The Challenge of Asynchronous Problem-Based Learning Online

Julian Pakay

(First published in a special education issue of the Australian Biochemist Vol 51, No 2 August 2020 in response to COVID-19)

I teach third year biochemistry to a cohort of around 70 students. Like many lecturers, over time I have moved away from teaching solely in a declarative style, increasingly including peer-assisted, problem based learning (PBL) activities in my lectures. PBL was always envisaged as a face-to-face experience. With videoconferencing, the face-to-face environment can be somewhat replicated. However, academics confronted by an inscrutable wall of students posting black screens in Zoom will have a new-found appreciation for the immediate power of eye-contact, facial expression, body language and even the collective gasps and laughter of face-to-face classes! With the current COVID-19 pandemic, not only has teaching and learning moved online, but it has also demanded we afford students greater flexibility and therefore more of the delivery is asynchronous. PBL is challenging, conducting it in an asynchronous setting exacerbates these challenges. Below are some major issues that need to be considered to improve asynchronous delivery of PBL based on my experience.

Pacing

I recorded a video answering a problem on viral replication in 15 minutes, while the same face-to-face workshop previously took 90 minutes. The extra time in class included interaction between the students, explanations of why answers were wrong, interesting discussion points, repetition and reinforcement, and alternate explanations when students did not initially understand. In facilitating a face-to-face class, it is much easier to control the pace of delivery. Information to solve problems can be slowly revealed, and the class can advance once understanding and consensus is reached. I suspect the blind alleys and unexpected circuitous routes taken in face-to-face classes are where most of the learning takes place.

The blind alleys and unexpected circuitous routes taken in face-to-face classes are where most of the learning takes place

Pacing can be somewhat controlled online if additional data and prompts are slowly revealed to students, ideally conditionally released upon receiving responses from students (see Accountability below). Now, I do not post entire answers but provide a series of hints and/or additional information to promote thinking and lessen the number of students who just wait for the final answer.

Collaboration

The benefits of peer instruction are unequivocal. Students working together in small groups develop social and communication skills and explaining concepts to each other cultivates higher thinking. This is much more difficult to achieve in asynchronous settings. Students need to be organised into study groups to collaborate at mutually convenient times. Alternatively, this can be achieved to some extent, using discussion boards where students can share their progress on problems. This is an approach I have adopted with some limited success. However, the same drawbacks occur as with oral discussion, some students ‘lurk’ and read, but do not contribute, while others dominate the conversation. Motivating students to collaborate relies on increasing engagement and creating accountability.

Accountability

Outlining collaborative goals is important but motivating individual students to contribute to discussions can only be achieved by making them accountable. The intrinsic accountability of informal peer and instructor judgement provides much of the motivation for participation in face-to-face classes.

The intrinsic accountability of informal peer and instructor judgement provides much of the motivation for participation in face-to-face classes.

This is diminished in online settings due to perceived anonymity, and further still, when learning is asynchronous. It has not helped that in the current situation there was not a large opportunity for students to bond in the face-to-face classes before lock-down.

Serious consideration should be given to decrease anonymity by asking students to introduce themselves in synchronous classes or create posts in asynchronous forums describing something unique about themselves. Staff can also create similar introductory videos or posts.

Additional accountability can also be introduced through formal peer evaluation or continual assessment. This does require much more work from the instructor and not all PBL tasks warrant assessment. Another way to make students feel more accountable is via immediate encouragement and feedback. While straightforward in face-to-face classes, it is more difficult in an asynchronous environment due to far less teacher immediacy.

Immediacy

Teacher immediacy is defined as the close interactions, both verbal and non-verbal between students and teachers, which provide the perception of closeness and is vital for student engagement. Providing immediate and personal feedback to students is one way to reclaim some of the immediacy lost in the online environment. An approach I have used is the creation of asynchronous video messages, often as a supplement to written material. These asynchronous videos do not allow for the spontaneous dialogue of synchronous classes but can be useful where the problems are difficult, and further reading and reflection is required before answering. I also ensure I capture video of myself to ensure that I convey as many of the non-verbal elements associated with face-to-face conversations as possible.

Conclusion

Pacing PBL tasks appropriately, encouraging students to collaborate, making them more accountable and improving engagement are important considerations in any mode of PBL. However, they become much more difficult in an asynchronous setting and make a strong case for retaining as much synchronous teaching as possible. But being aware of them and the fact that they need to be approached differently in an asynchronous setting will greatly improve the students’ experience where synchronous classes are not possible.

Some informal feedback in response to the question, ‘What was good and what was bad about the online group-based worksheets?’ highlight that the experience for students is very group-dependent:

‘It provides the opportunity for students to work together to answer the workshop questions. It’s a partial self-learning process that provides a longer retention of the knowledge gained.’

‘More effort is needed to create interaction between students. Sometimes even in face-to-face settings it’s hard to generate discussion; online, it feels very faceless and de-personalised and makes discussion incredibly unlikely.’