Problem-based learning and problem-solving tools: synthesis and direction for distributed education environments.

How the design and implementation of problem-solving tools used in programming instruction are complementary with both the fundamental theories of problem-based learning (PBL) and the pedagogy and practices of distributed education environments is examined. A discussion of how such learning tools can be used to bridge the constructivist foundation of PBL with the needs of distributed education is suggested. How combining PBL, web-based distributed education, and a problem-solving environment can create effective learning environments in a variety of disciplines and modes is examined in this article.

**********

Discussions of pedagogy and instructional design often entail their impact upon the cognitive systems of learners, knowledge transfer, and efforts to organize, facilitate and evaluate learning activities (Bloom, 1956; Mayer, 1983; Gagne, 1985; Bransford & Vye, 1989; Mayer, 1996; Greeno, Collins, & Resnick, 1996; Bransford & Schwartz. 1999). Learning systems have, over the past 20 years, undergone a demonstrable shift in focus from those based on instructivist theory and approaches (logical positivism and identifiable/ fixed truth) to constructivist concepts (knowledge as a social construction) and practices, particularly as they take shape in the activities comprising problem-based learning (PBL) (Barrows & Tamblyn, 1980; 1994). A technological shift has accompanied this pedagogical shift. The Internet has made possible a transformation and increase in the methods of implementing the best practices and reaching greater numbers of potential learners through systems of distributed education.

PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING AND CONSTRUCTIVISM 

Grabinger (1995, p. 667) summarized the differences between "old" and "new" assumptions about learning and offered a concise set of distinctions that contrast instructivist and constructivist approaches to learning. Whereas the "old" school posits that "People transfer learning with ease by learning abstract and decontextualized concepts," the "new" school of thought would have it that "People transfer learning with difficulty, needing both content and context learning." In the past, learners were thought to be "receivers of knowledge." Now, "Learners are active constrnctors of knowledge." Behavior, in the stimulus and response sense of the word, as the primary vehicle for learning is an old assumption, whereas cognition "in a constant state of growth and evolution" is the new assumption. Consequently, learners are not "blank slates ready to be filled with knowledge;" they "bring their own needs and experiences to learning situations," where "skills and knowledge are best acquired within realistic contexts [a nd] assessment must take more realistic and holistic form."

Over 30 years ago, Canada's McMaster University's School of Medicine began a program of instruction that was "student-centered [and] problem-based, [in which] small-group learning took shape" (Camp, 1996). This is the core of problem-based learning, described by Savery and Duffy (1995) and summarized below as the outcome of constructivism, consisting of the following four tenets:

1. Understanding is based on experiences with content, context, the learner's goals, and so forth, and these factors are inextricably woven together. Thus, understanding is a construction that is unique to the individual.

2. Meaning is not transmitted, although it may be tested for compatibility with the meanings of others. From another perspective, cognition may be regarded as being distributed rather than individually localized.

3. Puzzlement is the factor that motivates learning.

4. Social negotiation and the ongoing testing of the viability of existing concepts in the face of personal experience are the principle forces involved in the evolution of knowledge (Greening, 1998, p. 1-2).

Savery and Duffy (1995) set out the following "instructional principles" deriving from constructivism:

* Anchor all learning activities to a larger task or problem.

* Support the learner in developing ownership for the overall problem or task.

* Design an authentic task.

* Design the task and the learning environment to reflect the complexity of the environment they should be able to function in at the end of learning.

* Give the learner ownership of the process used to develop a solution.

* Design the learning environment to support and challenge the learner's thinking.

* Encourage testing ideas against alternative views and alternative contexts.

* Provide opportunity for and support reflection on both the content learned and the learning process (p. 32-34).

These fundamentals are relativistic and by definition opposed to the tenets of logical positivistic thought. Moreover, PBL is opposed to instructivist pedagogy and "other views of knowledge [that] would expect students to be told the 'truth' about what is known about science and medicine, as is done in many lecture settings, and that, because they have been told it, they would all then have the same knowledge and understanding of the content" (Camp, 1996, p. 3). Camp and others (Kamin, Deterding, Wilson, Armacost, & Breedon; 1999, Walton & Matthews, 1987) described PBL as being-for the learner-"active, adult-oriented, problem-centered, student-centered, collaborative, interdisciplinary, utiliz[ing] small groups and operat[ing] in a clinical context" (Camp, 1996, p. 4). This overview is consistent with Greening, who defined PBL as having an "emphasis on contextualization... [in which] learning is accompanied by reflection...[implemented] via group-based work, reflecting the constructivist focus on the value of negotiated meaning...is unconfined by discipline boundaries, encouraging an integrative approach to learning which is based on requirements of the problem as perceived by the learners themselves" (Greening, 1998, p. 2). Schmidt (1983) condensed PBL into three principles: (a) "Activation of prior-learning via the problem; (b) encoding specificity such that the resemblance of the problem to intended application domains facilitates later transfer (leading to an emphasis on authentic learning environments); and (c) elaboration of knowledge via discussion and reflection to consolidate learning experiences" (Greening, 1998, p. 2). Robbs and Merideth (1994) found several advantages to PBL modes of learning that can be generalized to disciplines other than medicine.

* An increased retention of information;

* The development of an integrated (rather than discipline-bound) knowledge base;

* An encouragement toward life-long learning;

* A greater exposure to clinical experience and at an earlier stage in the curriculum;

* An increased student-staff liaison; and

* An increase in overall motivation (Greening, 1998, p. 2).

However, courses built on the lecture model, where students sit in large lecture halls ostensibly to assimilate a lecturer's discourse continue to thrive in even the most modern of academic settings. This top-down model of dissemination of knowledge, from the instructivist point of view, takes form in textbooks and in the lecture, where an established expert retains a privileged position of power by centering the instructional activity on him/herself. As Greening characterized it,

The high value placed on experience may support a teacher-centered model of education in which the teacher embodies experience which is transmitted to students, or it may equally support a constructivist model which encourages the exposure to such experience by students. Much of this commentary on discipline-based inherent propensity for transmissive pedagogies is likey to be attributable to historic and political forces, and may more productively be associated with inherent difficulties brought about by the more general process of change itself. (p. 4).

One way of leveling the playing field is for instructors to work closely with students in the role of mentors and learning coaches, and to make peer tutors part of the infrastructure of the class. Jones, Donnelly, Nash, Young, and Schwartz, (1993) found that tutors play "two essential roles" in the PBL process: "facilitation of the learning process via prompting, and assisting in group processes to ensure that they maintain focus" (Greening, 1998). The tutor is an essential component in the scaffolding mechanisms built into the PBL. Tutors facilitate student control (Koschmann, Kelson, Feltovitch, & Barrows, 1996) and contribute to the authentic tenor of the actual problem through which students learn. Honebein, Duffy, and Fishman (1991) find that an authentic task is one in which learners take ownership of a project that is generalizable to other contexts once understood. Students are also encouraged to view the facets of the problem from multiple perspectives.

According to Peterson (1997), "PBL satisfies three important criteria that promote optimal learning." The environment fosters both supportive guidance and content-related feedback from students and instructors while engaged in learning that is "functional-based on solving a real problem" (p. 1). In the move from a teacher-centered to a peer-centered instructional realm, students have a greater opportunity to establish and exercise teamwork and leadership skills. When an authentic problem is shared by a team of students, and the goal of the course is to solve the problem as a team, "it becomes necessary for all team members to be able to lead the team. This can occur when responsibility for the operation of the team is shared....Shared leadership leads to shared accountability and competencies" (Peterson, 1997).

There is literature rich in its testament to the success of PBL in science education (Koschmann, Glenn, & Conlee, 1997; Kamin et al, 1999), beginning in medical education but expanding into other ill-structured and complex disciplines (Koschmann, 1995; Norman & Schmidt, 1992). If this literature is any indication, PBL has established itself as an instructional design platform that will reshape future learning modalities. Walton and Matthews (1989, p. 544) articulated PBL methods and corresponding "assets" as they apply to medical education, the pioneering discipline in PBL. Their overview is easily transferable to other disciplines such as computer programming and English composition (Deek, Deek, & Friedman, 1999; Friedman, Deek, & Deek, 2000).

For Walton and Matthews (1989), PBL methods stimulated and challenged the learner to "tackle realistic problems in a chosen field by applying prior knowledge and experience." They provide constant "practice of a logical, analytical, scientific approach to problems" that yields the development "of effective and efficient reasoning skills, and a store of relevant, retrievable knowledge." PBL promotes "the recognition that nothing is ever learned to finality, that learning in a variety of subjects runs in parallel for application in a mixed, interrelated way, that there exists too much for any one person to learn and that tasks need to be shared between students." In terms of methodology, PBL fosters the "practice of the application of new knowledge to the original or to new problems."

DISTRIBUTED LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

Just as PBL practices and constructivist philosophies have taken on more currency with contemporary instructional designers and faculty, distributed education, whether through synchronous modes of content delivery or asynchronous learning networks, has also grown in terms of popularity with student cohorts and faculty, technological sophistication, its use in nontraditional academic settings, also accruing-as PBL and constructivist pedagogy has, into general acceptance as an inevitable direction for education. The many varieties of distributed education now offer large numbers of geographically dispersed students instant access to information, courses, need-to-know learning alternatives, and accredited degrees. However, while distributed education could not have taken its present shapes or force without the ubiquity of computer software and hardware to support communication, dissemination of multimedia information, and instruction, the disciplines that investigate computing-computer science, information syste ms, software engineering, and human-computer interaction, for example, have yet to fully adopt or endorse either distributed education or PBL. Aside from important sociological issues of access to and use of technology, many teachers, instructional designers and cognitive theorists differ over whether computer technologies are driving pedagogy more than pedagogy is suggesting research and development of new technologies to enhance students' learning processes and skills (Algozzine et al., 1999; Young & Young, 1999).

Although there has been enormous growth in web-based distributed learning at all levels of education, there have been very few studies that examine the efficacy of such activities in terms of student outcomes or instructional practices. In fact, the number and scope of peer-review journals or books were quite limited in the early 1990s but has increased considerably over the past five years. Even with this growth, however, articles are quite often either anecdotal or based on small samples yielding little to no statistically significant results. At this point, those interested in the effectiveness of instructional designs and methodologies do best by reading reports from experienced colleagues and researchers, then testing hypotheses in their own domains. What follows is a review of the findings of several leading researchers in web-based distributed education. While we are clearly in need of more research, and even though what researchers have found may not be surprising, they are collectively in favor of st rategies that incorporate technology into an environment that is both student-centered and organized in a format that promotes PBL strategies and philosophies.

Hiltz (1997) provided an overview of asynchronous learning environments that would seem to be the best of all possible educational worlds:

The fact that the educational process is asynchronous means students may engage in more reflective thinking before having to answer or discuss issues, as compared to a synchronous or same-time interaction, and it also means that students can participate at their own convenience, and thus better fit the demands of a college degree program into busy lives.

Working in such an environment requires a series of best practices providing "the means to create the feeling of a true "class" or group of people who are learning together, and by structuring and supporting a carefully planned series of collaborative learning activities which constitute the assignments for the course" (Hiltz, 1997). Hiltz shared with Bouton and Garth (1983), Bruffee (1984), and Dillenberg and Schneider (1995), the belief that collaborative learning is "a learning process that emphasizes group or cooperative efforts among faculty and students. It stresses active participation and interaction on the part of both students and instructors. Knowledge is viewed as a social construct, and therefore the educational process is facilitated by social interaction in an environment that facilitates peer interaction, evaluation and cooperation" (Hiltz, 1997). One can easily see the overlap between Hiltz's approach and PBL philosophies, which steep students in an active and authentic environment where ther e is little-to-no top-down structure. While some distributed education practitioners would support a virtual replication of the classroom through the use of a videotape component, Bourne, McMaster, Rieger, and Campbell (1997) would call that the technological equivalent of a "sage on a stage" approach to teaching. The argument for the virtual classroom derives from a concern for effective collaboration as the heart of a beneficial learning experience. Hiltz summarized Dillenberg and Schneider's (1995) "social-psychological mechanisms [that] make collaborative learning effective, including self-explanation, internalization, and appropriation."

* Self explanation occurs when a more knowledgeable peer explains a topic to another. One receives an explanation and the other benefits by articulating and integrating various pieces of knowledge.

* Internalization is the process of learning by verbalizing in a conversation.

* Appropriation occurs as one learns from watching and working with a more skilled partner; apprenticeship is a form of appropriation (Hiltz, 1997).

In a modification of what PBL theorists would term the establishment of a learning issue, Hiltz implemented methods in which "the students become the teachers. Individuals or small groups of students are responsible for making a selection of a topic; reading material not assigned to the rest of the class; preparing a written summary for the class of the most important ideas in the material; and leading a discussion on the topic or material for which they are responsible" (Hiltz, 1997). This practice has it cognates in PBL activities and constructivist philosophies. Self-explanation and internalization provide an opportunity for what Koschmann (1997) finds as "a crucial moment in the Problem-Based Learning method. Its success... relies in part on the ability of group members to assess not only the accuracy, but also their relative uncertainty, about what they know" (p. 6).

Kamin et al. (1999) designed a prototype study at the University of Colorado School of Medicine "to support medical students' learning of national pediatric curricular objectives, regardless of their clinical location and variable patient exposure" (p. 1). Combining a PBL model with video and asynchronous distance learning technologies, their project was "designed to investigate the use of technology to support learning in a problem-based curriculum" (p. 6). Like Hiltz, they combined video, for its ability to foster cognitive and behavioral modeling, with web-based communication, allowing "students and faculty to participate asynchronously and choose the best time to work" (p. 3). Faculty played the role of facilitator, "an important one to assure a meaningful discussion as well as provide cohesiveness to a virtual group" (p. 4).

Kamin's group employed video and computer conferencing in a way that Jonassen and Reeves (1995) referred to as cognitive tools, "technologies, tangible or intangible, that enhance the cognitive powers of human beings during thinking, problem solving, and learning" (p. 693). SOLVEIT (Deek, 1997), a problem solving environment that will be described below, falls into the domain of cognitive tools rather than a traditional instructional technology, as in software that "constrains" students' learning processes through prescribed communications and interactions" (p. 694). SOLVEIT goes a step beyond, as students use it as a "cognitive tool to organize, restructure, represent and express what we know" (p. 694-695). SOLVEIT engages and supports learners through the entire problem solving process, diminishing what Jonassen and Reeves (1995) found to be "the primary conclusion of programming research: that the cognitive overhead (the amount of mental effort required to use programming languages) mitigates the ability o f the learner to use computer programming as an easy and effective means for solving problems or representing what the learner knows, which is the goal of using cognitive tools in the first place" (p. 702).

The role of the faculty in asynchronous, distributed learning environments, as in PBL, is what Bourne (1997) has called the "guide on the side.... Teaching in an ALN mode requires preparation of materials in advance, detailed attention to learner questions, facilitating peer-to-peer interaction, and continuous guiding of learners." The key ingredient of distributed education the capability for learners to learn anywhere and at anytime and to be part of a community of learners (Bourne, 1997). He summarized his comparison among several different paradigms of learning in terms of the "guide" and the "sage" models of teaching (1997, P. 44).

Wegner, Holloway, and Garton (1999), moving past already identified negative areas of concern in distributed learning such as inertia, resistance to and inexperience with technology, learner isolation, and the digital divide, designed a study to assess "the effect distance learning over the Internet has on student achievement" (p. 103). His study compared two groups of students assessing their own learning outcomes. The study juxtaposed a traditional face-to-face group using instructivist methodologies with an experimental group studying the same material but using a PBL approach with synchronous distant learning tools and methods. Although his samples were too small to yield statistically significant results, his study did suggested a few benefits to PBL design combined with Internet-based methods as an educational design strategy. As Wegner summarized:

Positive comments from the experimental group could be categorized in four main areas: Practicality/Performance-based, Technology, Group Processes and Convenience. The authentic, performance-based nature of the class was seen as the biggest positive as indicated by the high response rate (71%) of the experimental group. Thirty-six percent of the class indicated that the chance to use technology in a productive way was a plus and 21% stated that the convenience of not having to travel and having flexible work hours was a major advantage. Interestingly, 36% of the experimental group cited the opportunity to solve problems, use consensus building skills, exercise autonomous learning as a group and communications skill as competencies gained over what they normally would get through traditional instructional delivery models. (p. 104)

Significantly, Wegner:

found a basis in the literature that substantiated a relationship between the use of technology-based delivery systems and the cultivation of group processing skills. There is at least some indication in this study that students developed and utilized skills independent of instructor directives or problem design. It is the belief of the researchers that these skills may be inherent in Internet-based instruction. (p. 104)

Wegner believed that instruction on the Internet "accentuates the 'student as worker' and the 'teacher as coach' paradigms" (p. 104). This is in concordance with early and current PBL designers (Jonassen, 1995; Barrows, 1980; Grabinger, 1995). For Wegner, "The role of the instructor becomes one of preparing the instructional environment, anticipating the needs of the students in advance and providing contingencies. They become Socratic questioners, resource providers, and motivators. Instructors respond to and accommodate learners in assisting them to develop their own meaning for the material rather than interpreting the material for them" (p. 104). Here again, Wegner echoed the host of researchers and theorists in both PBL and constructivist theory and distributed education innovators previously cited.

Wegner complemented Grabinger (1995), who summarized "rich environments for active learning" (REALs) as "comprehensive instructional systems that:

* are evolving from constructivist philosophies and theories;

* promote study and investigation within authentic (i.e., realistic, meaningful, relevant, complex, and information-rich) contexts;

* encourage the growth of student responsibility, initiative, decision making, and intentional learning;

* cultivate an atmosphere of cooperative learning among students and teachers;

* utilize dynamic, generative learning activities that promote high-level thinking processes (i.e., analysis, synthesis, problem-solving, experimentation, creativity, and examination of topics from multiple perspectives) to help students integrate new knowledge with old knowledge and thereby create rich and complex knowledge structures; and

* assess student progress in content and learning to learn through realistic tasks and performances." (p. 668)

REALs are environments that support problem-based learning. Benor (1984, p. 94) stated that in PBL, "students have to understand the problem to the extent that its constituents can be identified. The learners have then to collect, integrate, synthesize, and apply this information to the given problem, using strategies that will yield a solution." Grabinger's REALs provided such an environment by building on constructivist tenets such as:

* instilling the notion that "knowledge is not a product to be accumulated but an active process in which the learner attempts to make sense out of the world;"

* promoting the idea that "people conditionalize their knowledge in personal ways;" and

* stressing the "importance of collaboration and the social negotiation of meaning" (p. 669-670).

In REALs, the learning environment fosters authentic activities and contexts. As Grabinger stated:

Authenticity is important to REALs for three reasons. First, it encourages students to take ownership of the situation and their own learning. Realistic problems hold more relevance to students' needs and experiences, because they can relate what they are learning to problems and goals that they see every day. Second, it develops deeper and richer (indexicalized and conditioned) knowledge structures leading to a higher likelihood of transfer to novel situations. Finally, it encourages collaboration and negotiation. Complex problems require a team approach that provides natural opportunities for learners to test and refine their ideas and to help each other understand the content (p. 670).

Working from the premises that PBL is a pedagogy that will become situated in an even wider variety of disciplines, and distributed education will also grow as learning demands of increasing numbers of organizations and individuals of necessity make more use of the Internet, tools that can assist individual learners in a PBL methodology employed in a web-based learning environment are necessary to develop and refine. One general methodology! environment initially designed as a computer programming and problem solving instructional tool, SOLVEIT, shares fundamental affinities with the theoretical underpinnings and substantive methodologies of both the problem-based learning approach to education and distributed education.

A Problem-Solving Environment

The Specification Oriented Language in Visual Environment for Instruction Translation (SOLVEIT) is an environment that provides tools to support the process of problem solving and programming (Deek, 1997) in each of the six stages that comprise it: (a) problem formulation, (b) planning, (c) design, (d) translation, (e) testing, and (1) delivery of the problem's solution. While some of the tools are for general purposes and are shared by the entire SOLVEIT environment (inner layer of Figure 1), others are associated with the specific stages of the process (outer layer of Figure 1) and are used to perform the various tasks of problem solving and program development. These tools provide support at each stage of the process (existing tools of traditional programming environments such as syntax editors, compilers, and debugging utilities are used to carry out translation tasks. The outcomes of each stage are captured and stored in a database. Students working in subsequent stages can access this database and use i nformation relevant to the current task. Information is logged to a text recorder where it is maintained for access during and after the problem solving session.

SOLVEIT's problem-solving methodology and tools are complementary with Nkanginieme's (1997) for early medical education, in that each demonstrates its theoretical basis in Bloom's (1956) taxonomy and its relationship, through application, to the cognitive domain of distinct educational objectives. Nkanginieme presented the process of clinical diagnosis as derivative of Bloom's theoretical base and the methodology as central to problem-based learning in a series of definitions of terms:

Knowledge: To acquire, to recall, to identify, to recognize (knowledge; of specifics, of dealing with specifics) (knowledge of universals an abstractions); Comprehension: Translation, interpretation, extrapolation;

Application: To apply, to relate, to transfer, to use

Analysis: To discriminate, to distinguish, to organize

Synthesis: To constitute, to combine, to specify, to propose

Evaluation: To validate, to argue, to appraise, to reconsider.

Clinical diagnosis requires a physician to move sequentially through the processes and activities described to reach a valid diagnosis. In much the same way, computer programmers, systems analysts, and software engineers follow a similar plan. SOLVEIT was designed in part based on Bloom's taxonomy (Deek, 1997). Beginning computer science students use SOLVEIT to fulfill the complex, multiple tasks of problem-solving and programming. The design of SOLVEIT is such that it promotes a recursive process of re-examination and modification of programming of what otherwise would generally be thought of as a linear process of steps that accrue into an executable program and results.

The "new assumptions" about teaching and learning articulated by Grabinger are addressed by the SOLVEIT design. People transfer learning with difficulty, needing both content and context learning. Through problem identification, formulation, and articulation, SOLVEIT provides the context in which students are introduced to a subject's concepts and the problem solving heuristics to employ. Learners are active constructors of knowledge. SOLVEIT offers learners, through a series of problem decomposition steps, the ability to formulate ideas for themselves. Learning is cognitive and in a constant state of growth and evolution. Composing a problem's solution after breaking it down into subproblem components, along with the archiving and database functions of SOLVEIT, demonstrate to the learner that the act of learning is recursive. Learners bring their own needs and experiences to learning situations. Problem formulation and solution planning, the first two stages of the SOLVEIT, draw on problem solving skills and domain knowledge that are adaptable to new situations. Skills and knowledge are best acquired within realistic contexts. SOLVEIT's tools are modeled on professional programming environment tools and put to use toward creating programs that address the needs of professional program development. Assessment must take more realistic and holistic forms. Programs derived through SOLVEIT are tested, debugged, and refined for delivery to the user.

Savery and Duffy's (1995, p. 32-34) "instructional principles deriving from constructivism" are also found within SOLVEIT's design: "Anchor all learning activities to a larger task or problem." Students begin by engaging SOLVEIT first to decompose large problems into smaller subtasks. "Support the learner in developing ownership for the overall problem or task." Each step, from problem decomposition to solution delivery is, through an interactive set of tools, open to the scrutiny of both learner and instructor; yet, through each step of the sequence, the learner takes responsibility for successful completion of the programming assignment in its entirety. "Design an authentic task. Solutions formed within the SOLVEIT environment lead to executable code devised as a series of steps based on a software design and development process. Design the task and the learning environment to reflect the complexity of the environment they should be able to function in at the end of learning." SOLVEIT was designed as a stan d alone problem solving/programming environment, but when working with it in groups of students in disparate locations, the demands of problem solving take on the additional complexity of asynchronous interactivity (Deek & McHugh, 2000). "Give the learner ownership of the process used to develop a solution." Each stage of SOLVEIT's functionality builds on the work of the preceding steps, and the learner must decide not only when to move on sequentially in the process, but also when to return to an earlier stage for possible revision. This particular recursive pattern any one student adopts contributes to a sense of mastery over the process itself. Design the learning environment to support and challenge the learner's thinking. Throughout SOLVEIT's stages, the learner is asked series of guiding questions, creating opportunities for innovation and revision. "Encourage testing ideas against alternative views and alternative contexts." SOLVEIT's planning and design stages require learners to identify, assess, and choose solution alternatives before implementation criteria are selected. "Provide opportunity for and support reflection on both the content learned and the learning process." In terms of programming instruction, the SOLVEIT environment provides the structure and the tools for learners to understand and practice employing a problem-solving methodology that translates into the ability to write code that addresses the immediate problem but also provides a more generic applicability of the process of problem-solving itself. SOLVEIT is an example of Jonassen and Reeves' (1995) point, that "the real power of computers to improve education will only be realized when students actively use them as cognitive tools rather than passively perceive them as tutors or repositories of information" (p. 696). In addition, SOLVEIT facilitates Dillenberg and Schneider's (1995) "social-psychological mechanisms [that] make collaborative learning effective" in a distributed learning environment. Self-explanation and appropriation result from the mentored teamwork that occurs through the problem-solving activity. Verbalization occurs in each of the six stages that comprise the SOLVEIT methodology, thereby supporting internalization.

CONCLUSION

SOLVEIT is an example of a tool applicable to the fundamental theories supporting problem-based learning activities as they are generally applied to disciplines and levels of education. It is also a tool that is complementary in theory and methodologies to PBL and the best principles and practices of distributed education. It is just that complementarity, which suggests it to be a satisfactory tool with which to unite PBL and distributed education. As Jonassen and Reeves' (1995) wrote: "the real power of computers to improve education will only be realized when students actively use them as cognitive tools rather than passively perceive them as tutors or repositories of information" (p. 696). SOLVEIT, a tool developed to conform with and enhance the cognitive activities essential to problem-solving in computer programming, puts into practice much of constructivist theory and is easily transferable to asynchronous learning methodologies in a broader spectrum of disciplines. The authors have suggested that SOLV EIT is a tool that can be used to support a PBL approach to learning and bridge the constructivist philosophy supporting PBL with distributed education, particularly in ill-structured domains such as programming and software development. SOLVEIT is, moreover, a cognitive tool, as Jonassen and Reeves (1995) defined them:

Cognitive tools are best used by students to represent knowledge and solve problems within the context of pursuing investigations that are relevant to their own lives.... Cognitive tools, as we conceive them, are unintelligent tools, relying on the learner to provide the intelligence, not the computer. This means that planning, decision making, and self-regulation are the responsibility of the learner, not the technology. Cognitive tools can serve as powerful catalysts for facilitating these skills, assuming that they are used in ways that promote reflection, discussion, and collaborative problem solving" (p. 697).

SOLVEIT and its taxonomy of activities, when applied within a general PBL approach in an distributed education environment, is a potentially effective methodology for problem solving in a variety of subject areas, and with modifications, the spectrum of distributed educational environments. By combining PBL, web-based distributed education and SOLVEIT, instructional designers can create active, vibrant learning environments. This combination holds benefits to students as they work in richer contexts than either those steeped in traditional classroom-based instructivist pedagogy or those supporting face-to-face PBL-oriented learning.

Table 1

Bourne's Comparison of Learning Paradigms

Paradigm       Traditional Use

Learning       Lectures: very common; succeeds
by listening   with dynamic lecturers; students
               bored with dull "sage"


Discovery      Library, literature searches
learning

Learn by       Laboratory. Works very well in
doing          traditional model. Writing,
               creative things



Learn through  Poor in large classes, excellent
discussion     in very small classes with the
and debate     right instructor

Paradigm       ALN

Learning       On-screen video played on-demand
by listening   or downloaded



Discovery      Web searching
learning

Learn by       Learning modules, simulations
doing          online; writing online, critiquing




Learn through  Network conferencing
discussion
and debate

Paradigm       Likely success with ALN

Learning       Fair to poor. Suffers from lack
by listening   of presence of the "sage."
               However permits replay, indexing of
               lecture

Discovery      Web searches are often much better
learning       than traditional library searching

Learn by       Learning modules can be very good,
doing          but online laboratory materials are
               not wide yet spread. ALN is an
               excellent medium for writing and
               critiquing.

Learn through  Scales up to many learners;
discussion     potentially much richer than
and debate     classroom discussion

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by the New Jersey Information-Technology Opportunities for the Workforce, Education, and Research (NJ I-TOWER) Project funded by the New Jersey Commission on Higher Education (contract # 01-801020-02).

References

Algozzine, B., Bateman, L.R., Flowers, C.P., Gretes, J.A., Hughes, C.D., & Lambert, R. (1999, September 8). Developing technology competencies in a college of education. Current Issues in Education, 2(3). Retrieved front the World Wide Web June 10, 2002 from: http://cie.ed.asu.edu/volume2/number3/

Barrows, H.S., & Tamblyn, R.M. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to medical education. New York: Springer.

Barrows, H.S. (1994). Practice-based learning: Problem-based learning applied to medical education. Springfield, IL: Southern Illinois University School of Medicine.

Benor, D. (1984). An alternative, non-Brunerian approach to problem-based learning. In H.G. Schmidt & M.L.D. Volder (Eds.), Tutorials in problem-based learning: New directions in training for health professionals, pp. 48-58. Assen/Maastrict, The Netherlands: Van Gor Cum.

Bloom, B.S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay.

Bourne, J.R., McMaster, E., Rieger, J., & Campbell, J. (1997). Paradigms for on-line learning: A case study in the design and implementation of an asynchronous learning networks (ALN) Course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 1(2), 38-56.

Bouton, C., & Garth, R.Y. (1983). Learning in groups. New directions in teaching and learning, No. 14. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bransford, J.S., & Schwartz, D.L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Educational Research, 24, 61-100.

Bransford, J.D., & Vye, N.J. (1989). A perspective on cognitive research and its implications for instruction. In L.B. Resnick & L.E. Klopfer (Eds.), Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research. Alexandria, VA: ASCD Yearbook.

Bruffee, K.A. (1984). Background and history to collaborative learning in American colleges. College English, 46(7), 635-652.

Camp G. (1996). Problem-based learning: A paradigm shift or a passing fad? Medical Education, 1(2). Retrieved from the World Wide Web June 10, 2002 from: http://med-ed-online.org/f0000003.htm

Deek, F.P. (1997). An integrated environment for problem solving and program development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ.

Deek, F.P., Deek, M., & Friedman, R. (1999). The virtual classroom experience: Viewpoints from computing and humanities. Journal of Interactive Learning Environments, 7(2/3), 113-136.

Deek, F.P., & McHugh, J.A. (2000). SOLVEIT: An experimental environment for problem solving and program development. Journal of Applied Systems Studies: Special Issue on Distributed Multimedia Systems with Applications (in press).

Dillenberg, P., & Schneider, D. (1995). Collaborative learning in the Internet. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Computer Assisted Instruction, Taiwan, S10-6 to S10-13.

Friedman, R., Deek, F.P., & Deek, M. (2000). Bridging technology and pedagogy: Interdisciplinary computing and composition. WebNet Journal, 2(1), 60-67.

Gagne, R.M. (1985). The conditions of learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Grabinger, R.S. (1995). Rich environments for active learning. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communication and technology (pp. 665-692). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Greening, T. (1998). Scaffolding for success in problem-based learning. Medical Education Online, 3(4). Retrieved from the World Wide Web June 10, 2002 from: http://www.med-ed-online.org/f0000012.htm#f0000012

Greeno, J.G., Collins, A.M., & Resnick, L.B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D.C. Berliner & R.C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15-45). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Hiltz, S.R. (1997). Impacts of college-level courses via asynchronous learning networks: Some preliminary results. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 1(2), 1-19.

Honebein, P.C., Duffy, T.M., & Fishman B.J. (1991). Constructivism and the design of learning environments: Context and authentic activities for learning. In T.M. Duffy, J. Lowyck, & D.H. Jonassen (Eds.), Designing environments for constructivist learning (pp. 87-108). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Jonassen, D.H., & Reeves, T.C. (1995). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communication and technology (pp. 693-724). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Jones, R.O., Donnelly, M.B., Nash, P.P., Young, B., & Schwartz, R.W. (1993). The ongoing development of a problem-based surgery clerkship: Year three. Medical Teacher, 15(2/3), 207-215.

Kamin, C., Deterding, R, Wilson, B., Armacost, M., & Breedon, T. (1999). The development of a collaborative distance learning program to facilitate pediatric problem-based learning. Retrieved from the World Wide Web June 21, 2002, from: http://www.med-ed-online.org/t0000008.htm

Koschmann, T. (1995). Medical education and computer literacy. Academic Medicine, 70(9), 818-821.

Koschmann, T, Kelson A., Feltovitch P., & Barrows H. (1996). Computer-supported problem-based learning: A principled approach to the use of computers in collaborative learning. In T.D. Koschmann, (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 83-124). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum.

Koschmann, T., Glenn P., & Conlee, M. (1997). Analyzing the emergence of a learning issue in a problem-based learning meeting. Medical Education Online, 2(2). Retrieved from the World Wide Web June 21, 2002, from: http:// www.med-ed-online.org/res00003.htm#res00003

Mayer, R.E. (1983). Thinking, problem solving, cognition. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.

Mayer, R.E. (1996). Learners as information processors: Legacies and limitations of educational psychology's second metaphor. Educational Psychologist, 31(3/4), 151-161.

Nkanginieme, K.E. (1997). Clinical diagnosis as a dynamic cognitive process: Application of Bloom's taxonomy for educational objectives in the cognitive domain. Medical Education Online, 2(1). Retrieved from the World Wide Web June 21, 2002, from: http://www.med-ed-online.org/f0000007.htm#f0000007

Norman, G.R., & Schmidt H.G. (1992). The psychological basis of problem-based learning; A review of the evidence. Academic Medicine, 67(9), 557-565.

Peterson, M. (1997). Skills to enhance problem-based learning. Medical Education Online, 2(3). Retrieved from the World Wide Web June 21, 2002, from: http://www.med-ed-online.org/f0000009.htm#f0000009

Robbs, J., & Meredith, S. (1994). The problem-based learning curriculum at Southern Illinois University School of Medicine. Retrieved from the World Wide Web January 12, 2001, http://www.suimed.edu/pblc/pblcur.html

Savery, J.R., & Duffy, T.M. (1995). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educational Technology, 35(5), 31-37.

Schmidt, H.G. (1983). Problem-based learning: Rational and description. Medical Education, 17, 11-16.

Walton, H.J., & Matthews, M.B. (1989). Essentials of problem-based learning. Medical Education, 23, 542-558.

Wegner, S., Holloway, K., & Garton E. (1999). The effect of Internet-based instruction on student learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 3(2), 98-106.

Young, C., & Young, L. (1999). Assessing learning in interactive courses. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 10(1), 63-76.