ORIGIN OF THE LEARNING DESIGN
The idea for this learning design originated whilst attending a workshop on Problem-Based Learning conducted by the University of New England with Professor Penny Little from the University of Newcastle.

TIMES THE LEARNING DESIGN HAS BEEN USED

• In 1999, the learning design was implemented with internal students only.
• In 2000, the learning design was implemented with internal students and the external delivery was considered optional.
• In 2001 and 2002, this learning design was implemented with both internal and external students.

MODIFICATIONS SINCE FIRST USE
Situation statements are alternated between years. The approach has been rewritten to be clearer- for example, "problem" was replaced by "situation", and "solution" was replaced by "answer".

DISSEMINATION
The learning design has not been made available for reuse.

Involvement in this project has allowed this learning design to be redeveloped in a more generic form. (Access the generic guideline via the "Guides" section of this site).

RESEARCH CONDUCTED ON THE DESIGN

Research conducted on the learning design has been documented in the following two publications:

Lobry de Bruyn, L. A. and Prior, J. C. (2001a). Changing Student Learning Focus in Natural Resource Management Education - Problems (and some Solutions) with using Problem Based Learning. In Flexible Learning for a Flexible Society Proceedings of ASET/HERDSA 2000 Joint International Conference, 2-5th July Toowoomba, L. Richardson and J. Lidstone (Eds) (ASET/HERDSA, Queensland). Pp 441-451. ISBN: 0 908557 47 7.

Abstract:

To produce competent students who can support the rapid changes occurring in natural resource management you need to get them to do more than listen: students must read, write, discuss, analyse, synthesise, evaluate, solve problems and work together. There is a growing need to include other strategies and skills development in classroom teaching. Both authors have attempted to use problem based learning (PBL) to strengthen and develop student competencies in the areas of information literacy, communication and solving "real-world" problems. Our teaching approach is to integrate knowledge acquisition and teaching strategies to actively engage students in the learning process. The authors present class activities and student and lecturer evaluations of PBL in two units: Land Evaluation and Land Degradation (Lobry de Bruyn), and Rural Extension Science (Prior).

The use of PBL has identified some generic learning issues in a natural resource-management context and they include:

• Students often feel uncomfortable in being presented with "messy" ill-defined problems which is characteristic of the “fuzzy” nature of the PBL environment.
• The nature of the problem-solving skills required – a range of problem solving skills or tools (e.g. critical thinking, strategic planning) must also be taught (or developed) as part of PBL exercises.
• The nature of the group/team skills required – most PBL exercises are conducted within student groups or teams. Thus students must develop team skills and perspectives in order to successfully undertake the PBL exercise.

To develop a successful PBL teaching framework requires frequent monitoring of student learning progress and perceptions, and a considerable degree of responsiveness on the part of the teacher. In conclusion, PBL can provide effective strategies for strengthening and developing student competencies in a number of desired learning areas.

Lobry de Bruyn, L. A. and Prior, J. C. (2001b). Meeting of Minds – Clashing of Cultures: evolution of teaching practice to engage students as co-learners. In HERDSA 2001 Conference – Learning Partnerships – Newcastle University, Newcastle 8-11th July.

Abstract:

The authors present their own experiences, strategies and reflections in attempting to engage students as co-learners in two units - Land Evaluation and Land Degradation (Lobry de Bruyn), and Rural Extension Science (Prior) - over a period of several years. We have used several techniques within our units to involve students in the learning process in order to shift the emphasis from what we will do as lecturers towards what students can achieve in terms of their own learning outcomes. Many of our approaches have been adapted from adult learning principles such as those outlined below (adapted from Onsman 1991):

• Adults learn by doing.
• Adults learn when they have a perceived need to learn.
• Adults learn by solving problems.
• Different adults learn in different ways ( e.g. three modalities of visual, auditory, and kinaesthetic learning).
• Adults like variety in their learning activities.
• Adults want feedback in their performance.
• Adults want to apply what they learn.
• Adults learn when the learning fits their value systems.
• Adults already know a great deal (viz. “Prior Learning”, “Indigenous Technical Knowledge”).

We have found that each of these principles has enormous implications for student involvement within the learning process. To ignore them is to risk student indifference. Students who feel that their learning needs are being met are more likely to be involved in and enjoy the learning process. Students are essentially “voluntary learners” although not always self-directed in their learning. One of the important issues in adopting a content-focussed approach rather than a student-centred approach is that students are implicitly discouraged from being self-directed in their learning. For this reason students have not always been willing participants in the incremental evolution of our teaching practice towards more interactive, active learning approaches. We have both encountered varying degrees of student resistance to the “new approach” and varying student acknowledgment that learning is a “two-way” process that requires equivalent input from them. From class discussions we find that many of the students view the lecturer’s role as being transmissive and their role as being passive and reproductive. Nevertheless we conclude that engaging the student in the learning process has a number of benefits which include better preparation for the workplace, and that students may achieve a clearer understanding of their personal learning goals. Ultimately such approaches have the potential to produce students who are imbued with confidence in their ability to learn and adapt to a changing world.

DESIGN EFFECTIVENESS VERSUS INTENDED OUTCOMES
Unit evaluation of the 1999 and 2000 student cohort showed a marked improvement in the alignment of learning goals with assessment tasks. In 2000 only 6% of students disagreed with the statement "The assessment tasks were appropriate to the aim of this unit", while in the previous year 34% of students had disagreed with this statement. I believe part of the improvement in student approval was that there was a clearer articulation of the links between assessment tasks and learning goals. Also to value the learning skills that students are expected to use and develop in the assessment activities they were explicitly included in the marking framework. In response to only 38% of students in 1999 agreeing with the statement, "I received adequate (e.g. timely, useful, constructive) feedback on my progress in this unit", the marking frameworks have been modified accordingly. The revisions of the marking framework allowed for more constructive and focussed feedback and were based on observable/demonstrable performance criteria, and avoided jargon. To identify research and learning skills more prominently featured in the marking framework and students were reminded that they would need to demonstrate that they had done more than use the information provided to them. In 2000, there was a marked improvement in the response to the statement ,"I received adequate (e.g. timely, useful, constructive) feedback on my progress in this unit", with 88% of students agreeing with it (a 50% improvement from 1999 data).

HOW LEARNER ENGAGEMENT IS SUPPORTED
The learning design supports learner engagement in that I ask students to tell me what their learning goals are for the unit, and these expectations are built upon. Prior experience is also taken into account;I ask them to fill out a background knowledge probe, so the unit can be tailored according to the strengths and weaknesses of their prior knowledge. Also the PBL allows them to explore content according to need.

Learners experience key concepts through different class activities. Both peer interaction/feedback and the assessment tasks support learner engagement however, they would probably benefit from being encouraged to reflect on their learning experiences. The students tend to veer away from taking control, and are always asking me the teacher- "What do you want?". The extent to which the learning experience engages students affectively appears to hinge on their willingness to get involved.

Comment from the Evaluation Team...

The evaluators concluded that this learning design supports learner engagement very effectively. An excerpt from the evaluation feedback is as follows:

"This Learning Design (LD) is based on problem-based learning (PBL) and there are a number of features in it, derived from PBL, which foster learner engagement...The assessment tasks are clearly described and set out, although it is not clear whether these build upon each other, or are 3 separate assignments. Learners are asked to indicate personal learning goals prior to commencing the LD (Information sheet), yet it doesn’t appear that students are required to revisit these as they progress through the LD...The student self-assessment task at the beginning of the LD is excellent, and students should be explicitly asked to revisit these upon completion of the LD."

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF LEARNING CONTEXT
The activities link to the field of professional practice, and consider the broader context through the emphasis on the importance of land degradation and land-use planning in a real-life situation, and the issues of imperfect information and still having to make decisions on that basis.

The assessment tasks match the intended learning outcomes. Learning skills are emphasised, and these are hopefully transferable to other situations. Students are encouraged to apply information to multiple situations.

There are cultural assumptions built into the learning design for instance, cultural attitudes towards the environment and the lack of awareness of certain land-degradation problems is emphasised. Also the responses of land managers are affected by awareness and attitudes to the environment.

Comment from the Evaluation Team...

The evaluators commented that acknowledgement of learning context is well supported. The feedback provided is as follows:

"Because the LD is based upon principles of PBL, this acknowledgement of learning context is adequately developed. The rationale for the LD is sound and clear. Information about professional organisations, relevant websites and research literature is supplied to students. We were not able to identify contingency plans or strategies for students in case of difficulties such as technical and/or computer problems. The requirements to students are spelled out fairly rigidly, along with certain penalties, creating an impression of inflexibility. The knowledge demands of the LD appear realistic, although we are not certain about how students might deal with some of these in online group work. The strategic notes (e.g. group roles, handling personalities) are excellent for face-to-face contexts, but how are online students advised (apart from brief advice on ‘Netiquette’)? The LD is broadly culturally inclusive and appropriate, although the extent to which the scenarios in the LD might be relevant to contexts outside the New England region (other regions of Australia and overseas environments) is not clear. We wondered whether there might be scope for students to explore and perhaps apply conceptual understandings to their local contexts? The assignments focus on issues in (local) context, and assessment and learning outcomes appear closely aligned."

HOW THE LEARNING DESIGN CHALLENGES LEARNERS
One of the major reasons for conducting PBL is to give students the opportunity to question their knowledge and experience, thus enabling them to become self-critical of the limits of their knowledge base and assumptions.

I would hope that the learning setting assists students to go beyond the resources provided for them, but often students rely heavily on the teacher for direction and resources and self-directed learning is minimal (especially amongst internal students).

Comment from the Evaluation Team...

The evaluators thought that this learning design challenges learners very effectively. Their feedback is provided as follows:

"Students are well-equipped to plan learning activities, largely because this is central to the PBL basis of the LD. If the group-based activities and reflective tasks in the LD are effective, we would expect students would become aware of limits to their knowledge in these processes. Students are encouraged to use web-based and library resources – although we are not sure what practical (institutional?) guidelines are provided to students to facilitate this access.

"The provision of initial self-assessment tasks for learners is of the impressive features of this LD; in particular we refer to the ‘Background Knowledge Probe’, and the ‘Self-assessment of Preparedness to Learn’. More explicit student self-testing and self-evaluation could be built into the later stages of the LD."

OPPORTUNITIES FOR PRACTICE
Students are encouraged to articulate to themselves and others what they are learning by expressing themselves in class or on the bulletin board. Ideally we would have smaller classes, which would provide more opportunities for practice to ensure expertise is realised, but it appears that sufficient practice is currently being provided.

The learning design helps students apply criteria that indicate they are learning appropriately. They are able to obtain feedback on their progress, and evaluate what they have learnt. Feedback is provided at week 10 and at the end of the unit. I would like to do more feedback earlier but often progress with the activity has not progressed to a point that I could expect earlier submission of the assessment activity. The marking sheet provides a clear alignment between the activities conducted and how the students are assessed.

Comment from the Evaluation Team...

The evaluators commented that opportunities for practice were reasonably well catered for, as far as they could derive from their exposure/examination of the learning design materials. This is evident in the following feedback:

"The LD does provide practice in relation to the stated goals of the unit (which appear to be set out under Assignment 1), but it is unclear how it provides opportunities for practice in terms of personal learning goals. Students are not asked to reflect on their own sense of progress against their personal learning goals. Again we are not sure of the relationship between the students’ individual learning goals and the goals of the LD. It might help students to read a model scenario in order to understand ‘The Approach’ along with an expected level of performance. It seems likely that the 4-day Residential Block would provide a timely opportunity for feedback, and we note too some excellent sample feedback sheets (lecturer to student) in the LD materials. This LD also offers learners opportunities for practice through the use of online bulletin board fora, although learner engagement in these will depend on forum task design, and level of user participation and response. The criteria for the 3 assignments are clearly spelled out, and will assist students to discern and apply appropriate standards to their work on these."