Cross-Curricular, Blended, Problem-Based Learning

Cross-Curricular, Blended, Problem-Based Learning:

Education by Design Project: ETEC 510 65C Team 5
Craig Brumwell
Theodore Dykstra
Mike Rae
University of British Columbia

Cross-Curricular, Blended, Problem-Based Learning

Key Frameworks
Our team has designed a cross-curricular, problem-based learning (PBL) environment
that leverages informal web-based technologies, blended interactions and Bring-Your-OwnDevice (BYOD). The problem that must be addressed by student teams is: how can we
remediate the impact of flooding in Metro Vancouver in terms of preparedness, mitigation and
response? This challenge is motivated by such events as storm surges (Philippines 2013 and
Superstorm Sandy 2012), flash-flooding (Calgary 2013) and tsunamis (Sumatra 2004 and
Japan 2011). The design of this project is primarily for grades 10-12 students taking geography
and science, although it can be readily adapted to younger grades.
Our design activities are informed by the theory of constructivism as contributed by
Vygotsky, Piaget and Papert, whereby knowledge is constructed through the interpretation of
the world by an individual rather than transmitted through traditional teaching. Vygotskys (1978)
observation that all the higher functions originate as actual relationships between individuals"
(p.57), and Piagets notion of children as the active builders of their own intellectual structures
have been extended by Papert (1980), who predicted computers as the primary materials of
the surrounding culture that learners will use to do such building (p.19).
Our decision to structure our design on problem-based learning is based on its
successful history as a constructivist strategy since its inception in the early 1980s.
Scardamalia and Bereiter (1994) asserted three characteristics of PBLs dialogic learning design
foundations as:
focusing on deep understanding through open knowledge building; team
oriented knowledge building discourse; and the expanding of knowledge
communities to include experts and professionals outside of school (as
cited in Savin-Baden and Wilkie, 2006).
Donnelly (2011) emphasizes its focus on the group as the active element that initiates
rich discussion, meaning negotiation and information practices by addressing an authentic

Cross-Curricular, Blended, Problem-Based Learning

problem through a natural process of enquiry (p. 245). We attempted to fully lever new
technologies and media that extend the potential of PBL. The site is scaffolded with the
expectation that students and educators have some familiarity or experience with problembased learning prior to engaging with this online learning environment.
The primary educational activities of our environment using Jonassens (1999)
framework are: research using a variety of resource media (exploration), case studies and
dialogic knowledge building using synchronous/asynchronous communication tools between
teams and with outside expert contacts (articulation), and reflection and connection
engagements. Presenting findings and solutions through a variety of potential presentation
options will also be an expectation. Instructional activities is included in the form of technology
support (scaffolding), a series of informal class discussions where theoretical and practical
concerns is addressed with the teacher (coaching) and research initiation resources (modeling).
These additions align our process with Vygotskys Zone of Proximal Development (1978),
whereby teacher supports guide students to develop more complexity and higher level thinking
to the point where students can do this for themselves.
New media is framed as links and embedded resources within the main spaces of the
learning environment. Reports, articles, visualizations, GIS support and video is included
throughout the interactivities and on the additional resources page. This space also includes
guidance for analysis, speculation and manipulation (Jonassen, 1999). Resources will also be
contributed by students to their teamwork spaces (the studio), informally as reference material
and mashups for the presentation stage. Communications and discussions will utilize face-toface and web tools. Forum discussions are included in all the interactivities as well as informal
reflections that can be used to check for understanding and engagement.
Intentions and Positions
We believe that personalized learning, based on constructivist pedagogy rich in
authenticity and meaning should be the focus of education. Therefore, it was important for us to

Cross-Curricular, Blended, Problem-Based Learning

entrench these values in our design to reach our goals. Our intent is to transition away from
traditional, teacher-centered classrooms which focus on rote memorization and recall. Through
our design, we utilize technology to facilitate the incorporation of problem-based learning to
cross-curricular environments. By designing a platform that fosters skills in problem solving,
critical thinking, collaboration, presentation and technology, we are contributing to the formation
of 21st century learners.
There is significant academic support to teaching 21st century skills, taking crosscurricular approaches and designing from a constructivist perspective. In her article, The 21st
Century Skills Movement, Paige Johnson discusses the importance of the learning skills that we
intend to develop in our design. According to Johnson (2009), to successfully face rigorous
higher-education coursework and a globally competitive work environment, schools must align
classroom environments and core subjects with 21st century skills (p.1). These abilities are
geared towards equipping students for life in a complex world. Alberta Education outlines these
skills under three headings: engaged thinker, entrepreneurial spirit and ethical citizen. More
specifically, they state these skills as communication; digital literacy; lifelong learning, selfdirection and personal management; collaboration and leadership; critical thinking and problem
solving; creativity and innovation; social responsibility; and cultural, global and environmental
awareness.
We approached our design from a cross-curricular framework because knowledge
cannot be isolated to particular disciplines. This approach, as James Beane articulates in his
article Curriculum Integration and the Disciplines of Knowledge (2009), is rooted in a view of
learning as the continuous integration of new knowledge and experience so as to deepen and
broaden our understanding of ourselves and our world (p. 622). Our constructivist approach will
follow Jonassens (1999) model of a Constructivist Learning Environment (CLE) where:
a problem, question or project is the focus of the environment, with various interpretive
and intellectual support systems surrounding it. The goal of the learner is to solve the

Cross-Curricular, Blended, Problem-Based Learning

problem or complete the project. Related cases and information resources support
understanding of the problem and suggest possible solutions; cognitive tools help
learners to interpret and manipulate aspects of the problem; conversation/collaboration
tools enable communities of learners to negotiate co construct meaning for the problem;
and social/contextual support systems help users to implement the CLE (pp. 217-218).
Although there exists much academic support for our design and its goals, we do not expect it to
be accepted unanimously as there are counter-arguments to it.
Among the issues with PBL is that it is different from a teacher-centred approach of the
teacher transmitting knowledge, testing it and moving on. Typically this practice is perceived as
preparing students for standardized exams. We believe, however, that PBL provides deeper and
more meaningful learning while building relevant skills. As Hooks (1994) argues, (problembased learning) values centre on education as the practice of freedom and the ideals that
students need to transgress those boundaries that would confine each pupil to a rote, assemblyline approach to learning (p.13). Our design challenges teacher-centred instructors to become,
as Paulo Freire (1974) puts it, a facilitator who is able to stimulate the learning process rather
than one who teaches correct values (as cited in Savin-Baden and Wilkie, 2006, p.11). Our
site contains a for educators section, which provides helpful videos for teachers who are new
to PBL, providing pedagogical support and methodology.
The intentions of our design fall in line with provincial educational ministries who are also
attempting to advance teaching and curriculum by creating 21st century learners. In their current
action agenda, the Alberta Education Ministry calls for a re-thinking of what is being taught:
We need a curriculum that focuses on the competencies young people require in the
21st century. We need to help students discover their passions and strengths so that
they enjoy rewarding careers and a high quality of life. We also need to continue to
prepare students to be responsible citizens so that they can build and strengthen their
communities (p. 7).

Cross-Curricular, Blended, Problem-Based Learning

British Columbia shares similar ideals in its interactive discussion guide, calling for a renewal of
curriculum that increases flexibility, is based on constructivist pedagogy, supports inquiry-based
approaches and allows teachers to move beyond course-based delivery, towards connected or
interdisciplinary study units (p. 11). By sharing goals with provincial governments, we believe
that our PBL design will have more traction and support as education shifts towards a new
paradigm.
The predominant technologies we intend to use include a BYOD environment where all
students have ubiquitous access to the Internet and web based tools. These tools are intuitive
and allow for many other user-friendly affordances such as collaboration, reflection and the
opportunity for peer review. These digital spaces make synchronous and asynchronous
communication easier as well as allow the teacher access to the groups to monitor progress
and provide feedback. Specifically, we will be using Google Sites, Drive, and Groups in
our design. As opposed to having students operate in an entirely new platform, we think that
many students will have a familiarity with such informal technologies, making them more likely
to engage with the design and increase their skills. In keeping with jurisdictional freedom of
information and privacy legislation, parental permission waivers may be required since we are
using a web service whose servers are located outside of Canada. We do not anticipate any
parental objection, but understand the necessity of complying with regulations.
Key Concepts and Contexts
For our design project the key concepts tie-in with the value we are placing on creating
21st century learners. Savin-Baden (2007) breaks down the phrase key concepts into the
following three areas: capabilities, knowledge and understandings. Our context is grade 10-12
students in a BYOD setting with the availability of school laptops to ensure that all students
have access to Google Earth software. The goal is that students have ubiquitous access to
online GIS software, the Internet and web based collaborative tools which affords opportunities
for blended learning to take place.

Cross-Curricular, Blended, Problem-Based Learning

Through the PBL structure of our design project we intend that students will build the
capabilities to interpret and analyze data (correlations between rising water levels and the local
topography), project and hypothesize outcomes (effects of sea-level change on local
populations), use case-based reasoning (apply knowledge from previous floods to their study
area), represent data (use visualizations effectively for communication) and construct action
plans (mitigation of damages to the target population). These goals are supported by Li and Liu
(2007) who report that computer database analysis in a PBL setting helps students organize
information, make connections, draw inferences, as well as hypothesize and evaluate schema
towards problem solving.
Our goal is that students build knowledge in synthesizing information, generating
solutions and presenting public education measures through a collaborative learning community
(Scardamalia and Bereiter,1994). To this end, students will use synchronous and asynchronous
chat, which allows for questions, arguments and statements to be made and challenged.
Asynchronous chat also affords team sharing, consensus and co-constructed meaning to take
place (Uden and Beaumont, 2006). The role of the teacher will be to provide scaffolding or as
McWilliam (2008) describes it, the meddler in the middle which positions the teacher and
student as mutually involved in assembling and reassembling cultural products (p. 265).
Finally, under the topic of key concepts, our intent is that students develop several
understandings related to the interdisciplinary focus of our project. Specifically, through the use
of online GIS interactivities, web based research and collaborative tools we intend for students
to understand the complexities of preparing a natural disaster plan, addressing changing water
levels using models and projections, the nature of wave dynamics, and the effects of seismic
activity, mass-wasting and extreme weather events related to flooding. Kerski (2003) supports
that in four out of nine tests, students using GIS scored significantly higher than their
counterparts who were using traditional methods, and demonstrated a better ability to
synthesize, identify, and describe reasons for human and physical patterns (p. 134).

Cross-Curricular, Blended, Problem-Based Learning

With regards to our context, our decision to use informal technologies is based on
students preferences for familiar forms of media and access to Internet connected devices. We
are utilizing many of Googles collaborative tools in our environment. Students will be
encouraged to bring their own devices to class; however, school devices will be available as
required. Tonnessen (2008) provides support for this context in that students relate differently to
informal paths of learning than they do to formal learning management systems. The use of
familiar, everyday social media practices performed on phones, tablets and computers has
significant potential in learning. Allowances will be made for students to use informal literacy
practices when collaborating to complete assignments. We will employ scaffolding to support
students in maintaining academic literacy practices while engaging in formal discussions and
presentations.
Our decision to use a blended structure is based on an acknowledgement that student
activities will be conducted both inside and outside of class. The ability to work in both subenvironments maximizes the affordances of both. The ability to meet face-to-face has
advantages at all stages of the learning. Savin-Baden (2006) stresses the importance of the
synchronous spark to engage learners at the beginning of the PBL process as well as for
ongoing real time communication necessary for dialogic student-centered learning to emerge
(p.122). Our aim is that most activities and discussions begin and are scaffolded within the
classroom, but that the affordances of student owned devices, along with the online learning
space, will enable students to engage with their learning outside of the classroom.
The learners in our context have been popularly referred to as the Net Generation being
digital, connected, experiential, immediate, social, a preference for peer-to-peer interaction and
engagement and visual and relevant learning resources (Oblinger (2006) as cited in Barrett and
Moore, 2011, p. 241). The term digital natives is also applied to our group of learners (Prensky,
2001). Despite their proficient computer skills and good capacity to pick-up new media, calling

Cross-Curricular, Blended, Problem-Based Learning

students digital natives is not an excuse for not actually teaching them about technology
(Donnelly, in Barrett and Moore, 2011, p. 243).
From the learners perspective, the initial response of many students to PBL is
frustration and confusion leading into a temporary state of disjunction (Savin-Baden and
Wilkie, 2006, p.17). This disjunction is often the result of a shift in focus from the traditional
content focused curriculum to an emphasis on collaboration, creativity and critical thinking.
Leadbeater (2000) emphasizes the importance of shifting the educational focus from
information transfer to the enactment of knowledge through a process of understanding,
through which people interpret information and make judgements based on it. Bruns and
Humphreys (2005) further emphasize the importance of focussing on critical, collaborative and
creative ICT literacies. To address this state of disjunction we will help students to see the value
of engaging in authentic learning challenges to aid in the development of the skills necessary for
the workplace and further education. As The New London Group states, if one of our
pedagogical goals is a degree of mastery in practice, then immersion in a community of learners
engaged in authentic versions of such practice is necessary (2008, p. 84). By implementing
scaffolding that includes interactives and informal discussions in the design of our learning
environment we plan to address the concerns raised about the abilities of our learners to use
technology educationally and collaboratively. We have also developed our assessments based
on the products of the learning activities, the interaction with the collaborative learning process
and the outcome of their presentations. Our goal is that students will see an alignment between
the PBL learning environment and how it will be assessed. Ultimately we believe that the design
and implementation of our PBL environment will facilitate deep authentic learning that our
students will find meaningful and transfer to the other fields of study.
Interactivities
Design Project Link:
https://sites.google.com/a/gshare.blackgold.ca/etec-510-water-related-disaster-remediation/

Cross-Curricular, Blended, Problem-Based Learning

10

Our site has been constructed using Google Sites. The landing page is a collage of
images in panoramic format intended to generated curiosity in the viewer and invite them into
the site. From there visitors are taken to the Getting Started page which is located on the menu
bar along with: Interactivities, Discussions, Studio, Presentation Space and For Educators.
Below is a brief description of each menu page and its subpages.
Getting Started
Information about the project is provided in this space, including: background, problem,
product, and assessment (including links to the evaluation rubric and group participation form).
Site information such as interactivity navigation, activity icons, discussion, studio and
presentation spaces is included.
Interactivities
On the main page, an eight-step colour infographic indicates the different activities and
their sequencing with links to the pages below. Each activity is presented along with links to
resources such as reports, videos, websites and visualizations. Each activity also contains
informal in-class or group discussion questions and formal discussions to be posted and
responded to on the forum. This discussion space allows students to take advantage of our
blended learning design by enabling participation outside of the classroom.
The interactivities are: the Disaster Stop game, the Science Education Resource Center
(SERC) lab, the Case Study Vancouver Flood Zone Analysis Part I, the Geocaching and
Geotagging Field Trip, the Case Study Vancouver Flood Zone Analysis Part II, the
Preparedness, Mitigation and Response Report and the Presentation / Stakeholders Forum and
Discussion. Additional resources are included in the drop-down menu.
Discussions
Each interactivity provides an opportunity for students to reflect on their learning and
connect to important related issues and each others ideas in this discussion forum. Google

Cross-Curricular, Blended, Problem-Based Learning

11

Groups is used as the asynchronous communication platform for threaded conversation.

Students respond to the formal discussions here as well as start their own conversations.
Studio
The studio will operate as a project group workspace for each team for the purpose of
collaboration and construction of knowledge. The space will act as a repository for sourced
sites, videos, podcasts, animations, data, infographics and notes that the group finds valuable in
the construction of their presentation. It will be accessible by the teacher to provide scaffolding
and insights as needed. Communication will take place during classroom time and
asynchronously outside of the class using the comments options at the bottom of the page.
Presentation
Completed team presentations will be linked into this space using Google Forms. A
spreadsheet is automatically generated for the teacher in their Google Drive. Space is also
available to embed the presentations into this page. An event will be planned by the teacher
where teams have an opportunity to share their presentations, collaborate on ideas and critique
each others recommendations to an authentic audience. This can include other teachers,
administrators, residents, first responders and other experts. Team members will be responsible
for inviting guests to the session. Stakeholders can attend in person or virtually through Skype
or Hangouts. The class should determine the format for moderation, order and
communication. There may also be the potential to broadcast this event live. At the bottom of
this page are two discussions asking students to reflect on their presentation and the process.
Verifications
Throughout our educational environment we incorporated numerous activities which are
designed to inform us if our participants are accomplishing the intended goals. These activities
include informal discussions, formal discussion posts, group participation, GIS products created
using Google Earth software, a written mitigation plan, and a final presentation in a town hall
type format.

Cross-Curricular, Blended, Problem-Based Learning

12

Informal discussions will be monitored through observations made by the classroom

facilitator. Pause and Reflect activities throughout the learning environment indicate and
prompt these informal discussions. Active, on-task engagement in these discussions by the
majority of participants would indicate that the students are making connections and
constructing knowledge.
Throughout the learning environment we include formal discussion activities which
require the students to write a reflection and collaborate in the discussion area of our website.
Ongoing, asynchronous discussion specifically addressing the prompts would provide evidence
that students are collaboratively building knowledge.
One of our design goals is for students to construct their learning collaboratively in
groups. To evaluate the success of this process, a collaboration feedback form has been
integrated to get students assessment of the effectiveness of their group. If our design is
successful we should see an equitable distribution of work and active involvement by all group
members.
One of the key goals in our design is the integrated use of GIS to aid students in building
a deeper understanding of geography and science. Google Earth is integrated and scaffolded
in our design to aid students in meeting this goal. As the students interact with the software they
are required to produce a flyover using Google Earth which integrates the elements
addressed in the GIS related activities. The assessment of these flyovers will indicate the
success of our design in meeting this goal.
Finally, the overarching aim of our design is for students to assess flood risks and
develop plans for preparedness, mitigation and response. Our culminating assessment is the
production of a presentation to be presented to the class and to stakeholders. The students
success in creating a presentation that successfully addresses the problem and integrates GIS
to support their proposal will indicate if our design achieved its intended purpose.

Cross-Curricular, Blended, Problem-Based Learning

13

By continually observing students engagement, monitoring the additional scaffolding

required and assessing the products of the interactivities we can evaluate the success of our
design. If students are frequently uncertain of what to do or are not developing the skills needed
to address the problem we may have to re-evaluate components of our design. Conversely, if
students are able to meet the intended targets, with the anticipated level of scaffolding, we can
be confident that the design is working as intended.
Group Reflection
In our group reflection, we will address how our design project evolved to come together,
share the experience of working with each other and summarize some of the things we learned.
Following our first meeting together, we came up with an overview of what we envisioned for our
project. It was helpful that members of our group had previous PBL experience, and we used
this experience as a starting point to extend the approach into new technologies. By coming up
with an overall goal, we created different interactivities that would scaffold the students learning
to reach this goal.
Working in a small group had its advantages and disadvantages. This meant that there
was more work to be distributed, but made coordination a lot easier, especially given the nature
of our lives as masters students, professionals, fathers and husbands. Our multifarious
communication included Google Hangouts, working asynchronously and synchronously on
our Google Doc and email exchanges. Another challenge was having group members on
opposite sides of the Pacific Ocean. This challenge was met with flexibility and adaptability of
the group to find convenient times to meet.
By working together we learned that collaborative course design requires clear
communication, a constant revision process, and a willingness to be flexible in order to achieve
the groups design goals. This kept our team moving forward. Our group was like-minded in
pedagogy and instructional practice, which made the design process an enjoyable task that

Cross-Curricular, Blended, Problem-Based Learning

14

facilitated deep learning. Lastly, we discovered that group decisions made at the design level
would impact student learning and knowledge construction.
Personal Reflections
Craig Brumwell
The experience of designing a constructivist learning environment has been a one of
clarity emerging from abstraction. At first our team had only a vague notion of what this would
involve, how its parts would connect with our teaching experience and the new ideas that we
are learning in ETEC 510. This is only my second course in the MET program, so most of the
theory and pedagogy that we are learning is new. The module readings and interactivities have
not only been very helpful but they have also been uncanny in their timing with issues that we
faced at various stages. We have been fortunate to have such a compatible team who share a
common energy and commitment to referencing the theories and pedagogies from our readings,
the design process and the finished product.
The first lesson I learned is to be practical and realistic. Engagement and interest begins
with selecting a topic that you and your partners are interested in, creating an environment that
you can use and maintaining a vision of a connected whole when going deep into any one
section. Designing an interactivity from the ground-up is much like making a movie: most of your
efforts end-up on the cutting room floor. Their final form represents many restarts and
transformations.
The second lesson is to be a flexible communicator. Being receptive and comfortable
with edits and criticisms from your teammates is critical. Communication is where theory and
practice come together as you work out meaning with each other. Transcribing, reworking and
articulating ideas and concepts transforms them into building blocks and tools. Time goes
quickly during communication sessions so it is important to have a start and end time in mind.
Inevitable connectivity issues occurred but momentum was maintained.

Cross-Curricular, Blended, Problem-Based Learning

15

The most significant experience was the situated learning that took place. We acted in
the role of instructional designers producing a learning environment. In the process of creating
an effective design, we became the learners. It was gratifying to see the process, information,
readings and final product converge into clarity by the end of the project.
Theodore Dykstra
Engaging in this group design process taught me several things. Primarily it reinforced
much of the content we are learning in our course. Several of the connections relate to the
constructivist learning process in which I am situated as a learner. The benefits of collaborative
learning in building deep understanding were also evident. This demonstrated to me that the
process of educational design is one of continual revision and improvement. Finally, working in
a group increased the accountability and ownership of my work.
The Design Project brought me as a participant through the constructivist process.
Jonassen (1999) says that constructivist learning environments should support collaboration
within a group of participants, shared decision making about how to manipulate the
environment, alternative interpretations of topics and problems, articulation of learners ideas,
and reflection on the processes they used (pp.230-231). As a group we were continually
addressing all of these elements.
The impact of working collaboratively on the design of our learning environment was
significant. At times it seemed as though this process increased the amount of time spent
working on various tasks. Although the time investment required for the collaborative process to
occur is significant the positive impact on learning is evident. Barab and Duffy (2000) emphasize
that the importance of a learning community where ideas are discussed and understandings
are enriched is critical to the design of effective practice fields (p. 33).
In the creation of our design we used many collaborative tools which enabled us to work
on the same documents simultaneously. As a result, our design project always seemed to be in
a constant state of revision. This process increased my feeling of accountability to the group

Cross-Curricular, Blended, Problem-Based Learning

16

and ownership of my work as it was always available for others to see, critique and build upon.
Like wikis and other collaborative web publishing spaces, opening our work up to a broader
audience, beyond the teacher, increased my ownership of the content (Halavais, 2005).
In summary, this design project has taken me through the same process I hope to take
my future students through. The process was constructivist, collaborative and facilitated deep
learning through a continual process of dialogue and revision.
Mike Rae
The design project was an interesting and enjoyable personal journey. I have taught
Geography 12 in the past, and majored in geography at university, so designing a constructivist
PBL learning environment made me feel as though I was getting back to one of my passions.
While completing the MET program I am also academic advising, so I have not had the
opportunity to implement these effective and engaging educational practices in the classroom.
This project was more authentic for me as I could picture myself using it when I am situated as a
facilitator within a classroom again. Having group members who are currently teaching made
the process feel more authentic and meaningful.
Working in a smaller group did increase the workload, but it made coordination
significantly easier. I have worked in groups of five in the MET program, which makes finding a
time that works well for everyone to meet synchronously much more difficult. With three of us
we were able to collaborate most of the time through Google Hangouts. This luxury also
improved the camaraderie in our group, which personally helped motivate me to do better work.
Theo and Craig were great to work with and I learned a lot from them. I was really
impressed with their time management skills, because they both had something that took up
their time that I do not have right now a family. Furthermore, Theo was great at showing both
Craig and I tricks and techniques involving Google and Craig was excellent at relaying his
experience with PBL in the classroom. Both Craig and Theo were very accommodating and

Cross-Curricular, Blended, Problem-Based Learning

17

understanding, as at times China Internet difficulties or my work day would throw a wrench into
our plans, but we were all very good at adjusting and making it work.
I am glad that this was not the first course I took in the program, because I was able to
apply what I learned from other classes to the project. One of the most significant lessons I will
take away from this experience is the realization of how much design related decisions affect
what the students will produce. I also valued working as a team on such a worthwhile project.
References
Alberta. Alberta Education.Policy and Planning Branch. (2011).Alberta education action agenda
2011-14. ( No. 2012-00760.). Edmonton, Alta: Alberta Education, Policy and Planning
Sector
Barab, S., & Duffy, T. (2000). From practice fields to communities of practice. In D. Jonassen
and S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments. Mahweh, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Barrett, T., & Moore, S. (2011). New approaches to problem-based learning: Revitalising your
practice in higher education. New York: Routledge.
Bean, James A. (1995). Curriculum integration and the disciplines of knowledge. The Phi Delta
Kappan, 76 (8), 616-622.
British Columbia Government EBook Collection, & British Columbia. Ministry of Education.
(2011). Personalized learning in BC: Interactive discussion guide. Victoria, B.C.: Ministry
of Education.
Bruns, A. and Humphreys, S. (2005). Wikis in teaching and assessment -The M/Cyclopedia
project. Proceedings of the 2005 International Symposium on Wikis.
Halavais, A. (2005). Weblogs and collaborative web publishing as learning spaces. In J. Weiss
(Ed.), The international handbook of virtual learning environments. Dordrecht, NE:
Springer.

Cross-Curricular, Blended, Problem-Based Learning

18

Hooks, B. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York:
Routledge.
Jonassen, D. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.),
Instructional design theories and models: Volume II. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Johnson, Paige (2009). The 21st century skills movement. Teaching for the 21st Century,
67(1),11.
Kerski, J. J. (2003). The implementation and effectiveness of geographic information systems
technology and methods in secondary education. Journal of Geography, 102(3), 128137. doi:10.1080/00221340308978534
Leadbeater, C. Living on Thin Air. London: Penguin, 2000.
Li, R., & Liu, M. (2007). Understanding the effects of databases as cognitive tools in a problembased multimedia learning environment. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 18(3),
345-363.
Marc Prensky. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5),1-6.
doi:10.1108/10748120110424816
McWilliam, E. (2008). Unlearning how to teach. Innovations in Education and Teaching
International, 45(3), 263-269. doi:10.1080/14703290802176147
New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard
Educational Review. 66 (1), 60-92.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic
Books.
Saavedra, A.R. (2012). Learning 21st-century skills requires 21st-century teaching. Phi Delta
Kappan, 94(2), 8-15.
Savin-Baden, M., & Wilkie, K. (Eds.). (2006). Problem-based learning online. Open University
Press.

Cross-Curricular, Blended, Problem-Based Learning

19

Savin-Baden, M. (2007). A practical guide to problem-based learning online. New York:

Routledge.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities.
The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265-283.
Tonnessen, E. (2008, June). ICT(s) and socialization: The role of the school and teachers.
Contribution to OECD Expert Meeting, Oslo, Norway.
Uden, L., & Beaumont, C. (2006). Technology and problem-based learning. Hershey, PA:
Information Science Pub.
Vygotsky L. Mind and Society: The Development of Higher Mental Processes.Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press; 1978.