Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Dec 10;16(12):e251.
doi: 10.2196/jmir.3240.

Educational technologies in problem-based learning in health sciences education: a systematic review

Jun Jin  1 , Susan M Bridges
Affiliations

Educational technologies in problem-based learning in health sciences education: a systematic review

Jun Jin et al. J Med Internet Res. .

Abstract

Background: As a modern pedagogical philosophy, problem-based learning (PBL) is increasingly being recognized as a major research area in student learning and pedagogical innovation in health sciences education. A new area of research interest has been the role of emerging educational technologies in PBL. Although this field is growing, no systematic reviews of studies of the usage and effects of educational technologies in PBL in health sciences education have been conducted to date.

Objective: The aim of this paper is to review new and emerging educational technologies in problem-based curricula, with a specific focus on 3 cognate clinical disciplines: medicine, dentistry, and speech and hearing sciences. Analysis of the studies reviewed focused on the effects of educational technologies in PBL contexts while addressing the particular issue of scaffolding of student learning.

Methods: A comprehensive computerized database search of full-text articles published in English from 1996 to 2014 was carried out using 3 databases: ProQuest, Scopus, and EBSCOhost. Eligibility criteria for selection of studies for review were also determined in light of the population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) guidelines. The population was limited to postsecondary education, specifically in dentistry, medicine, and speech and hearing sciences, in which PBL was the key educational pedagogy and curriculum design. Three types of educational technologies were identified as interventions used to support student inquiry: learning software and digital learning objects; interactive whiteboards (IWBs) and plasma screens; and learning management systems (LMSs).

Results: Of 470 studies, 28 were selected for analysis. Most studies examined the effects of learning software and digital learning objects (n=20) with integration of IWB (n=5) and LMS (n=3) for PBL receiving relatively less attention. The educational technologies examined in these studies were seen as potentially fit for problem-based health sciences education. Positive outcomes for student learning included providing rich, authentic problems and/or case contexts for learning; supporting student development of medical expertise through the accessing and structuring of expert knowledge and skills; making disciplinary thinking and strategies explicit; providing a platform to elicit articulation, collaboration, and reflection; and reducing perceived cognitive load. Limitations included cumbersome scenarios, infrastructure requirements, and the need for staff and student support in light of the technological demands of new affordances.

Conclusions: This literature review demonstrates the generally positive effect of educational technologies in PBL. Further research into the various applications of educational technology in PBL curricula is needed to fully realize its potential to enhance problem-based approaches in health sciences education.

Keywords: digital learning object; educational technologies; health sciences; interactive whiteboard; learning management system; medical education; problem-based learning; software; systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flowchart of the search process.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Photo of an interactive whiteboard.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Prosser M, Sze D. Problem-based learning: student learning experiences and outcomes. Clin Linguist Phon. 2014 Jan;28(1-2):131–42. doi: 10.3109/02699206.2013.820351. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Walker A, Leary H. A problem based learning meta analysis: differences across problem types, implementation types, disciplines, and assessment levels. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning. 2009 Mar 24;3(1):12–43. doi: 10.7771/1541-5015.1061. - DOI
    1. Bridges SM, Botelho MG, Green J, Chau ACM. Multimodality in problem-based learning (PBL): an interactional ethnography. In: Bridges SM, McGrath CP, Whitehill T, editors. Problem-Based Learning in Clinical Education: the Next Generation. Netherlands: Springer; 2012. pp. 99–120.
    1. Bridges S, Green J, Botelho MG, Tsang PCS. Blended learning and PBL: An interactional ethnographic approach to understanding knowledge construction in-situ. In: Walker A, Leary H, Hmelo-Silver C, Ertmer PA, editors. Essential Readings in Problem-Based Learning. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press; 2015.
    1. Lu J, Bridges S, Hmelo-Silver CE. Problem-based learning. In: Sawyer K, editor. Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2014.

Publication types

MeSH terms