The document discusses scaffolding problem-based learning (PBL) through module length problems at the University of Leicester's Interdisciplinary Science programme. It found that initially, PBL delivery led to surface learning and poor exam results. Interventions like pre-session preparation materials, feedback sessions, and subject-specific teaching fellows improved student marks and engagement. A student focus group indicated the changes, especially use of teaching fellows, benefited their learning. While limited by a small cohort, the results suggest scaffolding can help students, particularly those with strong or weak first year performance.

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