Figure 1: Course material home page (October 2003)
| Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 2005, 21(3), 335-354. |
AJET 21 |
To enhance a course in 3D Virtual Reality (3D VR) modelling for mining engineers, and to create the potential for off campus students to fully engage with the course, a problem based learning (PBL) approach was applied to the course design and all materials and learning activities were provided online. This paper outlines some of the theoretical background to online learning and PBL and its application to computer based courseware design and development. The application of this approach to the 3D VR modelling course is described. Evaluation data on student perceptions of the learning processes associated with PBL are included.
Do students want to be self directed active learners diligently acquiring a range of generic and discipline specific skills that will prepare them for their future careers? In many cases it appears they don't, and would rather be told what they need to know than be asked to directly pursue a deeper understanding for themselves (Collis & Moonen, 2001; Tolhurst, 2002). An online learning environment may provide a perfect environment for exploration of the topic, but students may still prefer a classroom (Jones & Richardson, 2002). Online learning has been seen to be supply driven by universities rather than demand driven by students (Senate Committee Report, cited in Jones & Richardson, 2002). If students are going to be self directed learners who can make the best use of online learning environments, on or off campus, they may need to be guided and supported to develop this capability (Collis & Moonen, 2001).
This article considers some of the issues associated with using an online learning environment with on campus students in a blended learning approach. The course, on 3D VR Modelling for Mining Engineers at the University of New South Wales, is considered from the perspectives of educational design, development of the online learning environment, and student evaluation. Research literature on educational design and applications of online learning approaches is considered to identify the key issues relating to online learning environment design and implementation. Student feedback raises some issues relating to the effectiveness of the course and the value of using an online environment with on campus students. This feedback will be discussed in relation to the course design, with some recommendations made for design and use of online environments on campus.
While these approaches appear to have been effective, they are not necessarily problem free. The issue of learning new skills and facilitation becomes important if a change towards this approach is contemplated. The use of online discussions, for example, may attract little student activity, unless there is a clear task to accomplish, that requires the online discussion (Bunker & Vardi, 2001; Salmon, 2002). Online discussions may be an unfamiliar mode for students, and they may need some focused encouragement to engage with the teacher and each other in this way.
The activity focus for educational design is seen to be a valuable way to develop a deeper understanding of the course topic (Biggs, 1999a). Additionally it is seen to be of value in developing a broader range of student capabilities, such as communication, negotiation, problem solving and teamwork skills (Bowden, Hart, King, Trigwell & Watts, 2000). The Manual for the Accreditation of Professional Engineering Courses lists:
among the generic attributes of an engineering graduate (IEAust, 1999). An educational design approach focused on activities can help to develop these graduate attributes by requiring and supporting processes of communication, teamwork and problem solving, during the course.
- ability to communicate effectively, not only with engineers but also with the community at large
- ability to undertake problem identification, formulation and solution
- ability to function effectively as an individual and in multidisciplinary and multicultural teams with the capacity to be a leader or manager is well as an effective team member
The two major themes from the literature research relating to a student centred approach, using a design based on learning activities, were used as a basis for the course redesign. The course is designed for mining engineers, however emerging difficulties in occupational health and safety legislation and logistics make it difficult for the students to spend much time in a working mine. This made it desirable to bring the mine to the students instead and it was intended that students from other mining schools could ultimately use the course as 'off campus students'. To meet all of the emerging requirements a problem based learning (PBL) approach was chosen to provide an appropriate learning activity basis for the course design. This approach is designed to encourage the development of student skills and capabilities. A meta-analysis of research studies on the effectiveness of PBL revealed that this approach had a strong positive effect on skill development and led to longer term retention of the knowledge developed while learning (Dochy, Segers, Van den Bossche & Gijbels, 2003). Skill development includes the skills associated with the course topic, and skills in communication, teamwork and problem solving that are among those valued by professional bodies and employers (Kanet, 2003; Keppell, 2005).
The PBL approach arose out of the need for learning and teaching to be relevant to the students' interests and future goals (Savin-Baden, 2000). The basic scientific knowledge required by medical students for example, may be learned in relation to the clinical context in which the knowledge is applied, rather than in an abstract, pure science format (Koschmann et al, 1996). The approach is designed to apply the key principles of cognition to the design of the learning activities and processes. These include providing scope for the learner to apply prior knowledge and experience to the task, encouraging and enabling the learner to actively extend their experience and knowledge base, creating a realistic context for learning so that the learner can apply the new knowledge in the future professional context, and developing the ability to articulate knowledge and skills to new situations (Koschmann et al, 1996; Savin-Baden, 2000). This has been seen as a way of validating theoretical learning through practice, and for using evidence to generate theory from enquiries made in practice (Anthonysamy, 2005). The application of these principles has a metacognitive dimension, enabling learners to become more skilled at managing their own learning (Biggs, 1999a).
The key to effective PBL is the actual problem scenario, including any guidelines or supports that provide the trigger for learning and shape the directions the process may take. A problem that is too prescriptive will limit the scope and flexibility of student learning, while one that is too open may lead to students taking inappropriate directions and/or feeling frustrated by not having sufficient criteria or guidelines to conceptualise what a successful outcome may be. There can be confusion between the idea of learning that includes problem solving, and PBL in which the whole learning process revolves around high level problems (Savin-Baden, 2000). The following principles for problem scenarios provide a useful guide to suitable problems:
The perception of authenticity encourages the students to 'believe' in scenarios that are realistic in the way they represent a professional environment that is not truly real (Herrington, Oliver, & Reeves, 2003). Some examples of using multimedia for scenario presentations are trigger videos on a range of topics developed to support specific courses and to be reusable learning objects (Keppell, 2005), video case studies for a PBL course in pasture management (McAlpine & Clements, 2001), and a comprehensive learning environment used by journalism students to experience the demands of working within a tight time frame with other industry pressures added (Challis et al., 2005). Multimedia resources can also be used to provide simulated tools to enable students to work with and test their development, while working out their solution to a problem (Anthonysamy, 2005). The use of online learning environments can enable students to work in a self directed way to realise the full value and benefits of the PBL approach.
As learning in the PBL framework is initiated by considering a problem scenario, developing a scenario and guidelines that are based on the above principles using multimedia support for scenario presentation will provide sufficient depth and scope for a learning activity that may take several weeks and be a significant part of a course. PBL combines student centred learning with a clear task oriented learning activity - the two key themes identified above as critical aspects of an online learning environment. This was the basis for the approach used to design the course learning activities. The following section describes the application of PBL and the development of online courseware in an open learning environment format (Hannafin, Land & Oliver, 1999) to enable the students to accomplish the problem task.
These components are organised around the problem scenario, which is the starting point for the process. The scenario is presented in the form of a video of the mine, with narration based on an interview with the supervising engineer. Interviews with a truck driver and the shovel operator are also used, so that the scenario is portrayed as realistically as possible, using vision of the activity and the words used by the people who work there. The video is supported by documentation on the mine, including reports, geological data, mine plan data, mine production data, safety information, machine specifications, and manufacturers' data. Together these materials represent the enabling context of the learning environment. While the information provided is comprehensive, it is not exhaustive and students are still required to research the topic in detail to achieve higher marks. Reference material includes research data, articles and reports on the application of the modelling technique in the mining industry. These form the resource component of the open learning environment. Figure 1 shows the course home page, showing some of the links. Tools to support student learning include online discussions to support interaction within small groups, and discussions for the whole group to promote collaborative learning. Scaffolds include guides to online study and group work.
Figure 1: Course material home page (October 2003)
During the course, emphasis was placed on peer interaction during informal tutorials and seminars, and on group work for the 3D VR modelling task. The students were randomly placed in groups of 4-5, and each group member assigned a role within their respective group. The first activity for the groups was to complete a learning contract. The learning contract is completed by the group members following a discussion on how the group will work together to complete the PBL task. This encourages the students to think about the process in advance, and to consider their roles. Each group was provided with an online discussion in WebCT to assist with group processes. This support was optional as students could also meet face to face, and could prefer to meet in that way without supplementing this with the online discussion. Peer interaction was also encouraged with an online discussion focused on a report to the mining industry on the potential and current practice of 3D VR modelling in the industry. The online discussion was used to encourage students to learn collaboratively while considering the implications of this report and to exchange ideas and perspectives so that a deeper understanding of the report may be attained. To ensure intergroup interaction, each group was assigned a piece of equipment that required a complementary piece of equipment to fulfil its role in the simulation. For example in a truck and shovel operation neither truck nor shovel can operate in isolation. Therefore, the 'truck team' must collaborate with the 'shovel team' to achieve a successful outcome and vice versa. Online discussion was an important part of the course design, as a range of discussion points around the research and reference material were aimed at stimulating the students to engage with this.
Mine 4800 used the PBL principles adapted from Dolmans et al (1997) as discussed above. The students are presented with a mine site scenario that reflects the student's experience gained during earlier industry visits and periods of industrial training. The problem based scenario discussed and used in the course is the removal of overburden at a mine site during coal mining operations via a truck and shovel operation. Inefficiencies in the operation can cause significant safety problems and poor financial performance. To address this, students were asked to develop a 3D Virtual reality model that allows the mining process and the impact of several variables to be modelled so that the most efficient and safe method of overburden extraction maybe identified.
The course materials also presented several basic concepts in the development of 3D models and the application of safety information and virtual reality technology. The information under 'course materials' and 'reference materials' on the WebCT site provided a framework of information and scaffolding on which the issues and technical difficulties that may be encountered during development of the simulation could be identified. The use of the online materials in conjunction with tutorials also stimulated students in self directed learning, through the assimilation of knowledge from 'state of the art' publications and revisited experiences presented by earlier virtual reality experimentalists. The ingenuity and amount of information uncovered by the students was high to the point where one student uncovered a series of photographs used at a mine site for training mine workers in the exactly the type of operation presented in the scenario.
The VR software tools used to build and execute the VR models were:
Figure 2: Example VR Model developed by Mine 4800
students (above) and the real thing (below)
The PBL approach was intended to encourage the development of additional capabilities. These include being able to:
The 2002 group embraced this technology and presented some good arguments and introduced some new information. An example of a student's online discussion response follows:
Certainly interaction with other virtual mine workers is a great idea in making the VR world and working environment as real as possible. However, we need to balance this against increased complexity of the training system, and the cost and space required for such a system. If training involves a singular task, like truck driving, then group virtual reality isn't really necessary. If a group virtual reality training model is chosen, then the training should include members of their future "crew" ie u/g coal development crew. It is important that future crew members gain experience in working with 'their' crew, rather than a whole lot of other 'newbies'. Yes, they can learn from other 'newbies' mistakes, but familiarity of a person's job, crew, and work environment are essential for the crew's safety as a whole. Working in teams involves reliance on other people for your safety. Paul Goodman (this info is not on webct) has written several papers that talk about lack of such familiarity having a negative effect on safety and productivity, although he did not speak about this in regards to VR.Overall, the students in this group embraced the problem and presented a satisfactory model and report. The only area that students were noticeably reluctant was in the area of the self directed learning required to begin 3D model development. Despite the students being engineering students, they seemed reluctant to experiment with the software and investigate the more advanced modelling techniques that make 3D modelling and animation relatively straight forward. An area in which the students excelled was in researching and acquiring new material from mine sites. In at least two of the groups, students visited mines to collect information.
The 2003 group was completely different. These students had the same introductory lecture with the same information and the same 20% of the overall mark assigned to online discussion of the material. However, the students never really engaged with the online discussion. In response to comments from the previous year, two tutors were made available for two hours per week in the laboratory to help students with technical issues with 3D modelling in an attempt to have the students experiment with the software in more depth. Unfortunately, the students mistook this for a lecture and despite continued information to the contrary, it was not until week six that students actually realised that they had to go online to acquire the relevant information to build their model and had to contact mine sites and equipment manufacturers to collect additional information.
The organisation within the groups was also noticeably different than in the previous year. In 2002, the groups were randomly chosen. In 2003, where possible, the groups were kept the same as for other major projects that year. However, it was noticeable that no particular leaders emerged within the groups even though they were all assigned a particular role. A part of the course that the students did approach very well in this group was the online quiz questions. This is confusing though because the information needed to complete the quiz was online. The quizzes were individual efforts and this may be a factor. An aside that is worthwhile mentioning at this point is that in the past two years, the number of jobs available to students has increased dramatically to the point where each student has the choice of at least two or three jobs in the industry. In the case of the students for the 2003 course, it was highly noticeable across the complete mining engineering program that the competitive edge and student focus had diminished in this group when compared to previous years. Complacency appeared to have taken hold.
Overall, the student learning approaches were different between the two groups and the first group was more engaged than the second. Despite this, both groups completed the course, produced a model, and demonstrated relevant knowledge that could be applied to a real world problem.
Table 1 shows the questions on cognitive aspects of the problem scenario. At a cognitive level, the PBL approach is designed to present students with a challenge, to foster the elaboration and enhancement of existing knowledge structures while the students construct new knowledge based on their efforts to meet the challenge. By learning that they can resolve complex problems of a professional nature it is expected that students will learn an approach to problem solving that they may apply in a future professional environment. The questions in Table 1 were included to determine whether the students perceived that they were appropriately challenged, that they built new knowledge on their existing knowledge structures, and that they felt they developed problem solving capabilities.
| SA - Strongly Agree, A - Agree, NS - Not Sure D - Disagree, SD - Strongly disagree | SA | A | NS | D | SD | |
| 13 | The problem/project topic had some features that were familiar to me. | 2 | 5 | 1 | ||
| 14 | I found the problem/project topic appropriately challenging. | 2 | 5 | 1 | ||
| 15 | The problem/project enabled me to build on knowledge I already had. | 1 | 6 | 1 | ||
| 16 | I developed new knowledge by working on the problem/project. | 2 | 6 | |||
| 17 | I learned little that was new by working on the problem/project. | 7 | 1 | |||
| 18 | I learned a method of approaching new problems by carrying out the problem/project tasks. | 6 | 1 | 1 | ||
| 30 | My studies in this subject helped me to develop problem solving skills that will be useful to me professionally. | 2 | 5 | 1 | ||
The data from Table 1 suggest that the students' perception was in accord with the intended outcomes from these processes. A later question (Q 30) indicates that the problem skills would be valuable to them in a professional capacity, an important intention of the PBL approach to this course.
As cognitive development and broader capabilities relating to commun-ication and working in teams may be enhanced by group work, it is useful to consider this influence on the learning process. Group work is an important feature of the PBL approach. Working in groups encourages deeper learning by fostering idea sharing and discussion, exposing the student to a range of perspectives and enabling students to learn from each other, Questions 20-26 (Table 2) were included to elicit feedback on how these processes contributed to the students' learning.
| SA - Strongly Agree, A - Agree, NS - Not Sure D - Disagree, SD - Strongly disagree | SA | A | NS | D | SD | |
| 20 | The learning contract helped my group to develop a way of working well together. | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | |
| 21 | The guidelines for group work were a valuable support. | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | |
| 22 | I had to consider several different points of view from group members during group discussion of the problem tasks. | 1 | 4 | 2 | ||
| 23 | I worked closely with other students on the group learning tasks. | 2 | 6 | |||
| 24 | I learned a lot from the other students in my group while working on the group learning tasks. | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| 25 | Working in a group created a valuable learning experience. | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | |
| 26 | Online discussions were useful for working on group assignments. | 2 | 4 | 1 | 1 | |
| 29 | I felt that I developed a deep understanding of the course content. | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | |
Table 2 shows a more equivocal response from the students than Table 1. In this table the first two responses (Qs 20 and 21) relate to a leaning contract and guidelines for group work that were made available to the students. The responses relating to these two points are split across the students. Half seem to agree that the learning contract helped, half disagree. Similarly, only half agreed that the guidelines for group work were a valuable support. The resources arranged to support group work had limited success in this instance.
Some reluctance to use the resources on group work does not mean that the group work wasn't successful as a learning experience. The students mostly agreed that they considered several perspectives (Q 22), they worked closely together (Q 23), and that working in groups was a valuable learning experience (Q 25). There was less agreement about learning a lot from the other students and developing a deep understanding of the course content. These data indicate a qualified success for the outcomes of group processes. The response to the value of online discussions for group work (Q 26) was surprising. The students generally did not engage with the online discussion, yet they did find it useful for working on group assignments. This was demonstrated in the online discussion where students mostly discussed the 'who does what' part of their assignment.
Discussion of the course material or the introduction of new material did not occur as it did in 2002. A couple of comments that may explain this reluctance were included by students in the 'additional comments' section of the questionnaire. The individuals felt that it was "Too small a group, we all know each other" and "Online discussion not really useful for large discussions in this course. Not enough people and we see each other all the time anyway."
The truck and shovel scenario was embraced by the students and presented a problem that was real and directly relevant to the profession of mining engineering. The direct relevance to their chosen profession gave the students a type of ownership of the problem in that they identified with the problem and saw the usefulness of the exercise. The students could see that the 3D modelling software was a tool that they may use in the future in a mining operation. In both years that the course was run, the students could identify with the problem immediately. The students were challenged by the problem and in both years the students managed to produce a 3D model successfully. The task appeared to be an effective stimulus and the students responded well to the PBL approach.
While the overall PBL process seemed to be successful, there was some reluctance among students in the 2003 class to engage with online discussion. This was on a part of the course that includes research on the value of 3D VR modelling in the mining industry. The students reported that the group was too small and they all knew each other anyway. This suggests that this group of students saw no purpose in the discussion, even though it was 20% of their marks. It appears that they did not perceive a clear task to accomplish by online discussion, which Bunker & Vardi (2001) and Salmon (2002) identify as being important to the success of this mode of learning. Interestingly the 2002 class showed no such reluctance. The reason for the difference between the two classes is not clear. Possible reasons are an awareness among the 2002 class that they were the first to try out a new method, and an apparent lack of motivation among the 2003 class. Evaluation data show that the 2003 class found the online discussion useful for their small group assignments, although this was for organisational rather than conceptual processes.
As online discussion would be an important learning activity for off campus students, including group activities, further development of the course would need to include processes to facilitate online learning activities, such as clarifying tasks to be achieved by online discussion, and additional facilitation techniques such as moderated startup activities. Additional off campus students would create a larger group, which may be an advantage. Unfortunately this option has not been explored as the course is not currently being offered.
It seems likely that the course would be effective for both off campus and on campus students, all would be engaged in the same activities, if the course was to be offered in this way. The online activities meant that all necessary learning processes were included in the online environment. Unfortunately, this development can only be fully tested if the course is offered in this mode at a later date. If this were to happen, appropriate facilitation methods with a wider group should create a different perception of the importance of online discussions, and enable the students to study the course effectively in a mixed mode.
Anthonysamy, P. (2005). E-learning design for engineering education. In P. Kommers & G. Richards (Eds), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2005 World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, 27 June - 2 July, Montreal, Canada.
Biggs, J. (1999a). Teaching for quality learning at university. Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
Biggs, J. (1999b). What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research and Development, 18(1), 57-75.
Bonk, C. J., Kim, K. & Zeng, T. (2005). Future directions of blended learning in higher education and workplace learning settings. In P. Kommers & G. Richards (Eds), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2005 World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, 27 June - 2 July, Montreal, Canada. (pp. 3644-3649).
Bowden, J., Hart, G., King, B., Trigwell, K. & Watts, O. (2000). Generic capabilities of ATN university graduates. Teaching and Learning Committee, Australian Technology Network. [verified May 2003] http://www.clt.uts.edu.au/ATN.grad.cap.project.index.html
Bunker, A. & Vardi, I. (2001). Why use the online environment with face-to-face students? Insights from early adopters. Proceedings ASCILITE 2001 Conference, Melbourne, Australia. pp 111-116. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne01/pdf/papers/bunkera.pdf
Challis, D., Holt, D. & Rice, M. (2005). Staff perceptions of the role of technology in experiential learning: A case study from an Australian University. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(1), 19-39. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet21/challis.html
Collis, B. & Moonen, J. (2001). Pedagogy: making the U turn. In Flexible learning in a digital world: Experiences and expectations. Chapter 5. Kogan Page.
Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P. & Gijbels, D. (2003). Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 13, 533-568.
Dolmans, D. H. J. M., Snellen-Balendong, H., Wolfhagen, I. H. A. P. & van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (1997). Seven principles of effective case design for a problem-based curriculum. Medical Teacher, 19(3), 185-189.
Hannafin, M. J., Land, S. & Oliver, K. (1999). Open learning environments: Foundations, methods and models. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed), Instructional-design theories and models (Vol. 2, pp. 115-140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Herrington, J., Oliver, R. & Reeves, T. C. (2003). Patterns of engagement in authentic online learning environments. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 19(1), 59-71. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet19/herrington.html
IEAust (1999). Manual for the accreditation of professional engineering programs. [viewed Mar 2004] http://www.ieaust.org.au/membership/res/downloads/AccredManual.pdf
Jonassen, D. H. & Reeves, T. C. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 693-719). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Jones, S. & Richardson, J. (2002). Designing an IT-augmented student-centred learning environment. Quality Conversations: Proceedings HERDSA Conference, Perth, WA, 7-10 July. http://www.ecu.edu.au/conferences/herdsa/main/papers/ref/pdf/Jones.pdf
Kanet, J. J. (2003). Problem-based learning for production and operations management. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 1(1), 99-118.
Kearsley, G. (2000). Online education: Learning and teaching in cyberspace. Wadsworth.
Keppell, M. (2005). Reusable media-rich problem-based learning cases: Creating learning objects for teacher education. In P. Kommers & G. Richards (Eds), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2005 World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, 27 June - 2 July, Montreal, Canada. (pp. 1865-1873).
Koschmann, T., Kelson, A. C., Feltovich, P. J. & Barrows, H. S. (1996). Computer-supported problem-based learning: A principled approach to the use of computers in collaborative learning. In T. Koschmann (Ed), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
McAlpine, I. & Clements, C. (2001). Problem based learning in the design of a multimedia project. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 17(2), 115-130. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet17/mcalpine.html
McAlpine, I. & Stothard, P. (2003). Using multimedia technologies to support PBL for a course in 3D modeling for mining engineers. In D. Lassener. & C. McNaught (Eds), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2003 World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, Hawaii, 24-28 June. (pp. 2449-2455). Norfolk, VA: AACE.
Newman, D. R., Johnson, C., Webb, B. & Cochrane, C. (1997). Evaluating the quality of learning in computer supported cooperative learning. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48(6), 484-495.
Oliver, R. & Herrington, J. (2001). Teaching and learning online: A beginner's guide to e-learning and e-teaching in higher education. Perth, WA: Centre for Research in Information Technology and Communications, Edith Cowan University.
Reeves, T. C. & Okey, J. R. (1996). Alternative assessment for constructivist learning environments. In B. G. Wilson (Ed), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design (pp. 191-202). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Salmon, G. (2002). E-tivities: The key to active learning. London: Kogan Page.
Savin-Baden, M. (2000). Problem-based learning in higher education: Untold stories. Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
Tolhurst, D. (2002). Students' epistemological beliefs and the learning of introductory computing concepts. In P. Barker & S. Rebelsky (Eds), Proceedings of Ed-Media 2002 World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications, 24-29 June, 2002; Denver, Colorado, USA. (pp. 1961-1966).
Watson, G. (2002). Using technology to promote success in PBL courses. The Technology Source (May/June).
| Authors: Dr Iain McAlpine, Educational Development and Technology Centre, The University of New South Wales, Sydney NSW 2052. Email : i.mcalpine@unsw.edu.au Web:
http://www.edtec.unsw.edu.au/
Dr Phillip Stothard, School of Mining Engineering, The University of New South Wales, Sydney NSW 2052. Email: pstothard@eng.unsw.edu.au Please cite as: McAlpine, I. and Stothard, P. (2005). Course design and student responses to an online PBL course in 3D modelling for mining engineers. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(3), 335-354. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet21/mcalpine.html |