Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

PBL Group Autonomy in a High School Environmental Science Class

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Technology, Knowledge and Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

With increasing class sizes, teachers and facilitators alike hope for learning groups where students work together in self-contained and autonomous ways requiring reduced teacher support. Yet many instructors find the idea of developing independent learning in small groups to be elusive particularly in K-12 settings (Ertmer and Simons in Interdiscip J Probl Based Learn 1(1):5, doi:10.7771/1541-5015.1005, 2006; Simons and Klein in Inst Sci 35(1):41–72, 2007). Autonomy in small learning groups is actively promoted in many of the forms of problem-based learning (PBL). A PBL learning group is traditionally defined as students with tutor assigned to the group. However, as PBL is introduced into K-12 environments, the assumption of group autonomous functioning is tenuous for a variety of reasons. The purpose of this research is to determine the extent to which a K-12 PBL learning group functions in autonomous ways when a computer-based scaffold provides some student support normally provided by the teacher or tutor during a PBL environmental science unit. If a computer-based scaffold can successfully enable key elements of autonomous group functioning by supplying process level support normally provided by a tutor or teacher, K-12 teachers anxious to attempt PBL may be able to venture with greater confidence that they can provide multiple learning groups adequate support. Results suggest that a computer-based scaffold informed by Moore’s transactional distance theory can promote process elements of autonomous group functioning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

PBL:

Problem-based learning

TDT:

Transactional distance theory

References

  • Allsop, D., & Wray, D. (2012). The rise and fall of autonomous group working in the british coal mining industry. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 24(3), 219–232. doi:10.1007/s10672-012-9198-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrade, H., & Valtcheva, A. (2009). Promoting learning and achievement through self-assessment. Part of the Special Issue, Classroom Assessment, 48(1), 12–18. doi:10.1080/00405840802577544.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anwar, M., & Greer, J. (2012). Role- and relationship-based identity management for privacy-enhanced e-learning. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education (IOS Press), 21(3), 191–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, R., & Hadwin, A. (2005). Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition: Implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Symposium, 33(5/6), 367–565. doi:10.1007/s11251-005-1272-9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, D. E., & Adiga, S. (1997). Measuring manufacturing work group autonomy. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 44(2), 158–174. doi:10.1109/17.584924.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banker, R. D., Field, J. M., Schroeder, R. G., & Sintia, K. K. (1996). Impact of work teams on manufacturing performance: A longitudinal field study. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 867–890. doi:10.2307/256715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, T. (2010). The problem-based learning process as finding and being in flow. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(2), 165–174. doi:10.1080/14703291003718901.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrows, H. (1985). How to design a problem-based curriculum for the preclinical years. New York: Springer Pub Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrows, H. (1986). A taxonomy of problem-based learning methods. Medical Education, 20(6), 481–486. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.1986.tb01386.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrows, H., & Pickell, G. (1991). Developing clinical problem-solving skills: A guide to more effective diagnosis and treatment (1st ed.). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrows, H., & Tamblyn, R. (1976). An evaluation of problem-based learning in a small groups utilizing a simulated patient. Journal of Medical Education, 51(1), 52–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrows, H., & Tamblyn, R. (1980). Problem-Based learning: An approach to medical education (1st ed.). New York: Springer Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrows, H., & Wee, L. (2010). Principles and practice of aPBL (Revised edition). Springfield, III: SIU School of Medicine.

  • Beach, W. A. (1994). Orienting to the phenomenon. In F. L. Casmir & F. L. Casmir (Eds.), Building communication theories: A socio/cultural approach (pp. 133–163). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belaja, K., Boon Sai, G. T., & Wei Lin, A. L. (2012). Effects of the lecturer’s transactional presence towards learners’ intrinsic motivation in learning english as a second language through distance education. Malaysian Journal of Distance Education, 14(1), 77–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, P. (1997). Using argument representations to make Thinking visible for individuals and groups. In: Proceedings of the 2Nd international conference on computer support for collaborative learning (pp. 10–19). Toronto, ON: International Society of the Learning Sciences.

  • Belland, B. (2010). Portraits of middle school students constructing evidence-based arguments during problem-based learning: The impact of computer-based scaffolds. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(3), 285–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belland, B., & Drake, J. (2013). Toward a framework on how affordances and motives can drive different uses of scaffolds: Theory, evidence, and design implications. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(6), 903–925. doi:10.1007/s11423-013-9313-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belland, B., Glazewski, K., & Richardson, J. (2008). A scaffolding framework to support the construction of evidence-based arguments among middle school students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(4), 401–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belland, B., Kim, C., & Hannafin, M. (2013). A framework for designing scaffolds tihat improve motivation and cognition. Educational Psychologist, 48(4), 243–270. doi:10.1080/00461520.2013.838920.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belland, B., Walker, A., Kim, N., & Lefler, M. (2016). Synthesizing results from empirical research on computer-based scaffolding in STEM education: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research. doi:10.3102/0034654316670999.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belland, B., Walker, A., Olsen, M., & Leary, H. (2015). A Pilot meta-analysis of computer-based scaffolding in STEM education. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(1), 183–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benson, R., & Samarawickrema, G. (2009). Addressing the context of e-learning: Using transactional distance theory to inform design. Distance Education, 30(1), 5–21. doi:10.1080/01587910902845972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, R., Rugen, L., & Wooden, L. (2014). Leaders of Their Own Learning: Transforming Schools Through Student-Engaged Assessment (1st ed.). Indianapolis, IN: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonebright, D. (2010). 40 years of storming: A historical review of Tuckman’s model of small group development. Human Resource Development International, 13(1), 111–120. doi:10.1080/13678861003589099.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, M., & Markarian, W. (2015). Dialogic teaching and dialogic stance: Moving beyond interactional form. Research in the Teaching of English, 49(3), 272–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, N., Furtak, E., Timms, M., Nagashima, S., & Wilson, M. (2010). The evidence-based reasoning framework: Assessing scientific reasoning. Educational Assessment, 15(3–4), 123–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brush, T. A., & Saye, J. W. (2002). A summary of research exploring hard and soft scaffolding for teachers and students using a multimedia supported learning environment. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 1(2), 67–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chansler, P., Swamidass, P., & Cammann, C. (2003). Self-Managing work teams an empirical study of group cohesiveness in “Natural Work Groups” at a harley-davidson motor company plant. Small Group Research, 34(1), 101–120. doi:10.1177/1046496402239579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y.-J., & Willits, F. K. (1998). A path analysis of the concepts in moore’s theory of transactional distance in a videoconferencing learning environment. Journal of Distance Education, 13(2), 51–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho, K., & Jonassen, D. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5–22. doi:10.1007/BF02505022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J., & Clark, V. (2010). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Haan, U., Dar El, E. M., & Goldberg, A. I. (1979). The measurements of autonomy and technology for task svstems design. International Journal of Production Research, 17(5), 491–504. doi:10.1080/00207547908919633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., & Williams, G. C. (1996). Need satisfaction and the self-regulation of learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 8(3), 165–183. doi:10.1016/S1041-6080(96)90013-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devolder, A., Van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2012). Supporting self-regulated learning in computer-based learning environments: Systematic review of effects of scaffolding in the domain of science education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(6), 557–573. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00476.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J., & Bentley, A. F. (1949). Knowing and the known. Westport, Conn: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolmans, D., & Ginns, P. (2005). A short questionnaire to evaluate the effectiveness of tutors in PBL: Validity and reliability. Medical Teacher, 27(6), 534–538. doi:10.1080/01421590500136477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolmans, D., Janssen-Noordman, A., & Wolfhagen, H. (2006). Can students differentiate between PBL tutors with different tutoring deficiencies? Medical Teacher, 28(6), 156–161. doi:10.1080/01421590600776545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolmans, D., Wolfhagen, I., Hoogenboom, R., & Vleuten, C. (1999). Is tutor performance dependent on the tutorial group’s productivity?: Toward further resolving of inconsistencies in tutor performance. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 11(4), 186–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P., & Simons, K. (2006). Jumping the pbl implementation hurdle: Supporting the efforts of k–12 teachers. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1), 5. doi:10.7771/1541-5015.1005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fukuda, S. T., Sakata, H., & Takeuchi, M. (2011). Facilitating autonomy to enhance motivation: Examining the effects of a guided-autonomy syllabus. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 8(1), 71–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furnham, A., & Steele, H. (1993). Measuring locus of control: A critique of general, children’s, health- and work-related locus of control questionnaires. British Journal of Psychology, 84(4), 443–479. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1993.tb02495.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, R. (2000). Theoretical challenges for distance education in the 21st century: A shift from structural to transactional issues. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 1(1) 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, R., & Baynton, M. (1987). Concepts: Beyond independence in distance education: The concept of control. American Journal of Distance Education, 1(3), 3–15. doi:10.1080/08923648709526593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133–148. doi:10.1207/s15389286ajde1903_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goel, L., Zhang, P., & Templeton, M. (2012). Transactional distance revisited: Bridging face and empirical validity. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(4), 1122–1129. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.01.020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorsky, P., & Caspi, A. (2005). A critical analysis of transactional distance theory. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 6(1), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255–274. doi:10.3102/01623737011003255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greer, L. L. (2012). Group cohesion: Then and now. Small Group Research. doi:10.1177/1046496412461532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hak, T., & Maguire, P. (2000). Group process: The black box of studies on problem-based learning. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 75(7), 769–772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herbst, P. G. (1962). Autonomous group functioning. United Kingdom: Tavistock Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herbst, P. G. (1968). Autonomous group functioning: An exploration in behaviour theory and measurement. United Kingdom: Tavistock.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & Miller, N. (1995). Interaction in cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-Based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266. doi:10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C., Derry, S., Bitterman, A., & Hatrak, N. (2009). Targeting transfer in a stellar pbl course for preservice teachers. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 3(2), 24–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoessler, C., & West, K. (2014). How am i doing? Formative feedback for graduate students learning to teach. Transformative Dialogues: Teaching an0064 Learning Journal, 7(2), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hung, W., Bailey, J., & Jonassen, D. (2003). Exploring the tensions of problem-based learning: Insights from research. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2003(95), 13–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiao, H. (2015). Enhancing students’ engagement in learning through a formative e-assessment tool that motivates students to take action on feedback. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 20(1), 9–18. doi:10.7158/D13-002.2015.20.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D., & Johnson, F. (2009). Joining Together: Group Theory and Group Skills. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. J. (2008). Cooperation in the Classroom Revised edition (Eighth edition). Edina, MN: Interaction Book Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26. doi:10.3102/0013189X033007014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85. doi:10.1007/BF02300500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. (2011). Supporting problem solving in PBL. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 5(2), 95–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(3), 255–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lampert, M., Franke, M., Kazemi, E., Ghousseini, H., Turrou, A., Beasley, H., et al. (2013). Keeping it complex using rehearsals to support novice teacher learning of ambitious teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(3), 226–243. doi:10.1177/0022487112473837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langfred, C. W. (2000). Work-Group Design and Autonomy. Small Group Research, 31(1), 54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazarowitz, R. H., Kagan, S., Sharan, S., Slavin, R., Webb, C., & Schmuck, R. (1985). Learning to Cooperate, Cooperating to Learn (1985th ed.). New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leary, H., Walker, A., Shelton, B., & Harrison, H. (2013). Exploring the relationships between tutor background, tutor training, and student learning: A problem-based learning meta-analysis. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 7(1), 39–66. doi:10.7771/1541-5015.1331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, G.-H., Lin, C.-S., & Lin, Y.-H. (2013). How experienced tutors facilitate tutorial dynamics in PBL groups. Medical Teacher, 35(2), e935–e942. doi:10.3109/0142159X.2012.714883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenne, D., Abel, M., Trigano, P., & Leblanc, A. (2008). Self-regulated learning in technology enhanced learning environments: An investigation with university students. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 17(3), 171–181. doi:10.1080/14759390802383751

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge Cambridgeshire; New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loyens, S., Magda, J., & Rikers, R. (2008). Self-Directed learning in problem-based learning and its relationships with self-regulated learning. Part of a Special Issue Entitled Metacognition, Self-Regulation, and Self-Regulated Learning, 20(4), 411–427. doi:10.1007/s10648-008-9082-7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, L., West, J., & Bill, K. (2008). Incorporating problem-based learning strategies to develop learner autonomy and employability skills in sports science undergraduates. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sports and Tourism Education, 7(1), 18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayo, W. P., Donnelly, M. B., & Schwartz, R. W. (1995). Characteristics of the Ideal Problem-Based Learning Tutor in Clinical Medicine. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 18(2), 124–136. doi:10.1177/016327879501800202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLean, M., Van Wyk, J. M., Peters-Futre, E. M., & Higgins-Opitz, S. B. (2006). The small group in problem-based learning: More than a cognitive “learning” experience for first-year medical students in a diverse population. Medical Teacher, 28(4), e94–e103. doi:10.1080/01421590600726987.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M., Huberman, A., & Saldana, J. (2013). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, W. R., & Heather, N. (Eds.). (1998). Treating addictive behaviors (2nd ed.). New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mok, N., & Lai, P. (2003). Problem design in problem-based learning: Evaluating students’ learning and self-directed learning practice. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 40(3), 237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, M. (1972). Learner autonomy: The second dimension of independent learning. Convergence, 5(2), 76–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, M. (1993). Theory of transactional distance as found. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, M., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems view. Independence: Wadsworth Pub. Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2011). Distance education: A systems view of online learning. Cengage Learning.

  • Mossuto, M. (2009). Problem-based learning: Student engagement, learning and contextualized problem-solving. Adelaide: National Centre for Vocational Education Research Ltd.

  • Pabinczak, T. (2012). Facilitation tactics and approaches: Taking valid measures of student perceptions of their tutors. Focus on Health Professional Education, 13(3), 44–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papinczak, T., Tunny, T., & Young, L. (2009). Conducting the symphony: A qualitative study of facilitation in problem-based learning tutorials. Medical Education, 43(4), 377–383. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03293.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pawson, E., Fournier, E., Haigh, M., Muniz, O., Trafford, J., & Vajoczki, S. (2006). Problem-based Learning in Geography: Towards a Critical Assessment of its Purposes, Benefits and Risks. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 30(1), 103–116. doi:10.1080/03098260500499709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Leijen, Ä., & Sarapuu, T. (2012). Improving students’ inquiry skills through reflection and self-regulation scaffolds. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 9(1/2), 81–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pluta, W. J., Richards, B. F., & Mutnick, A. (2013). PBL and beyond: Trends in collaborative learning. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 25(Suppl 1), S9–S16. doi:10.1080/10401334.2013.842917.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Portree, M., Evans, R. S., Adams, T. M., & Doherty, J. J. (2008). Overcoming transactional distance: Instructional intent in an e-mail reference service. Reference and User Services Quarterly, 48(2), 142–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., et al. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reindal, S. (1999). Independence, dependence, interdependence: Some reflections on the subject and personal autonomy. Disability and Society, 14(3), 353–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, B. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, Y. (2011). Interaction Design: Beyond Human—Computer Interaction (3rd ed.). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saba, F. (2003). Distance education theory, methodology and epistemology: A Pragmatic Paradigm. In Handbook of distance education (Vol. 1, pp. 3–20). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Saba, F., & Shearer, R. L. (1994). Verifying key theoretical concepts in a dynamic model of distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(1), 36–59. doi:10.1080/08923649409526844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saks, K., & Leijen, Ä. (2014). Distinguishing self-directed and self-regulated learning and measuring them in the e-learning context. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 112, 190–198. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.1155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sargeant, J., Curran, V., Allen, M., Jarvis-Selinger, S., & Ho, K. (2006). Facilitating interpersonal interaction and learning online: Linking theory and practice. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 26(2), 128–136. doi:10.1002/chp.61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savery, J. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning. doi:10.7771/1541-5015.1002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savery, J., & Duffy, T. (1995). Problem Based Learning: An Instructional Model and Its Constructivist Framework. Educational Technology, 35(5), 31–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, D. (1998). Perceptions of group dynamics in problem-based learning sessions: A time to reflect on group issues. Medical Teacher, 20(5), 421–427. doi:10.1080/01421599880508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, H. G., & Moust, J. H. C. (1998). Processes that shape small-group tutorial learning: A review of research.

  • Shaw, J. P., & Chen, J. (2011). Transactional distance and teaching presence in e-learning environments. International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 11(1), 44–59. doi:10.1504/IJIL.2012.044328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189. doi:10.3102/0034654307313795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silen, C. (2006). The tutor’s approach in base groups (PBL). Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning, 51(3), 373–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simons, K. D., & Klein, J. D. (2007). The impact of scaffolding and student achievement levels in a problem-based learning environment. Instructional Science, 35(1), 41–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. (1989). Research on cooperative learning: An international perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 33(4), 231–243. doi:10.1080/0031383890330401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song, H. S., Pusic, M., Nick, M. W., Sarpel, U., Plass, J. L., & Kalet, A. L. (2014). The cognitive impact of interactive design features for learning complex materials in medical education. Computers & Education, 71, 198–205. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stein, D., Wanstreet, C., Calvin, J., Overtoom, C., & Wheaton, J. (2005). Bridging the transactional distance gap in online learning environments. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(2), 105–118. doi:10.1207/s15389286ajde1902_4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strijbos, J.-W., Martens, R. L., Jochems, W. M. G., & Broers, N. J. (2004). The effect of functional roles on group efficiency using multilevel modeling and content analysis to investigate computer-supported collaboration in small groups. Small Group Research, 35(2), 195–229. doi:10.1177/1046496403260843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trevelyan, R. (2001). The paradox of autonomy: A case of academic research scientists. Human Relations, 54(4), 495–525. doi:10.1177/0018726701544005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384–399. doi:10.1037/h0022100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Pol, J., Volman, J., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271–296. doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, A., & Leary, H. (2009). A problem based learning meta analysis: Differences across problem types, implementation types, disciplines, and assessment levels. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 3(1), 12–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, A., Recker, M., Robertshaw, M. B., Olsen, J., Leary, H., Ye, Lei, et al. (2011). Integrating Technology and Problem-based Learning: A Mixed Methods Study of Two Teacher Professional Development Designs. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 5(2), 70–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wedemeyer, C. A. (2009). Learning at the back door reflections on non-traditional learning in the lifespan. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, S. (2007). The influence of communication technologies and approaches to study on transactional distance in blended learning. ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology, 15(2), 103–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead, N. L. (2012). Ethnography, silence, torture and knowledge. History and Anthropology, 23(2), 271–282. doi:10.1080/02757206.2012.674913.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolcott, H. (1999). Ethnography: A way of seeing. Lanham: Rowman Altamira.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 17(2), 89–100. doi:10.1111/1469-7610.ep11903728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Instructional Technology and Learning Sciences, Utah State University, 2830 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT, 84322-2830, USA

    D. Mark Weiss & Brian R. Belland

Authors
  1. D. Mark Weiss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brian R. Belland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D. Mark Weiss.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Weiss, D.M., Belland, B.R. PBL Group Autonomy in a High School Environmental Science Class. Tech Know Learn 23, 83–107 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-016-9297-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-016-9297-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation