BACKGROUND: In 2009, St George's University of London (SGUL) replaced their paper-based problem-based learning (PBL) cases with virtual patients for intermediate-level undergraduate students. This involved the development of Decision-Problem-Based Learning (D-PBL), a variation on progressive-release PBL that uses virtual patients instead of paper cases, and focuses on patient management decisions and their consequences. METHODS: Using a case study method, this paper describes four years of developing and running D-PBL at SGUL from individual activities up to the ways in which D-PBL functioned as an educational system. RESULTS: A number of broad issues were identified: the importance of debates and decision-making in making D-PBL activities engaging and rewarding; the complexities of managing small group dynamics; the time taken to complete D-PBL activities; the changing role of the facilitator; and the erosion of the D-PBL process over time. CONCLUSIONS: A key point in understanding this work is the construction and execution of the D-PBL activity, as much of the value of this approach arises from the actions and interactions of students, their facilitators and the virtual patients rather than from the design of the virtual patients alone. At a systems level D-PBL needs to be periodically refreshed to retain its effectiveness.
BACKGROUND: In 2009, St George's University of London (SGUL) replaced their paper-based problem-based learning (PBL) cases with virtual patients for intermediate-level undergraduate students. This involved the development of Decision-Problem-Based Learning (D-PBL), a variation on progressive-release PBL that uses virtual patients instead of paper cases, and focuses on patient management decisions and their consequences. METHODS: Using a case study method, this paper describes four years of developing and running D-PBL at SGUL from individual activities up to the ways in which D-PBL functioned as an educational system. RESULTS: A number of broad issues were identified: the importance of debates and decision-making in making D-PBL activities engaging and rewarding; the complexities of managing small group dynamics; the time taken to complete D-PBL activities; the changing role of the facilitator; and the erosion of the D-PBL process over time. CONCLUSIONS: A key point in understanding this work is the construction and execution of the D-PBL activity, as much of the value of this approach arises from the actions and interactions of students, their facilitators and the virtual patients rather than from the design of the virtual patients alone. At a systems level D-PBL needs to be periodically refreshed to retain its effectiveness.
Authors: Luke A Woodham; Rachel H Ellaway; Jonathan Round; Sophie Vaughan; Terry Poulton; Nabil Zary Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2015-06-18 Impact factor: 5.428