are transmitting knowledge). However, some PBL practitioners may use a
different model of PBL that combines a lecture programme with group project work
(e.g. Fournier, 2002). Overton (2001) provides a good overview of Web resources for
PBL. For lecturers new to the approach try http://www.hss.coventry.ac.uk/pbl/index.htm
or for an extensive list of publications related to PBL try http://www.udel.edu/pbl/.
Why is PBL of Interest to Teachers?
Biggs (1999, p. 58) suggests that good teaching is getting most students to use the higher
cognitive level processes that the more academic students use spontaneously. Good
teaching narrows the gap. The challenge, he argues, is to find a teaching method that
maximizes the chances of engaging students higher cognitive level processes. Biggs
(1999, 2003) suggests that we should have constructive alignment which is based on the
principles of constructivism in learning and alignment in teaching. The constructivist
theory of learning is based on the premise that meaning is not transmitted by direct
instruction, but that meaning is created by the students learning activities. What students
will construct from a learning encounter depends on student factors such as prior
knowledge, ability and motivation, the teaching context such as objectives, assessment,
teaching and institutional procedures, and the teaching/learning activities. Further and
importantly, the teaching context should be aligned in which there are clear objectives
that state the level of understanding required, the students are engaged in appropriate
learning activities that will meet the objectives and the assessment tasks address the
objectives (Biggs, 2003).
There is some controversy over whether a PBL approach results in higher quality
learning outcomes for students (e.g. see Sadlo & Richardson, 2003). In a comparison of
problem-based, subject-based or hybrid curricula for the teaching of occupational therapy,
Sadlo and Richardson (2003) found that the implementation of a problem-based
curriculum had desirable effects on the quality of learning. However, in a review of the
effectiveness of PBL in medical teaching, Colliver (2000) suggested there was no
convincing evidence that PBL improves knowledge and clinical performance. Davis &
Harden (1999) were unconcerned that PBL students may have gaps in their knowledge,
since through a PBL approach students will learn how to identify their own learning needs
and how to make use of educational resources, and over time can remedy any deficits in
knowledge for themselves.

206

R. Spronken-Smith

Downloaded by [Universiti Sains Malaysia] at 21:07 12 May 2016

Another pedagogical reason for adopting a PBL approach is the suggestion that
collaborative inquiry approaches such as PBL serve to strengthen the links between
teaching and researchsomething that is often sought in the university environment
(Elton, 2001; Jenkins et al., 2003). Jenkins et al. (2003) suggest that one strategy to
strengthen teaching-research links is to develop students abilities to carry out research. To
do this they offer a range of possibilities including:
. getting students to learn in ways that mirror research processes such as through
collaborative inquiry working on real-world problems;
. assessing students in ways that mirror research processes such as getting students
to write a consultancy report;
. providing training in relevant research skills and knowledge.
Thus there are many sound reasons why geography teachers should consider using a
collaborative inquiry approach such as PBL in their teaching.
PBL and Group Project Work in Geography
While PBL has its origins firmly in medical schools, the approach has found increasing
favour in other disciplines. Although it is relatively new in geography, one could argue
that the technique is ideally suited to this discipline since, by its very nature, geography is
already interdisciplinaryone of the main ingredients of a PBL approach. Bradbeer
(1996) discussed the use of PBL in fieldwork preparation in a second-year undergraduate
geography class while Fournier (2002) used the approach in a first-year world regional
geography course.
Although the use of PBL in geography is relatively sparse, the discipline is well known
for small-group teaching through laboratory and field teaching. Both PBL and some other
forms of small-group teaching are founded on the principles of collaborative inquiry,
whereby students take more responsibility for: determining what they need to learn;
identifying resources and how best to learn from them; using resources and reporting their
learning; and assessing their progress in learning (McMaster University, 2004). Clark and
Wareham (1998, p. 3) discuss the potential of small-group teaching to give students a
fuller, rounder and more challenging experience where they can think and reflect, learn
and practise skills, they can discuss and learn to be critical thinkers, they can become more
active and deeper learners by participating in their own learning.
Many geographers have embraced group work to provide a rich learning experience for
students and to equip them with transferable skills (Healey, 1992; Crewe, 1994; Healey
et al., 1996; Burkill, 1997; Livingstone & Lynch, 2002). These studies illustrate the
variety of courses that can use collaborative enquiry, and importantly they discuss some
core pedagogical issues around the use of group work. The introduction of teaching
innovations such as group work has to be handled carefully, particularly where these
challenge the traditional roles of tutors and students (Healey, 1992). Students may often
resist a change in roles to become active learners (Healey, 1992; Livingstone & Lynch,
2002) so that group work should be carefully and appropriately designed and managed.
This may involve the facilitation of group working structures, a course structure of
transparent accountability and support, and an opportunity for students to reflect on their
learning approaches (Livingstone & Lynch, 2002). Further, there should be mechanisms to
allow rapid feedback and to respond to legitimate concerns (Healey, 1992). Although past

Implementing a PBL Approach for Teaching Research Methods

207

research suggests students may be uneasy with a group-work approach and the higher
workloads (e.g. Crewe, 1994), over time they usually come to realize the benefits such as
high-quality work (Burkill, 1997) and the acquiring of transferable skills (Healey et al.,
1996; Livingstone & Lynch, 2002). Thus the overall experience tends to be a positive one
that provides more interest and enthusiasm for a subject and develops autonomous
learning in students (Burkill, 1997).

Downloaded by [Universiti Sains Malaysia] at 21:07 12 May 2016

Rationale for Changing our Research Methods Course to take a PBL Approach
In 2001 we had the opportunity to revamp our third-year geography research methods
course as our undergraduate programme at the University of Canterbury became fully
semesterized. The course had been running over a full year and involved weekly lectures, a
laboratory programme and a residential field course that involved group project work. The
course had not been performing well, with a low overall course rating of 2.9 out of 5
received in 2000 (Table 2). A class survey involving 33 students in 2000 found that the
aspects of learning that students liked the most were group work (79 per cent), the field trip
(76 per cent), and individual project work (42 per cent). The features that the students
disliked were the laboratories (48 per cent), the statistical components of the course (42 per
cent), and the lecture content (21 per cent). The course had a largely teacher-centred
approach, although there was a group project.
Given the potential benefits of collaborative inquiry to student learning, and the student
feedback which was strongly in favour of group work, we opted to revamp the course to
use a problem-based learning approach. The PBL approach is well suited to a research
methods course since students could learn about the research process while working on
research problems (thus following a pathway to strengthen teaching-research links
identified by Jenkins et al., 2003). Further, by researching professional problems, it was
hoped that students could immediately see the relevance not only of learning about the
research process, but also in learning transferable skills that would be valuable in the
workplace.
Table 2. Summary of standard University of Canterbury course evaluations for the Research
Methods Course
Question
1. Well organized?
2. Stimulate interest?
3. Workload?
4. Difficulty?
5. Overall good quality course?
Supplementary questions
a. Effective teaching methods?
b. WebCT supporting learning?
c. Development of problem-solving and
analytical skills?
d. Assessment items tested most
significant aspects of the course?

2000 (n=53/65)

2002 (n=37/63)

2003 (n=27/75)

3.1
2.6
3.3
3.2
2.9

3.8
3.7
4.1
3.6
3.8

4.4
4.1
3.6
3.1
4.3

3.4
4.1
3.9

3.8
4.6
4.4

3.3

4.2

Notes: The year 2000 is prior to the PBL approach. For questions 1, 2, 5 and a-d: 1 is strongly disagree,
2 disagree, 3 neutral, 4 agree, 5 strongly agree, while for questions 3 and 4: 1 is too light/easy, 3 is
reasonable and 5 is too heavy/hard.

208

R. Spronken-Smith

This paper continues by describing how we structured and taught the course using a
PBL approach. Following this, the experiences of students and staff are related as they
encountered PBL for the first time.
Problem-Based Learning Approach in Research Methods Course

Downloaded by [Universiti Sains Malaysia] at 21:07 12 May 2016

Overview of the Course

The research methods course is for third-year students and is a prerequisite for entry to
graduate level. The course runs for one semester, which is equivalent to about 130 hours of
student effort. The PBL form of the course was first introduced in 2002 and feedback from
staff and students was used to fine-tune the course for 2003. The objectives of the course
were for students to:
.
.
.
.

develop their ability to undertake geographical research;

develop their skills in team work;
further develop their written, numerate, computer and oral communication skills;
foster a critical appreciation of the research of others;

in preparation for graduate study and for entry into the workforce.
The teaching team developed a set of problems (Table 3) with an external agency that
was a potential employer (the Canterbury Development Corporation in 2002 and the
local and regional councils in 2003). It was decided to use a potential employer to
motivate and enthuse the students, and to enforce both the relevance of their research
problems and the importance of further developing transferable skills. The use of
representatives from external agencies is not new (Harland, 2002) but often they are
brought in towards the end of the course to help assess student work (e.g. see Healey
et al., 1996; Worsley, 2003).
The class initially met to outline the goals of the course and its PBL approach, and a
representative of the external agency introduced the research problems. Students were
then able to indicate which problems were of interest and were placed into groups of 5-8
with a staff tutor. The placement was driven mainly by student preference but in the
interests of equity we tried to obtain gender balance (or at least representation) in each
group.
Table 3. Examples of research problems for groups
How well is the Christchurch public prepared in the likely event of a major earthquake hitting the
South Island?
How can New Brighton be redeveloped to achieve enhanced public accessibility to the coastal
environment while maintaining hazard mitigation?
How do cultural understandings about gender and ethnicity construct barriers to gender and racial
equality in the workplace?
What are the implications of a policy of zero waste both on the environment and on the Christchurch
public?
How prevalent are portable gas heaters in homes and what is the indoor air pollution associated with
them?
What are the characteristics of ocean currents and sediment transport at the proposed site of sewage
outfall near Brighton?
What role do the media play in the air pollution debate?

Downloaded by [Universiti Sains Malaysia] at 21:07 12 May 2016

Implementing a PBL Approach for Teaching Research Methods

209

The first group meeting focused on a discussion of problem-based learning and the
importance of group processes. In the first class meeting described above, a video on
collaborative learning by Macbeth & MacCallum (1996) was shown and the issues raised
by the video were used to generate discussion in groups. Subsequently, students were
asked to determine what features would help group dynamics and the group members
collectively negotiated a set of guidelines for the operation of the groups (see example in
Table 4). This included consideration of the roles of group members, the role of a Chair
(usually groups decided to rotate this position), the role of the tutor and any other roles
such as the need to keep minutes and/or to generate an action plan at each meeting.
The next meeting of the groups was during the first residential field trip in which the
whole class went away together for a weekend to a convention venue about an hours drive
away. The objectives of the trip were:
1. to participate in workshops on research design and various methods of data
collection in geography;
2. to allow groups to start research on their problem;
3. to allow students and staff to interact in an informal setting.
An important element of this trip was the last objective relating to socializing and teambuilding so that group members could better get to know each other and their tutor. Thus
the field trip had a mix of sessions with plenaries for the whole class, parallel sessions
with workshops on research design and data-collection methods for both human and
physical geography research, space for group discussion, team-building exercises and
quiz nights.
On returning from the field trip, group meetings (2 hours scheduled with their tutor each
week) focused on their research problem. The first assignment (worth 20 per cent in 2002,
15 per cent in 2003) was a piece of individual writing involving a comparative critique of
two papers related to their project. In the last week of the first term, the class met as a
whole again and each group had to give a brief oral presentation to the class about their
progress. Most of the primary data collection was carried out in the vacation following this
session. In 2003, in response to student requests, we ran optional workshops on a variety of
topics to assist students to develop certain research skills. Workshop topics included
Table 4. Example of negotiated guidelines for the operation of a group
Role of group members
To be willing to participate
in all group activities
To be supportive of others
ideas and experiences
To have good listening skills
To make allowances for
peoples lifestyles
To have respect for others
abilities and disabilities
To offer constructive criticism

Role of Chair
(to be rotated each week)
To set the agenda and run
the meeting
To ensure everyone has a
fair chance to participate
To keep to the task at hand
and to ensure progress is made
To provide a supportive
environment
To summarize the discussion
at times to advance the meeting
To provide biscuits for the
tea break!

Role of tutor
To act as a guide
To provide a supportive
learning environment
To encourage student
initiative
To adopt a position of
co-learner
To support the group
endeavour
To encourage exploration
of alternatives

Downloaded by [Universiti Sains Malaysia] at 21:07 12 May 2016

210

R. Spronken-Smith

database searching and Endnote, poster design and production, producing and giving
presentations using PowerPoint and help with statistical analyses of their project data.
Midway through the second term there was a residential conference (back to the earlier
venue) involving the whole class, tutoring team and guests such as departmental visitors,
as well as the representative from the external agency. The idea of a residential conference
came from our postgraduate programme, which had often run such events in which
students presented their work. Similar mini-conferences have been reported by other
geographers (e.g. Worsley, 2003). For this Research Methods course the groups presented
their results both visually via a poster session and in oral sessions. Other elements, typical
of a conference, were included in the programme such as conference field trips (e.g.
kayaking, walking, winery visit) and a conference dinner. Each presentation was self- and
peer-assessed by the students, as well as being assessed by the tutors and independent
judges (including the representative of the external agency). The oral and poster
presentations were worth 15 per cent each to give 30 per cent of the final grade. The groups
were given their evaluation forms so they could use the feedback in the fine-tuning of
the written report, which was due about a week after the conference. The group report
(worth 20 per cent in 2002, 40 per cent in 2003) was marked for both product and process.
Half of the mark attained by an individual was derived from the mark for the group
report, while the other half was moderated by peer- and self-assessment of contribution
to the group. A scheme developed by the University of Canterbury Centre for Teaching
and Learning (Appendix A) was used for this process and feedback from both staff and
students suggested that it was a very fair way to recognize and reward (or penalize)
variation in contribution to the group. An earlier variant of this scheme is given by Healey
et al. (1994) and Healey (1999).
Throughout the course the students and tutors kept reflective diaries. These were used to
collect data concerning progress on the group work and group processes, and to reflect on
individual learning. These data collected in the reflective diaries were used in the final
piece of assessment, which was an individual critique of the research process adopted in
their group and a reflection on their learning in the course (worth 30 per cent in 2002, 15
per cent in 2003). The use of reflective diaries in geography coursework is discussed by
Hughes (2001).
The course was strongly supported by Web resources using Web Courseware Tools
(WebCT) as a framework (Figure 1). The Web pages included:
. basic housekeeping for the course where information about the course was posted
together with any feedback from evaluations throughout the course (such as from
field trips).
. learning resources, which had a wealth of information on the research process, as
well as research skills (such as preparation of posters, keeping reflective diaries
etc.) (see Figure 2).
. a discussion facility where each research group had their own ongoing discussion
of their research project, and had to post meeting minutes. This facility was
extensively used by most groups (e.g. a couple of groups posted over 200
messages during the course) to share resources (particularly references), to plan
meetings out of the scheduled time and to exchange dialogue about the
development of assessed work.

Downloaded by [Universiti Sains Malaysia] at 21:07 12 May 2016

Implementing a PBL Approach for Teaching Research Methods

211

Figure 1. The homepage of the course in the WebCT framework

The use of Web tools in the delivery of this course was based on sound pedagogic reasons.
First the tools were used to provide students with more flexible access to much of the
information that was covered in the first field trip. Second, we wanted a cyberspace in
which the groups could interact as they conducted their own research. Not all students
could make the scheduled meetings and this was an extremely useful forum for them to
keep in touch with, and participate in, group activities.

The Teaching Team

The teaching team consisted of six people including lecturers (from new lectures to those
with over 20 years experience), doctoral students and a teaching fellow (contracted to do
undergraduate teaching in 2002). Several researchers examining implementing PBL have
suggested that for it to be successful there must be a collective effort of staff involved in
change (e.g. Evans & Taylor, 1996; Murray & Savin-Baden, 2000). Thus the course
coordinator introduced the approach to the department in 2002 by running a departmental
seminar about PBL and subsequently worked with the several members of the teaching
team in developing the course. Only two tutors had prior knowledge of PBL. In 2003, three
lecturers from the previous year were tutors, while three new doctoral students came into
the course as tutors.
In both years, prior to the start of the course, there were several planning meetings at
which the ideals and nature of a PBL course were discussed and selected readings were
distributed. The teaching team were keen to try a completely different teaching
approach in recognition of the fact that the old model (lectures, laboratories and a field

Downloaded by [Universiti Sains Malaysia] at 21:07 12 May 2016

212

R. Spronken-Smith

Figure 2. Table of contents for Web pages on the research process

trip) had not been very successful or well liked by students. Throughout the course the
tutors met each month to discuss course-related issues, group progress and their own
experiences.
All tutors, except the teaching fellow, were actively involved in research and thus well
placed (theoretically) to be involved in teaching a course about research methods. Elton
(2001) suggests that it is perhaps more important for teachers in a PBL course to be able to
teach in a manner that is conducive to empowering the students, rather than to be actively
involved in research. Certainly the ability to act as a facilitator is paramount to the success
of this approach but one could argue that, for a course such as this that focuses on research
methods and has groups conducting primary research, it would be advantageous to have
experienced researchers as tutors.

Implementing a PBL Approach for Teaching Research Methods

213

Downloaded by [Universiti Sains Malaysia] at 21:07 12 May 2016

Resourcing the Course

A traditional model of teaching research methods might involve one or two lecturers and
teaching assistants to help run laboratories. There might be two lectures a week
accompanied by a laboratory or seminar session. The use of a PBL approach brings with it
a cost in terms of extra resources (e.g. Kaufmann & Holmes, 1996; Azer, 2001). This is
because the size of the teaching team is typically increased to allow each group ready
access to a tutor. Thus there were about six tutors for a class size of 60-75. However, it is
not necessary to use all academic staff; often senior postgraduate students can be used to
take on this role. Further, it is possible and perhaps desirable for a tutor to oversee at least
two groups. We found that in 2003, when most tutors oversaw two groups each, there was
less of a tendency for tutors to direct group processes, since the tutors were constantly
moving between groups, acting on the periphery. Organizing the field trips was onerous
and expensive (departmental funds contributed to about half the cost with students paying
the other half through a field-trip fee over and above their course fee). However, it might
be possible to conduct a course in a similar manner without going away provided there are
opportunities set up for socializing and bonding with group members and tutors. Although
the course is expensive to run compared with more traditional models, the expense was
deemed to be justified given that this is the core third-year course that students must take to
progress to postgraduate study. The innovative teaching approach, which enhanced
student learning, was seen to be worthy of departmental funds and extra staff.
The staff effort was very different from that on traditional courses, with much more time
spent in preparation of the research problems (in conjunction with the external agency) and
resource materials for the field trip on the research process, the occasional workshops on
research skills, and the Web. Tutor preparation for weekly group meetings would typically
involve reflecting on group dynamics, progress on the tasks and how best to facilitate the
group. Thus while the overall staff workload per student is high compared with a
traditional course, it should not be too much for any individual, particularly after the first
year of running. This switching of staff resources into the preparation of course materials
has also been noted by Healey (1992) in reference to group project work. Because three
(oral and poster presentations, written report) of the five assessment tasks were based on
group work, the marking load was significantly reduced. Furthermore, as each tutor
marked the individual assignments in his/her group (with the course coordinator acting as
a moderator), the marking load was evenly spread and not onerous.

Evaluation of the Course

The course was evaluated using several different tools. Throughout the course informal
feedback was sought from staff and students, as well as surveys after both of the field trips.
At the end of the course in 2002, a higher education specialist ran a group feedback session
with nearly the whole class (n 55/63) to solicit feedback on the course. Furthermore, the
course was subject to the University of Canterbury standard course survey in both years.
Insight was also gained through qualitative data from the students individual critiques,
which drew on data from their reflective diaries. Research investigating tutor experiences
of teaching using a PBL approach was carried out in 2002, which involved documenting
and analysing tutor meetings, as well as semi-structured interviews with staff (SpronkenSmith & Harland, in preparation).

214

R. Spronken-Smith

Downloaded by [Universiti Sains Malaysia] at 21:07 12 May 2016

Student Response to PBL

The student ratings for the course prior to 2000 and after the introduction of the PBL approach
(2002, 2003) are given in Table 2 with a collation of freeform comments in Table 5.
The standard survey in 2002 was administered after a group feedback session (run with 55
students), which in hindsight was probably not a good time. This was because students had
been giving feedback for about an hour and were reluctant (and often angry) at then having to
fill out the standard university course survey (which is perhaps why only 37 out of 55 filled in
the survey). In 2003 the response to the standard survey was poor as it was administered for the
first time by email. Thus the survey findings should be interpreted with caution given the poor
response rates.
Since the introduction of PBL the course ratings have shown a marked improvement in
terms of overall quality, organization and stimulation of interest (see Table 2). As
expected, the workload increased particularly in 2002 but the strategies in 2003 appear to
have worked in terms of making the workload more manageable. Students only weakly
agreed that the teaching methods used were effective but more information about these
responses was investigated in the feedback session, which is reported below. Students
seemed to be strongly in favour of the use of the Web learning tools and agreed that they
were able to develop problem-solving and analytical skills. The changing in the weighting
of assessment items to put more emphasis on group work is thought to be responsible for
the increase in agreement in 2003 with the statement that assessment items tested the
most significant aspects of the course.
The summary of the group feedback session provided by the higher education specialist
identified many aspects of the approach that student found helpful to their learning. These
included the applied nature of the course, the authentic problems, the group meetings
being a forum to bounce around ideas, and confronting the challenges of group dynamics.
Students also appreciated the guidance from tutors, the range of assessment, WebCT as an
efficient communication tool and as allowing excellent discussion, and the good
environment for making friends and working with othersnot something that they
normally get the opportunity to do. Further, PBL was deemed to be better than lectures as
the approach was seen to be hands-on, active and interactive, with learning from each
Table 5. Student feedback from freeform comments in the standard course evaluations
in 2002 and 2003
Helpful aspects
2002

Need improvement
2003

2002

2003

Group work (30%)

PBL (27%)

Group work (33%)

Tutors (33%)

Smaller groups (11%)

High workload (7%)

Field trips (22%)

WebCT (26%)

Tutors (16%)

Skills gained (26%)

Smaller groups (19%)

Weighting of
assessment (14%)
More physical
geography topics (11%)
Timing of assessment
(11%)

Relevant topics (8%)

PBL (7%)

Expensive course (7%)

Shorter second
field trip (7%)

Notes: The sample size in 2002 was 37 (out of 63) while in 2003 it was 27 (out of 75). Only aspects that
had more than two responses are reported here and figures in parentheses are percentages of the
sample.

Implementing a PBL Approach for Teaching Research Methods

215

Downloaded by [Universiti Sains Malaysia] at 21:07 12 May 2016

other and students in control of their own learning. This is nicely illustrated by the
following quote from an individual critique:
This course, with its group work, differed from other subjects I have taken at
university because the onus for learning and staying on the task was placed on us. I
felt a lot more motivation to know what was going on and understand the process
than I would have if I was sitting in the lecture theatre. . . I found I had made a
transition from having little motivation to truly understand what I was doing and
doing assessment for the sole purpose of gaining a good mark, to a place where it
was like real life, and it was important for me to understand what was happening
and participate fully.
Factors identified in the group feedback session as being helpful were also echoed in the
freeform responses from the standard course survey (see Table 5). In both years students
found the group work, tutors and use of PBL to be helpful. There was also an appreciation
of the skills gained and the use of WebCT in the 2003 survey.
However, the group feedback session suggested that many of these aspects that
helped learning also hindered it for some. The main concern for these students was
group size, although further discussion suggested that given the choice of either having
smaller groups (say of 4 or 5) or doing a topic they were interested in, they were
unanimous in deciding that they would rather work on a topic in which they were
interested, even if this meant being in a larger group (the logistics of allocating over 60
students to topics of their choice necessitated having larger groups in most cases). There
was general agreement that the course required a huge amount of work and students
wanted a higher proportion of their final grade to come from group work (hence the
increase in weighting from 50 per cent in 2002 to 70 per cent in 2003). Other
researchers have noted the issue of high workload associated with group work (e.g.
Healey et al., 1996). A course such as this requires students to be working solidly
throughout the semester. We suspect an underlying issue might be that increasing
numbers of students are in paid employment while studying full time. They are more
pressured in their commitments and cannot devote the expected amount of time per
course (typically 10 hours per week for a third-year course). In contrast, in a more
traditional course, students may be able to coast through, putting in effort when needed
for particular assessment items.
Other concerns raised included group dynamics and the time-consuming nature of
group work. Often students had to deal with different expectations and goals within the
group. There was also a strong unease about freeloaders, although the peer-assessment of
contribution to the group helped address this concern. Another issue, which staff had also
raised, was the tendency for groups to draw on individual strengths, rather than addressing
weaknesses. One could argue that this is what typically occurs in a workplace situation but
in the context of a university course where students are hoping to increase their knowledge
and skills this is problematic. In the courses first group session, the students had to do a
skills audit (Healey et al., 1996) which involved them rating their skills (including
geography discipline knowledge skills and transferable skills). Near the end of the course,
students were asked to reflect on how their knowledge and skill base had changed. While
most commented that they had improved knowledge of the research process in geography
and that their group skills had improved, many commented that they had not gained the

Downloaded by [Universiti Sains Malaysia] at 21:07 12 May 2016

216

R. Spronken-Smith

new transferable skills (such as oral communication or generating a poster) that they had
expected to. Rather, because groups had several tasks to perform, they tended to draw on
the strengths of their members and target those with well-established transferable skills to
do the requisite tasks. To try and remedy this situation, in the second year of the course we
ensured students spent some time discussing their own skills and what they hoped to
achieve in the course so that they had opportunities to increase desired skills. Further, we
provided optional extra workshops that were more skill-oriented (for example the
Endnote, poster design, PowerPoint workshops etc.).
The concerns about group size and workload were also raised in the standard course
survey (see Table 5). In addition, there was a desire in 2002 for more physical geography
topics so in 2003 we broadened the range of topics offered to include some that were
purely human geography, some that were physical and some that were environmental. In
2002 a few students commented that the field trip programme was too full. There was little
time outdoors on this first trip so the team-building exercise was expanded in 2003.
Another curious response in the student survey was that the course was expensive.
Students resented having to pay more fees (over and above their course fees) to go on the
field trips. There was also a perception (by a few) that they were not getting value for
money because they were not being explicitly taught. Another student thought that the
department was not putting much money into the course because the student had only one
session a week with a tutorrather an irony given the extra staff and resources that were
being pumped into this course! The last concern was the length of the residential
conference. In the evaluation of the conference in 2003 we asked students (n 55)
whether they would prefer to have a one-day conference in Christchurch. Fifty-seven per
cent thought this was a better idea although 24 per cent preferred to get away and have a
more authentic conference experience.
Staff Response to PBL
Spronken-Smith & Harland (in preparation) found that the tutors regarded the PBL
approach to be a positive and a rewarding experience. Most tutors reported that PBL was
not entirely new as they had carried out forms of PBL in other teaching, such as field work.
Tutors were very positive about the generally relaxed teaching style, the interaction with
students and the enthusiasm and motivation of the students. These comments are in accord
with findings by Bernstein et al., (1995) and Kaufmann & Holmes (1996). Generally the
groups became independent very quickly and needed little input from staff. However,
knowing how much to intervene was a difficult and often frustrating dilemma for tutors, an
issue which has also been echoed by others (e.g. Bernstein et al., 1995; Kaufmann &
Holmes, 1996; Khoo et al., 2001).
Like Azer (2001), this research found that the personal beliefs and philosophies of
teaching were paramount to how tutors adjusted to PBL. More experienced and largely
student-centred teachers were less likely to try and control the group processes. Given
their prior experience with either group work or graduate supervision, they were quite
comfortable acting in the role of facilitator. However, the less experienced and more
teacher-focused tutors were more likely to dominate the group. Therefore, extra support
should be given to less experienced tutors to help them make the transition to PBL
teaching. There were also other sources of anxiety due to the unpredictable nature of the
course, the perceived lack of structure and, in a couple of groups, difficult group dynamics.

Downloaded by [Universiti Sains Malaysia] at 21:07 12 May 2016

Implementing a PBL Approach for Teaching Research Methods

217

PBL does depend on good group dynamics and so we were very careful in our first group
session and on the first field trip to try and facilitate good group processes (SpronkenSmith & Harland, in preparation).
Contextual factors are also important to a successful PBL experience (Kaufmann &
Holmes 1996; Azer, 2001). For staff to engage in innovative teaching such as PBL, it is
important that there is strong departmental support. The department should be supportive
of new ideas and methods and also resource the course well in terms of financial costs
(subsidizing or preferably fully covering costs of field trips, poster production materials
etc.), and the provision of sufficient teaching and support staff (our departmental Web
Designer had a huge task to get teaching materials on the Web).
Previous researchers (e.g. Evans & Taylor, 1996; Murray & Savin-Baden, 2000) have
emphasized the importance of involving as many of the teaching team as possible in
planning the course. This is to give a sense of ownership over the course design, which it is
hoped will lead to less problems in making the transition to teaching PBL. Thus most of
the teaching team were involved in planning and there were monthly meetings throughout
the semester to provide support.
Staff were impressed with the quality of the work produced. This was particularly the
case for the oral and poster presentations at the conference. The students showed a high
degree of technical ability and gave very confident and professional presentations. The
written reports were of variable quality but rated as good (B) to excellent (A).
Because of this, some students achieved higher than normal grades. This was not
unexpected as the quality of the learning situation encouraged even the usual slackers to
become engaged with the problem and work harder than usual. If they did not contribute
fully to the group they would typically be penalized through the self- and peerassessment scheme of contribution to the group described earlier. Importantly, students
who had achieved first-class grades in other courses were usually able to maintain these
high grades in this course, despite up to 70 per cent (in 2003) of their final grade coming
from group work. These top students were usually those who were strong motivating
forces in the group and ensured that group members stayed on the tasks. Thus they were
rewarded through the self- and peer-assessment of their contribution to the group, with
the result that their group report grade was inflated (see Appendix A). The fact that these
top students do well helps to dispel the myth reported by Livingstone & Lynch (2002, p.
219) that clever students do not get sufficient credit for their work when involved in
group work.
Summary
Problem-based learning is finding increasing favour in higher education because it offers a
way to enhance student learning by providing constructive and transformative learning
experiences. Geography, by its very nature, is interdisciplinary and a course such as
research methods is well suited to a PBL approach. The course objectives included
developing research and transferable skills in preparation for graduate study and the
workplace. The teaching and learning methods were primarily group work in which
students worked with their peers and a tutor, on professional research problems that were
developed in conjunction with a potential employer of graduates. The group work was
complemented by a residential field trip on the research process and a residential
conference. The assessment was aligned with the course objectives and tasks involved

Downloaded by [Universiti Sains Malaysia] at 21:07 12 May 2016

218

R. Spronken-Smith

aspects of the research process together with a self- and peer-assessment of contribution to
the group.
The staff experiences of teaching using a PBL approach were largely positive. The
teaching was perceived to be relaxing and enjoyable, and tutors were impressed with the
motivation and enthusiasm of the students and the quality of work they produced. There
were, however, some sources of anxiety, particularly in relation to knowing when to
intervene, the unpredictable nature of the course and difficult group dynamics. It is
imperative that there is strong departmental support for such teaching innovation and new
tutors need to be given extra support in taking on the role of a facilitator.
Since the adoption of the PBL approach the course ratings have shown a steady
improvement with significant gains in terms of stimulating interest and overall course quality.
The student response indicates that they seem to appreciate the PBL approach in terms of the
benefits to their learning through group work on authentic problems, which is very relevant to
future workplace scenarios. They also appreciated being able to further develop transferable
skills. However, while they significantly increased their teamwork skills, there was some
frustration at not necessarily increasing some other skills such as giving oral presentations or
producing posters, as groups tended to nominate individuals for these activities and draw on
individual strengths. Other main concerns included group size (7-8 was thought to be too
large), the workload and dealing with group dynamics. Several strategies were put in place in
the second year of this course to help address these concerns. These improvements ensured
that it was largely successful in meeting its objectives. Given the generally positive reception
of this PBL approach and the benefits to students in terms of lifelong learning, the teaching
team are sufficiently encouraged to continue teaching in this mode.
Acknowledgements
The research was undertaken while based at the Department of Geography, University of
Canterbury, New Zealand. Thanks are offered to the teaching teams including Gillian
Blackler, Bruce Wildblood-Crawford, Julie Cupples, Nicholas Fyfe, Jordy Hendrix,
Simon Kingham, Marleen Maertens, Ian Owens, Martin Single, Andrew Sturman and
Anna Taylor. The approach for this course was inspired by Tony Harland at the University
of Otago. Thanks are also due to Jane Robertson, Tony Harland and the referees for
comments on the manuscript.
References
Azer, S. A. (2001) Problem-based learningchallenges, barriers and outcome issues, Saudi Medical Journal, 22,
pp. 389 397.
Barrows, H. S. & Tamblyn, R. M. (1980) Problem-Based LearningAn 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, pp. 245247.
Biggs, J. (1999) What the student does: teaching for enhanced learning, Higher Education Research and
Development, 18, pp. 5575.
Biggs, J. (2003) Teaching for Quality Learning at University, 2nd edn (Maidenhead: Society for Research into
Higher Education and Open University Press).
Boud, D. (Ed.) (1985) Problem-Based Learning in Education for the Professionals (London: HERDSA).
Bradbeer, J. (1996) Problem-based learning and fieldwork: a better method of preparation?, Journal of
Geography in Higher Education, 20, pp. 11 23.

Downloaded by [Universiti Sains Malaysia] at 21:07 12 May 2016

Implementing a PBL Approach for Teaching Research Methods

219

Burkill, S. (1997) Student empowerment through group work: a case study, Journal of Geography in Higher
Education, 21, pp. 8994.
Clark, G. & Wareham, T. (1998) Small-Group Teaching in Geography (Cheltenham: Geography Discipline
Network).
Colliver, J. (2000) Effectiveness of problem based learning curricula, Academic Medicine, 75, pp. 259266.
Crewe, L. (1994) Adaptation and change in the teaching of economic geography: innovative assessment methods
for group research projects, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 18, pp. 207213.
Davis, M. H. & Harden, R. M. (1999) AMEE Medical Education Guide No. 15: Problem-based learning: a
practical guide, Medical Teacher, 21, pp. 130140.
Elton, L. (2001) Research and teaching: conditions for a positive link, Teaching in Higher Education, 6,
pp. 4356.
Evans, P. A. & Taylor, D. C. M. (1996) Staff development of tutor skills for problem-based learning, Medical
Education, 30, pp. 356366.
Fournier, E. J. (2002) World regional geography and problem-based learning: using collaborative
learning groups in an introductory-level world geography course, Journal of General Education, 51,
pp. 293305.
Harland, T. (2002) Zoology students experiences of collaborative enquiry in problem-based learning, Teaching
in Higher Education, 7, pp. 315.
Healey, M. (1992) Curriculum development and enterprise: group work, resource-based learning and the
incorporation of transferable skills into a first year practical course, Journal of Geography in Higher
Education, 16, pp. 719.
Healey, M. (1999) Using peer and self assessment for assessing the contribution of individuals to a group project.
Resource database: Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, Available at: http://www.glos.ac.uk/gdn/
abstracvts/a69.htm (accessed April 2004).
Healey, M., Foster, I., Livingstone, I. & Matthews, H. (1994) Assessing increasing numbers of students through
group projects, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 18, pp. 256257.
Healey, M., Matthews, H., Livingstone, I. & Foster, I. (1996) Learning in small groups in university geography
courses: designing a core module around group projects, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 20,
pp. 167180.
Hughes, P. (2001) Use of reflective diaries in assessment. Resource database: Geography, Earth and
Environmental Sciences. Available at http://www.glos.ac.uk/gdn/abstracvts/a195.htm (accessed April
2004).
Jenkins, A., Breen, R., Lindsay, R. & Brew, A. (2003) Reshaping Teaching in Higher EducationLinking
Teaching with Research (Birmingham: Staff and Educational Development Series).
Kaufman, D. M. & Holmes, D. B. (1996) Tutoring in problem-based learning: perceptions of teachers and
students, Medical Education, 30, pp. 371 377.
Khoo, H. E., Chhem, R. K., Gwee, M. C. E. & Balasubramaniam, P. (2001) Introduction of problem-based
learning in a traditional medical curriculum in SingaporeStudents and tutors perspectives, Annals of the
Academy of Medicine of Singapore, 30, pp. 371374.
Livingstone, D. & Lynch, K. (2002) Group project work and student-centred active learning: two different
experiences, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 26, pp. 217237.
Macbeth, J. & MacCallum, J. (1996) Collaborative learning: working together in small groups, (Perth: Murdoch
University), Video (23 mins).
Macdonald, R. (2001) Problem-based learning: implications for educational developers, Educational
Developments, 2(2), pp. 15.
McMaster University (2004) Inquiry at McMaster. Available at http://www.mcmaster.ca.cll/inquiry/index.htm
(accessed April 2004).
Murray, I. & Savin-Baden, M. (2000) Staff development in problem-based learning, Teaching in Higher
Education, 5, pp. 107 126.
Overton, T. (2001) Web resources for problem-based learning, Staff and Educational Development Association,
Educational Developments, p. 15, November 2001.
Sadlo, G. & Richardson, J. T. E. (2003) Approaches to studying perceptions of the academic environment in
students following problem-based and subject-based curricula, Higher Education Research and
Development, 22, pp. 253 274.
Savin-Baden, M. (2000) Problem-Based Learning in Higher Education: Untold Stories (Buckingham: Open
University Press).

220

R. Spronken-Smith

Spronken-Smith, R. A. & Harland, T. (in preparation) Exploring tutor transition in problem-based learning, in
preparation for Active Learning.
Worsley, A. (2003) Developing external links through teaching and learning in geography and environmental
science: the use of the mini-conference, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 27, pp. 69 78.

Downloaded by [Universiti Sains Malaysia] at 21:07 12 May 2016

Appendix A: Scheme to Assess Contribution to Group

With group work we really should assess the product as well as the process. A resource on
the University of Canterbury Centre for Teaching and Learning Website (http://www.uctl.
canterbury.ac.nz/library.shtml information series 400/2) offers a suggestion as to how to
do this.
Half of the mark given for the written report was awarded to each group member while
the other half came from this assessment of the contribution to the group. The following
scale was used:
3 major contribution
2 solid contribution
1 minor contribution
0 no contribution
21 a hindrance to the group
Each person was assessed on three criteria:
. generating ideas;
. researching ideas (i.e. getting data (primary and secondary), data analysis etc.);
. communicating ideas (e.g. poster and presentation and report production).
If a group member made a major contribution on each of the criteria, they could score a
maximum 9/9. If they made a solid contribution only to each of the criteria they would
score 6/9. In reality, most students would have certain strengths and thus score higher in
some categories (see example in Table A.I).
The steps followed were:
1. Mark reporteach person in group gets half this mark.
2. Get group to fill out self- and peer-assessment forms in which they rate
themselves and other group members on the criteria, using the scale above. A
sample form is given in Table A.I.
3. Collate group data to find out total scores for each individual and calculate group
average. Then calculate the contribution ratio of each individual to the group by
taking the ratio of the individual total to the group average.
4. Check the contribution ratios with the group tutor to ensure that group members
have used this process in a fair way. Tutors should have a good appreciation of
how group members have been contributing.
5. Calculate the final mark (product process) by starting with half the mark
allocated to the group report and adding to this the product of the contribution
ratio and the remaining half of the raw group report mark.

Implementing a PBL Approach for Teaching Research Methods

221

To illustrate how this worked in practice, two examples are given. The first is for a group
who had come to an agreement that they all put in the same amount of effort, while the
second example is for a group with varying degrees of effort. Since there were six students
in each group, the maximum each individual could score (if rated major contribution for
each category) was 6 9 54.
1. Group who agreed they all put in the same effort

Downloaded by [Universiti Sains Malaysia] at 21:07 12 May 2016

Mark for report was 80 per cent, of which each member gets half (40 per cent). Since they all
assessed each other as scoring 9/9, their contribution ratio is 1. Therefore their marks are:
40% 1 40% 80%i:e: just raw mark for report so each group member gets 80%:

2. Group with a very disparate effort

Group report was awarded 80 per cent of which each member gets half (40 per cent). An
example of a completed self- and peer-assessment form of contribution to the group is
given in Table A.1. The maximum an individual could score from collation of group totals
is 54/54 for a group of six members. Each person was assessed as having a variable input to
the group as can be seen from their total marks, which are collated in Table A.2. The
average of the total scores is 252/6 42 and each individual total is compared with the
group average to calculate the contribution ratio. The final marks are then calculated and
the results show a variation from 62 per cent (Michael) to 90 per cent (Susan), which
should reflect, in a fair way, the differing inputs of individuals to the group.
Table A1. Example of a completed form that Michael has used to self- and peer-assess
contribution to the group
Criteria
Generating ideas
Researching ideas
Communicating ideas
Total

Michael (self)

Susan

James

Alice

Sarah

George

1
2
1
4

3
3
3
9

3
2
2
7

1
2
2
5

2
3
2
7

2
3
3
8

Notes: The criteria and group member names are inserted in the first column and row respectively, and he
has filled out the rest using the scale described earlier (i.e. 3 major contribution, 2 solid
contribution etc.).

Table A2. Scheme to assess contribution to the group

Member

Michael

Susan

James

Alice

Sarah

George

Total marks for

contribution (/54)
Contribution ratio
Final mark (%)

4 3 5 2 4 5 23

52

46

37

45

49

23/42 0.55
40 (0.55 40) 62

1.24
90

1.10
84

0.88
75

1.07
83

1.17
87

Notes: This table is generated by collating the forms such as the one shown in Table A1. Details of the
calculation are shown for Michael. The series of total marks shown for Michael come from his
own assessment (see Table A1) and his peers assessment of his contribution to the group. The
group average for all members was 252/6 42.