Blended learning, knowledge co‐construction and undergraduate group work

Abstract

Context and setting The co-construction of a group ‘product’ (assignment) to be posted online is used to consolidate learning within the fully integrated, problem-based learning (PBL) curriculum for dental students at the University of Hong Kong. An internal review of submitted products indicated a need to improve both the quality of the work and the submission process. The intervention reported below aimed to address these concerns. Why the idea was necessary The review indicated that many Year 1 products required concept mapping (CM). Students’ early attempts to construct and upload completed concept maps onto the learning management system (WebCT) indicated that they were experiencing both conceptual and technical difficulties. Conceptually, the maps were simplistic in construction and missed key design features. Some students were unclear about the difference between CM and other graphic organisers. The first round of uploading onto WebCT for feedback resulted in the adoption of imaginative but technically naïve methods, which led to poorly presented concept maps that were difficult to read and assess. What was done This project trialled the use of CmapTools Version 4.12 (http://cmap.ihmc.us/conceptmap.html; Florida Institute for Human & Machine Cognition, Florida, USA) for the creation and online submission of group concept maps. Both single-user (stand-alone) and multi-user (distributed network) versions of CmapTools were introduced and their effectiveness was evaluated in terms of their ability to: support knowledge building in small-group, student-led learning environments, and improve the quality of concept maps submitted online as group products. Students in all 5 years of the curriculum were provided access to CmapTools via links on WebCT. A targeted intervention was conducted with Year 1 students (n = 52) through a series of workshops that introduced the principles of Novakian CM and CmapTools software. Qualitative ethnographic data collected included Year 1 group concept maps submitted online (n = 36) and content-specialist feedback on these. Quantitative data were collected using an online questionnaire (response rate 90.4%) which explored students’ perceptions of: the efficacy of CM as a learning tool; their group’s modes of product development; and their evaluation of single- and multi-user CmapTools. Evaluation of results and impact Sample student work and staff feedback indicated that students had improved in identifying concepts and relationships and that their maps had increased in complexity and were also more clearly presented. Reflective student data indicated that after workshops and trialling CmapTools, CM had positively affected their thinking processes and improved knowledge retention. Many had then incorporated CM, to varying extents, into other facets of their learning. Most groups reported that they preferred to physically meet for CM discussion and then to share one computer using the single-user application of CmapTools. For undergraduate students starting in a problem-based programme, this preference for face-to-face collaboration during self-directed learning may be attributable to the socio-cultural dimension of their learning. The CmapTools trial was highly successful in improving CM and achieved a 100% uptake in ongoing use of the application. For blended learning in PBL, this project indicated the need for scaffolded instruction when introducing online learning tools and reinforced the significance of face-to-face group work for Year 1 undergraduates.