1. Scaffolding Problem Based Learning
(PBL) with Module Length Problems
Prof Derek Raine and Dr Sarah Gretton
Centre for Interdisciplinary Science
University of Leicester,
U.K.
www.le.ac.uk/iscience

2. Interdisciplinary Science Programme:
• Interdisciplinary Science programme started in 2004- response to
IOP enquiry
• 3 year undergraduate programme (BSc)
• Natural Sciences content (biology, chemistry, physics and earth
sciences)
• Innovative in two respects:
– Modules are interdisciplinary in nature
– e.g. Astrobiology, Forensic Science, Biophysics
– Core subject content taught entirely by PBL
– each module is based around a problem e.g. “What limits the
speed at which a human can run?”
www.le.ac.uk/iscience

3. Braining IT
Year 2
Year 3
Prophets and
Powers
Science of the
Invisible
The Origins of
Science
Year 1
Atoms,
Molecules and
Cells
Time and
Energy
Dynamics
and
Thermodynamics
Molecules by
Design
CSI Leicester
Organic
Chemistry
Forensic
Science
Ecology
www.le.ac.uk/iscience
Earth and
Sun
Man and
Machines
Habitable
Worlds
Biophysics &
Physiology
The
Universe
and Life
Communication
Science
Nanoscience
Materials and
Organelles
Neurons and
Computation
Near Space
Evolution
Earth
through
Electro-magnetic
Time
and chemical
signalling
Climate

4. Problem Based Learning
• PBL is
– ‘a student-centred method of teaching in which
students learn by investigating real-world
problems and, working in groups, seek out the
tools necessary to solve them’
• “Pure” versus “Scaffolded” (supported) PBL
Raine D. and Symons S. (2012) Problem-based learning: undergraduate physics by research,
Contemporary Physics, 53(1), pp39–51
www.le.ac.uk/iscience

5. Delivery
• Structure:
– 5 week sequential modules
– Facilitated workshop sessions
– Informal lectures
– Independent research
• Assessment via coursework ( 65%, group work and individual)
examination (35% individual)
• Support modules (Skills, Maths, Computing) and additional
laboratory programme
www.le.ac.uk/iscience

6. Our Challenges with PBL delivery:
• satisfaction with first “googled” search term
• lack of research in between sessions
• inappropriate division of learning within groups
• Resulting in :
– Lack of engagement
– Surface learning (lack of detailed subject knowledge)
– Lack of coverage of all the curriculum
– poor exam results
• Documented by others ( Wiznia et al. 2012)
Wiznia, D., Korom, R., Marzuf, P., Safdieh J., and Grafstein, B., (2012) PBL.2.0: enhancing problembased learning through increased student participation; Med Educ Online 2012, 17:17375
www.le.ac.uk/iscience

7. Interventions
• Pre-session preparation:
– Recommended textbooks and reading topics
– Suggested questions to guide workshop
preparation and discussion
– Increased detail in intended learning outcomes
• Tutorial session dedicated to feedback on weekly
question sets
• Workshop sessions facilitated by subject based
teaching fellows (one per subject)
www.le.ac.uk/iscience

8. www.le.ac.uk/iscience

9. Data
• Students who entered the programme in 2009/10
experienced less scaffolded PBL in year 1 and
interventions in year 2 (and beyond)
• Small cohort (13 students)
www.le.ac.uk/iscience

10. Changes in Core Module Marks
•
Year 1 vs Year 2 Marks
70
65
60
55
Year 2
50
marks (%)
45
40
35
30
30
35
40
45
50
55
Year 1 marks (%)
www.le.ac.uk/iscience
60
65
70
Average core (not
support) module marks
from available from 5
student cohorts prior to
introduction of
scaffolding
• Plot average module
marks in years 1 against
2 for these cohorts we
can predict expected
year 2 marks based year
1 marks

11. Quantitative data from students suggests
• 2009/10 intake
changes were effective
experienced introduction
of scaffolding at start of
year two
75
70
65
60
actual
marks
55
Year 2
marks (%)
50
Linear
(expecte
d marks)
45
40
35
30
30
35
40
45
50
55
Year 1 marks (%)
www.le.ac.uk/iscience
60
65
70
• “Actual” marks are those
from 2009/10 students in
year 2 (when changes had
been introduced).
• Statistically significant ( 2)
increase in year 2 marks
compared to year 1 for
the target cohort relative
to previous years

12. Qualitative data:
• Which of the changes were significant in this
change?
• Majority of cohort took part in semi-structured focus
group discussing their views on the interventions
www.le.ac.uk/iscience

13. Student focus groups indicated:
• On the introduction of pre-session preparation:
– often deviated from the suggested reading and recognised
that material is available from a wide range of sources
– source their own reading materials based on similar titles
– found the suggested discussion questions useful for
focussing their reading
– made use of the ‘Intended Learning Outcomes’ as a
revision checklist.
www.le.ac.uk/iscience

14. Student focus groups indicated:
• On the introduction of feedback sessions for weekly question
sets :
– The students were happy with the tutorial sessions found
useful for revision purposes
– Some students would like all questions to be covered not
just the “major difficulties”
– Other students would like to see these sessions become
optional for students who score above a certain mark.
www.le.ac.uk/iscience

15. Student focus groups indicated:
• On the use of teaching fellows:
– All students agreed this was a positive change
– Liked having one teaching fellow per subject - know who
to approach if they need to
– Felt more supported in the PBL process
“There's been a change since the first year where the PhD
students that were there were just there to make sure
we'd do the work rather than assisting and
facilitating, whereas now they [teaching fellows] will
prompt you towards an answer if you're not quite
getting it.”
www.le.ac.uk/iscience

16. Conclusions
• Limitations:
– Small cohort
– Research bias
• Quantitative data suggests changes were effective - appears
to benefit those with either strong or weak first year averages
most.
• Generally positive about the changes introduced- particularly
used discussion questions and intended learning outcomes
and liked the introduction of subject based teaching fellows
www.le.ac.uk/iscience

17. Final thoughts
• How much well trained are PBL facilitators in tertiary education?
• Our findings correspond with Gibbs (2011) in studies on effect of
extensive use of graduate students and ancillary casual
engagement in the U.S.
• PBL doesn’t work for all undergraduates – not all students engage
– in particular for students who maximise their social activities
during term and their studies during vacations (Edmonds
et, 2009).
Gibbs G (2011) Dimensions of Quality, HEA publication
Edmonds (2009) Review of the Student Learning Experience in Physics, 2008, HEA Physical Sciences
Subject Centre
www.le.ac.uk/iscience

18. Acknowledgements:
• Students and colleagues at the
Centre for Interdisciplinary Science
• Higher Education Funding Council
for England (HEFCE)
• Institute of Physics
• HE STEM
email:
www.le.ac.uk/iscience
sng8@le.ac.uk