Problem-Based Learning

When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong.
Richard Buckminster Fuller

    Problems make up life. Problems with ambiguous, improbable, or impossible solutions take up the time and energy of every person, regardless of location or postion. It seems logical, then, that assessing and dealing with problems would be an integral part of curriculum in the classroom. It is ironic that problems are perceived as negative and are largely ignored as topics for instruction.

    Problem-based learning is "experiential learning organized around the investigation and resolution of messy, real-world problems" (Torp & Sage, 2002, p. 15). The development of both curriculum and environment must include the engagement of students in a real problem, encouraging students to think critically. The "buy-in" is essential; the participants are stakeholders who care about the solution and who present it as their own contribution to others involved.

    The origins of problem-based learning can be traced to theorists like John Dewey, who believed that teachers should teach by engaging students' natural inclinations to investigate. He called for using situations from ordinary life. "They give pupils something to do, not something to learn, and the doing is of such a nature as to demand thinking, or the intentional noting of connections, learning naturally results" (Dewey, 1916, p. 154). This premise attracted the interest of Howard Barrows, a physician who taught at McMaster's University in Canada. During the 1960's, he developed a series of problems for his medical students, which they researched to find solutions (Barrows, 1985). The news of the resulting improvement in students' critical thinking skills spread throughout the medical community. During the 1970's, New Mexico became a pioneer by developing medical curriculum around the case study method, which became the problem-based approach later instituted by Harvard. This teaching method became the standard for medical training. It was much later that it moved into public education.

    One of the supportive movements for PBL (problem-based learning) in education was the "school-to-work" initiative. This emerged from renewed commitment to the Smith-Hughes Act of 1918, which focused on vocational and technical skills of students becoming industrial workers. As workers, they needed problem-solving skills, constructive thinking that navigated a changing workplace. Also grounded in Dewey's beliefs, the school-to-work movement emphasized projects embedded in real-world problems, teacher as coach, awareness of impact, use of inquiry and investigation, and multiple assessment options (Steinberg, Cushman, & Riordan, 1999).

    Another movement that reinforced PBL was the renewal of constructivism (also based on Dewey's teachings) as an educational foundation. Constructivism encouraged the shift of the teacher's role to guide, instead of presenter; the alignment of classroom activities to validate or transform students' suppositions; the relevance of personal meaning, constructed individually; the use of primary concepts that tied curricular areas together, avoiding "fragmented" learning; and assessment that was done as learning occured, not as a separate activity at the end of units (Brooks & Brooks, 1999).

    Problem-based learning also complemented the multiple intelligence methodology of John Gardner (Gardner, 1983) and the multiple literacies proposed by Elliot Eisner (Eisner, 1994). The structure of PBL contained built-in formats for learning modalities, individualization, and cooperative peer interaction.

    Educators today use PBL to accomplish three student goals: to learn essential knowledge, to use knowledge to deal efficiently with problems, and to develop strategies that would solve future problems (Delisle, 1997). The chosen problem must be "messy," it must involve obstacles and be constrained by logical perimeters (Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001). The problem must not have a predetermined solution, or have only one solution. Students must have legitimate concerns about the problem and the outcome and present it to an audience with like concerns. Assessment must be authentic and involve process as well as product (Torp & Sage, 2002).

   The initial step in using PBL is to determine a messy issue. Students then work to define the problem, gather facts, generate a list of relevant questions, hypothesize, direct searches for information, generate solutions, test solutions, and redirect as needed (Fogarty, 1997). Students work in groups, each fulfilling a role. Cooperative learning is best done in heterogeneous groups of three to four members. Each member must contribute and is accountable both in group assessment and individually. This model is one that prepares students for workplace cooperation, in which learning is contextual and project-centered (Thornburg, 2002).

   Since the tasks are not specific, but must be designed by students during the process, participants are engaged in higher-order thinking, that described in the upper levels of Bloom's Taxonomy (Bloom, 1956). Students use divergent thinking to create solutions that may not be the obvious ones. They use convergent thinking to analyze and evalutate solutions to determine which one(s) fit criteria. The thinking required for these actions is learned by experience, not "because students have received specific instruction in these skills, but because the human mind is 'hard-wired' to perform these operations"(Silver, Hanson, Strong, & Schwartz, 1996, p. 65). Students look for answers that "cannot be found. They must be invented. It is something like cooking a great meal. The researcher goes out on a shopping expedition for the raw ingredients, but 'the proof is in the pudding.' Students must construct their own answers and make their own meaning from the information they have gathered. They create insight" (McKenzie, 2000, p. 78).

   In their book, Teaching and the Human Brain, Renate and Geoffrey Caine compare the process of navigation through learning to that of finding a destination in an unfamiliar city. "Route learning" is trying to get to the place with specific directions, precise instructions, concentrating on the end result and ignoring all sideroads, and knowing exactly when the journey is over. In the classroom, this learning is characterized by right and wrong responses, practice and rote, localized memory, and little application outside of context or after assessment. "Mapping," however, is getting to the destination by exploration, trial and error, finding multiple routes, and discovery of other sites as the destination is found. This learning is characterized by multi-subject integration, process emphasis, long-term memory, and cross-curricular and situation application. PBL is a high-interest, intensive form of "mapping" (1991).

   A problem-based unit could last a week or a semester. More than a few hours a week tires students. Too many hours a week, and students lose interest and begin to resist. During the process, assessment should be taking place. The word "assess" comes from the French word that means "to sit beside." Authentic assessment should be a "observation" during learning, in addition to being product-based. It should promote improvement, quality performance, and should not suppress risk-taking or cooperation with others (Mittelsteadt, 2002). Because assessment is often vague, the use of rubrics is encouraged (Marzano, et al., 2001). Rubrics can be collaboratively developed by students and teachers to best address what behaviors or tasks are considered most appropriate. Assessment rubrics could include use of time, participation, cooperation, meeting deadlines, individual responsibility, and how the final product meets criteria.

   The use of technology tools during a PBL unit can aid students greatly. Gathering and organizing information, graphing statistics, and creating final presentations can incorporate technology. In fact, the introduction of technology in schools may have led to the increase in problem-solving curriculum (Knapp, 1996). Students who have access to the Internet, word processing programs, spreadsheet applications, and slideshow software can work more efficiently.

   The final stage of PBL is the presentation of solutions. This should be done to a real audience, who also are shareholders in the problem (Delisle, 1997). Simply turning in a project to the teacher will not motivate some students to find real solutions. If the problem involves the community, students should present the final project at a community meeting. If it involves legislators, the ideal audience would be its representatives. Having a real audience attaches authenticity to the process and instills a sense of urgency to finish by a predetermined presentation date.

   The rewards of PBL include active engagement of students, real-life application of learning, interdisciplinary integration, student choice and decision-making, collaborative skill-building, and the development of cognitive and research skills (Delisle, 1997). Even used to supplement a more traditional classroom structure, it may effectively strengthen thinking and cooperative skills. It models real-world ethics and work habits that prepare students for careers (Steinberg, et al., 1999).

   There are problems, too, with implementing PBL as an instructional format. Teachers often feel that large-scale projects will interfere with prescribed curriculum and covering of required material. While teachers who have used PBL contend that they actually cover more material, the fear of "wasting time" is relevant (Caine & Caine, 1991). Also, the vast amount of information available today, partly through the use of technology, makes assimilation difficult. Or, the problem may bring with it too little information to develop solutions.

   Also, the attitudes of students may influence the process. A study has shown (Dweck, 1986) that students react in different ways to the presentation of a problem. Students who believe that intelligence is fixed and unchangeable are more likely to perceive failure and get discouraged. Students who believe that intelligence is changed by practice and effort will be more likely to persist in problem-solving trials. These tendencies should be discussed and prepared for prior to the actual unit. The best problem-solvers are those who try multiple solutions and rely on automated skills attributed to "intuition." Studies show that "aspects of one's processing must become relatively automatic"(Bransford & Vye, 1989, p. 182). How students deal with problems is as important as the result of dealing with them.

   Time is another consideration in PBL. Students must be given time to research, discuss, evaluate, and synthesize. Often, these tasks do not have a product to visibly assess every day. The incubation of ideas may present the appearance of non-productive time. The teacher who recognizes this process as relevant will have fewer grades in the gradebook, but still be able to prove learning has taken place.

   As state and national tests put more pressure on schools to perform on tests, it may seem the logical route to address more textbook instruction and rote learning. Yet, proponents of problem-based learning argue that test results improve with the strengthening of cognitive reasoning. Critical thinking called for on standardized tests can only be taught by exercising an environment in which higher-order thinking is valued. One method used to emphasize relevant thinking skills is problem-based learning.

References

    Barrows, Howard S. (1985).How to design a problem-based curriculum for the preclinical years. New York: Springer Publishing Company.

    Bloom, Benjamin S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.

    Bransford, John D. and Vye, Nancy J. (1989). A perspective on cognitive research and its implications for instruction. In Lauren B. Resnick and Leopold E. Klopfer (Eds.), Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research (pp. 173-205). Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Brooks, Jacqueline Grennon and Brooks, Martin G. (1999). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Caine, Renate Nummela and Caine, Geoffrey. (1991). Making connections: Teaching and the human brain. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Delisle, Robert. (1997). How to use problem-based learning in the Classroom. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Dewey, John. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: The Free Press.

   Dweck, C. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 10, 1040-1048.

    Eisner, Elliot W. (1994). Cognition and curriculum reconsidered. New York: Teachers College Press.

   Fogarty, Robin. (1997). Problem-Based learning and other curriculum models for the multiple intelligences classroom. Arlington Heights, Illinois: Skylight Professional Development.

    Gardner, Howard. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Harper Collins.

    Knapp, Linda Roehrig. (1996). Restructuring schools with technology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

   McKenzie, Jamie. (2000). Questioning, research, and the information literate school. Bettingham, Washington: FNO Press.

    Marzano, Robert J., Pickering, Debra J., and Pollock, Jane E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

   Mittelsteadt, Sandy. (2002). Developing an understanding on how we learn. Self published handbook.

    Silver, Harvey F., Hanson, Robert J., Strong, Richard W., and Schwartz, Patricia B. (1996) Teaching styles and strategies. Woodbridge, New Jersey: Thoughtful Education Press.

    Steinberg, Adria, Cushman, Kathleen, and Riordan, Robert. (1999). Schooling for the real world: The essential guide to rigorous and relevant learning.. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

    Thornburg, David. (2002) The new basics: Education and the future of work in the telematic age. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Torp, Linda and Sage, Sara. (2002). Problems as possibilities: Problem-Based learning for K-16 education. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.