Making Physics Problem Solving Visible Through Synchronous Online Problem-Based Learning: Patterns of Student Discourse Across Two-Semester

Problem-based Learning (PBL) is widely used to promote problem solving, yet outcome measures alone provide limited insight how students reason, negotiate ideas, and regulate inquiry while solving authentic problems. This study examined patterns of problem-solving discourse across repeated synchronous written online PBL discussions among pre-university physics in Malaysia. A comparative two-semester qualitative content analysis, supported by descriptive discourse coding, was conducted using 18 Microsoft Teams discussion sessions: three groups per semester and three discussions per group. Semester 1 represents 21 students and Semester 2 represent 22 students.
The corpus comprised 890 substantive students turns and 1390 PIM eligible meaning units. Cognitive presence was classified using the Practical Inquiry Model (PIM), while supplementary turn-level indicators captured mathematical reasoning, evidence use, concept integration, uncertainty awareness and limitation awareness, peer interaction, reflection, and peer facilitation. Semester 1, showed a modest rise in the study-specific Higher-Order Inquiry Ratio (HOIR) (Integration plus Resolution), from 27.8% in Discussion 1 to 33.6% in Discussion 3. Semester 2 displayed different pattern, beginning at 41.8% and stabilizing at approximately 31% in later discussions. Group-level trajectories were heterogeneous, indicating that semester averages did not represent a uniform progression.
Across the two semesters, concept integration and explicit attention to uncertainty and limitations were prominent in the second semester corpus, whereas mathematical and evidence-based reasoning varied with problem demands. Peer correction also became more visible in later Semester 2 discussions.
The findings suggest that synchronous written PBL can make the structure of scientific problem-solving observable, while also showing that inquiry patterns are shaped by task and group context. The study highlights the value of analyzing how students’ reason together, rather than relying only on final answers or participation counts.

online problem-based learning; physics education; cognitive presence; synchronous online discussion; problem solving discourse

1. Chang, C.-C., Yen, W.-H., Liu, S.-C., & Kuo, C.-T. (2026). Learning presence in the revised community of inquiry framework: A systematic review of empirical research (2010–2024). The Internet and Higher Education, 68, 101058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2025.101058 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Das, R. M., & Madhusuda, J. V. (2023). Collaborative Learning and Learner Engagement within the Community of Inquiry Model: A Systematic Review (Pt. 60-68). International Journal of Computers in Education, 6(2). https://izlik.org/JA99UE78LM [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M., & Van Keer, H. (2006). Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computers & Education, 46(1), 6–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.005 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Eldy, E. F., Sulaiman, F., Ishak, Mohd. Z., Uden, L., & Netto-Shek, J.-A. (2023). The Effectiveness of Integrated Online Problem-Based Learning (iON-PBL) Physics Module on Pre-university Students’ Motivation and Problem-Solving Skills. In L. Uden & D. Liberona (Eds.), Learning Technology for Education Challenges (Vol. 1830, pp. 164–175). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34754-2_14 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. English, M. C., & Kitsantas, A. (2013). Supporting Student Self-Regulated Learning in Problem- and Project-Based Learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1339 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Erickson, S., Neilson, C., O’Halloran, R., Bruce, C., & McLaughlin, E. (2021). ‘I was quite surprised it worked so well’: Student and facilitator perspectives of synchronous online Problem Based Learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 58(3), 316–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2020.1752281 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Fathali, S. (2024). Social and cognitive presence in a community of inquiry: An epistemic network analysis of CALL students’ interactions via nowcomment. System, 121, 103233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103233 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923640109527071 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Hasani, L. M., Junus, K., Sadita, L., Hirashima, T., & Hayashi, Y. (2025). Fostering Higher-Level Inquiry in Online Asynchronous Discussion with Kit-Build Concept Mapping: A Case in Learning Linear Algebra. Online Learning, 29(1). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v29i1.4379 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-Based Learning: What and How Do Students Learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Maranna, S., Willison, J., Joksimovic, S., Parange, N., & Costabile, M. (2022). Factors that influence cognitive presence: A scoping review. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 38(4), 95–111. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.7878 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Maré, S., & Mutezo, A. T. (2025). The community of inquiry, shared metacognition, and student engagement in online learning: A systematic review. Interactive Learning Environments, 33(9), 5213–5234. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2025.2479164 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Maries, A., & Singh, C. (2023). Helping Students Become Proficient Problem Solvers Part I: A Brief Review. Education Sciences, 13(2), 156. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13020156 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Nehru, N., Kurniawan, W., & Riantoni, C. (2020). Exploration of Students’ Problem-Solving Skills in Physics-Based on Expert and Novice Categories. Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 7th Mathematics, Science, and Computer Science Education International Seminar, MSCEIS 2019, 12 October 2019, Bandung, West Java, Indonesia. Proceedings of the 7th Mathematics, Science, and Computer Science Education International Seminar, MSCEIS 2019, 12 October 2019, Bandung, West Java, Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.12-10-2019.2296469 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Nicholus, G., Muwonge, C. M., & Joseph, N. (2023). The Role of Problem-Based Learning Approach in Teaching and Learning Physics: A Systematic Literature Review. F1000Research, 12, 951. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.136339.2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Sadaf, A., Wu, T., & Martin, F. (2021). Cognitive Presence in Online Learning: A Systematic Review of Empirical Research from 2000 to 2019. Computers and Education Open, 2, 100050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2021.100050 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Sagatbek, A., Oni, T. K., Adah Miller, E., Gabdullina, G., & Balta, N. (2024). Do High School Students Learn More or Shift Their Beliefs and Attitudes Toward Learning Physics with the Social Constructivism of Problem-Based Learning? Education Sciences, 14(12), 1280. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14121280 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of Problem-based Learning: Definitions and Distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Sharma, K., Nguyen, A., & Hong, Y. (2024). Self‐regulation and shared regulation in collaborative learning in adaptive digital learning environments: A systematic review of empirical studies. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55(4), 1398–1436. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13459 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Sulaiman, F., Atan, H., Idrus, R., & Dzakiria, H. (2004). Problem-based learning: A study of the web-basedsynchronous collaboration. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Suwastini, N. K. A., Ersani, N. P. D., Padmadewi, N. N., & Artini, L. P. (2021). Schemes of Scaffolding in Online Education. RETORIKA: Jurnal Ilmu Bahasa, 7(1), 10–18. https://doi.org/10.22225/jr.7.1.2941.10-18 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Sydykova, Zh. K., & Naushabekov, Zh. A. (2024). APPLICATION OF STEM EDUCATION TO ANALYZE AND SOLVE PHYSICS PROBLEMS IN SCHOOLS. BULLETIN Series of Physics & Mathematical Sciences, 86(2). https://doi.org/10.51889/2959-5894.2024.86.2.030 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Tangney, B., Sullivan, K., & Lawlor, J. (2024). Online collaborative PBL – The Bridge21 approach. Computers and Education Open, 7, 100224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2024.100224 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Van Nooijen, C. C. A., De Koning, B. B., Bramer, W. M., Isahakyan, A., Asoodar, M., Kok, E., Van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2024). A Cognitive Load Theory Approach to Understanding Expert Scaffolding of Visual Problem-Solving Tasks: A Scoping Review. Educational Psychology Review, 36(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09848-3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• A Comparative Study on the Thermal and Electrical Conductivity of Common Materials
• Thickness Dependent Thermoelectric Properties of Pb0.4In0.6Se Thin Films Deposited by Physical Evaporation Technique
• Optimization of a Patch Antenna Using Genetic Algorithm
• Kinematic Constraints On Brown Dwarf Atmospheric Variability And Evidence For Bimodal Formation From Multi-Survey Analysis
• Reservoir Characterization through the Application of Petrophysical Evaluation of Well Logs of Animaux Field, Niger Delta Basin, Nigeria