To what extent can PBL principles be applied in blended learning: Lessons learned from health master programs.

INTRODUCTION: Maastricht University has been actively exploring blended learning approaches to PBL in Health Master Programs. Key principles of PBL are, learning should be constructive, self-directed, collaborative, and contextual. The purpose is to explore whether these principles are applicable in blended learning. METHODS: The programs, Master of Health Services Innovation (case 1), Master Programme in Global Health (case 2), and the Master of Health Professions Education (case 3), used a Virtual Learning Environment for exchanging material and were independently analyzed. Quantitative data were collected for cases 1 and 2. Simple descriptive analyses such as frequencies were performed. Qualitative data for cases 1 and 3 were collected via (focus group) interviews. RESULTS: All PBL principles could be recognized in case 1. Case 2 seemed to be more project-based. In case 3, collaboration between students was not possible because of a difference in time-zones. Important educational aspects: agreement on rules for (online) sessions; visual contact (student-student and student-teacher), and frequent feedback. CONCLUSION: PBL in a blended learning format is perceived to be an effective strategy. The four principles of PBL can be unified in PBL with a blended learning format, although the extent to which each principle can be implemented can differ.

A comparison of classroom and online asynchronous problem-based learning for students undertaking statistics training as part of a Public Health Masters degree.

This case-study compared traditional, face-to-face classroom-based teaching with asynchronous online learning and teaching methods in two sets of students undertaking a problem-based learning module in the multilevel and exploratory factor analysis of longitudinal data as part of a Masters degree in Public Health at Maastricht University. Students were allocated to one of the two study variants on the basis of their enrolment status as full-time or part-time students. Full-time students (n = 11) followed the classroom-based variant and part-time students (n = 12) followed the online asynchronous variant which included video recorded lectures and a series of asynchronous online group or individual SPSS activities with synchronous tutor feedback. A validated student motivation questionnaire was administered to both groups of students at the start of the study and a second questionnaire was administered at the end of the module. This elicited data about student satisfaction with the module content, teaching and learning methods, and tutor feedback. The module coordinator and problem-based learning tutor were also interviewed about their experience of delivering the experimental online variant and asked to evaluate its success in relation to student attainment of the module's learning outcomes. Student examination results were also compared between the two groups. Asynchronous online teaching and learning methods proved to be an acceptable alternative to classroom-based teaching for both students and staff. Educational outcomes were similar for both groups, but importantly, there was no evidence that the asynchronous online delivery of module content disadvantaged part-time students in comparison to their full-time counterparts.