Report to L3D on visit to PBLI by Gerry Stahl on 8-17-98 to discuss
joint project on Distance-PBL (Distance Problem-Based Learning)

Background
Last Spring, Tim Koschmann proposed a collaboration between L
3D at CU-Boulder and the Problem-Based Learning Institute at SIU in Springfield, IL. In June, Howard Barrows led a demo PBL workshop at L3D in which several L3D members participated. Some materials for the collaboration can be found at: http://GerryStahl.net/MedGuide/.   This past Sunday, I visited Tim and Howard and on Monday I met with them and with other members of PBLI to share ideas and to discuss how to further the collaboration. The following notes are (of course) my own personal impressions of what transpired.

Weekly meeting of the Problem-Based Learning Institute (PBLI)
Discussion of how to support distributed PBL. Emphasis on how to preserve what is essential to PBL approach while transforming classroom routines, roles, practices, methods. Debate about target audience (i.e., high school, community college, med school); sense that it would be good to start in current PBL group context, build on previous work at PBLI and L
3D on computer support (e.g., colab lab, E-Talk, DynaClass). Discussion of synchronous vs. asynchronous support; sense that it is an empirical question how much asynch can replace F2F group work. Suggestion to explore asynch media as enhancement of current approach, to identify key issues (role of tutor, identification of learning issues, recall of relevant previous cases, etc.) and to design software specifically to support these. Importance of sharing diverse perspectives and bringing ideas of individuals into group cognitive processes.

Meeting with Howard Barrows and Tim Koschmann
Planning for collaboration between PBLI and L
3D. Members of the PBLI will continue to pursue the issues mentioned above, work on the white paper and prepare for a larger L3D visit to Springfield. Suggestion that I organize a couple of OMOL/L3D meetings to brainstorm Distance-PBL  possibly using videotapes, transcripts, manuals and papers about PBL group processes, like how to support the identification of learning issues. Suggestion of a joint meeting in October or November to learn more about PBL and L3D approaches, to plan collaboration and to outline a grant proposal   probably a two-day session in Springfield with several L3D and several PBLI members.

Meeting with Paul Feltovich
Discussion of a variety of cognitive science issues of mutual interest and of relevance to collaboration: e.g., expertise, problem solving and high-functionality systems in ill-structured, complex domains; shared understanding vs. diverse perspectives; organizational memory and group learning.

4. Meetings with Ken Williamson and Sanj Dutta
Discussion of the probable applicability of LSA to the evaluation of clinical reports including clerkship exams and other potential uses of LSA.

5. Demos from past PBLI computer support efforts
The MMT hypercard system was tested with a PBL group for 11 weeks in a specially designed computer lab. A custom E-Talk chat/email system and a collaborative authoring system were also used. Positive and negative experience with these systems provides important ideas for future experiments.

Conclusion
A joint project on Distance-PBLI, starting by building on what each of us has learned from past trials and taking advantage of the med school PBL classes as an ideal experimental laboratory seems truly promising. There are many important issues about technology and learning that are immediately suggested. However, in order to produce a fundable proposal in the near future, we need to begin serious explorations right away.


The hospitality of the Koschmann and Barrows families make the visit to Springfield a most enjoyable one. The enthusiasm of the PBLI members made the trip extremely productive and enlightening for me. I would like to thank them all, particularly, of course, Tim.