Teaching PBL with Web 2.0: a case study of possibilities and conflicts

Web 2.0-mediated learning activities are associated with a number of potentials for learning. Among these potentials are pedagogical advantages connected with bottom-up user-generation of content; opportunities for organizing flexible learning; and possibilities of supporting the development of competences necessary for participating in contemporary society. In this article we report on a study of three cases where web 2.0 activities have been introduced into PBL settings. Our focus is the unexpected challenges teachers may face due to inherent tensions between the practice logic of the educational system and that of web 2.0-practices.
The study documents the development of viable ways of making use of web 2.0-mediated activities in support of a PBL approach and thus provides existence proof that web 2.0 activities may contribute constructively and productively to learning within a PBL perspective. The study also reports several difficulties experienced by the teachers whose expectations concerning the web 2.0-mediated learning activities were disappointed on certain points. These disappointments are analysed as the practical result of the inherent tensions in the practice logics.
Vignette
Peter, the teacher of the BA-level problem-based learning course, sighed as he read through the Facebook postings entered by his students during the last 10 hours. Where were the theoretical questions and methodological issues he had been expecting? Once again, the students had posted links to YouTube videos with small comments along the lines of “Check this out – highly relevant for our course”. But no elaborations were supplied of how the videos were relevant much less of how they could be analysed and discussed through the theoretical lenses of the course. Obvious rejoinders from some of the course readings seemed to be completely overlooked by the students. Even worse, a lot of the postings never got beyond practicalities such as length requirements or meeting schedules. Why didn’t the students make use of this opportunity to build knowledge together, and to reflect and discuss with each other and with him in this safe and well-known setting? He had even promised them unlimited supervision as long as they interacted with each other, too – how come they weren’t all wild at the keys asking all the questions they had never had answered before?? Where were their academic ambitions?