|
A Peer Reviewed Journal - ISSN 1499-819X Volume 5, Number 3 February 4, 2003 © 2002 - 2003 Krista Kerr and EGallery EGallery grants reproduction rights for noncommercial educational purposes with the provision that full acknowledgment of the source is noted on each copy. |
|
Ski Wax And Science Class: An Inquiry Into Problem-Based Learning For Elementary And Secondary Students A Semester 1 Independent Inquiry By Krista
Kerr For Bill Dickson |
|
ABSTRACT One of the many challenges
facing educators today is how to effectively engage students in learning.
In the 1960s, problem-based-learning (PBL) was introduced at McMaster
Medical School in response to dissatisfaction with the traditional methods
of medical school education. The method involved structuring the learning
process and the curriculum content around real-life case studies and the
approach brought on a strong student-centered focus to education. The
results were extremely positive and PBL has since been used more widely
in medical schools, as well as in schools of nursing, architecture, social
work, and law. To a very limited degree PBL has more recently been used
in K-12 education. This paper examines the issues and complexities surrounding
the implementation of PBL education at the K-12 level. The benefits of
PBL in the K-12 years are discussed, and the challenges to implementing
PBL are examined. Introduction Have you ever noticed that some of the most powerful teaching moments stem from problems that occur everyday all around us? Problems such as where to build a new school; how to ensure safety in air travel; when to plant your garden in the spring; or who to support in the next election. These ‘life dilemmas’ force us to consider a wide range of issues and engage with them to a depth that is often difficult to replicate in a school setting. For example, two nights ago I was faced with the problem of waxing my skis. Over the next two hours, as I learned how to wax my skis, I was forced to think about knowledge and concepts from core science subjects that I took in high school: chemistry (what is the wax made of? what materials are skis made of? What are relevant melting/freezing points? variable temperatures?); biology (environmental variables, impact on the land); physics (friction, hydroplaning, range of motions); and mathematics (edges, curves, cost analysis of home maintenance versus shop service). The learning was focused, relevant, and meaningful to me and the problem I needed to solve. This type of learning method is known to those in the education field as Problem-Based Learning. It was first introduced in Canadian medical schools in the 1960s and in recent years has been gaining support in elementary and secondary settings in Canada, the United States, and other countries. This inquiry paper will focus on this method of Problem-Based Learning, specifically considering its potential for use at the elementary and secondary school levels. PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING DEFINED Problem-based learning (PBL) can be viewed as both a curriculum organizer and an instructional strategy. The Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy defines PBL as “focused, experiential learning (minds-on, hands-on) organized around the investigation and resolution of messy, real-world problems” (Torp & Sage, 1998, p. 14). This institution identifies three main characteristics of the problem-based learning process: first, it places students in the positions of stakeholders in the problem; second, curriculum is organized around the problem so as to enhance its relevance and the student’s connection to it; finally, PBL places the teacher in the role of a coach who guides student inquiry and promotes deeper levels of understanding of the material (Torp & Sage, 1998). A typical PBL cycle would begin with students becoming stakeholders in a certain situation. This might mean assuming a fictional identity such as a mayor of a city or a planning committee member, or it could mean maintaining their own student identities. Next, the students are introduced to an ill-structured problem. This problem is messy and complex and does not have a straightforward solution. Students will be required to analyze the problem, evaluate it, and look at underlying assumptions before they move on to the next step in the process: identifying what they already know, and what they need to know. It is here that students are encouraged to access their prior knowledge and to make connections with past learning while also seeking out new knowledge and researching new ideas. The independent research is then shared with the group, after which a further re-defining of the problem takes place. The redefinition of the problem often leads to new routes of inquiry. It is important to note that this part of the process is non-static in nature – the cycle can repeat itself many times over, with new directions being explored depending on the information students have discovered and what their particular interests are. Finally, the students will generate several possible solutions to the problem and decide on the one (or more than one) that fits best. The students’ findings are presented in some type of format which best illustrates their learning – possibilities for representing understanding include written position papers, charts, traditional and multimedia presentations, videos, maps, poster sessions, panel discussions, and so on. Teacher assessment of the student’s learning will formally come into play in this final step, but is also carried out on a more informal or formative basis throughout the entire PBL process (Torp & Sage, 1998). ORIGINS OF PBL Problem-based learning was first introduced in North America in the 1960s by Howard Barrows, a physician and medical educator at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario (Delisle, 1997). It was discovered that the traditional method of medical education being used at McMaster was producing doctors who were deficient in many areas of ‘good’ medical practice. Many student physicians, by time they had graduated, had lost the original compassion for patients that had led them into the profession in the first place. There was also concern that although new doctors left the program with an abundance of theories, facts, and knowledge, yet they lacked the skills needed to keep up with new knowledge and ideas that they would be faced with in the ever-changing field of health care. The medical students had not learned how to learn. Finally, there was a good deal of worry over the atmosphere that had been created among students. Instead of the desired feelings of camaraderie and teamwork, there existed an atmosphere of competitiveness and one-upsmanship (Palmer, 1998). In order to address these concerns, the medical school instituted a new practice, that of problem-based learning, for its new in-coming medical students. Under the new system, the students were arranged in small tutorial groups with an assigned teaching mentor. The tutorial groups met with live patients who had real problems and illnesses. The students’ task was to carry out a collective inquiry into the diagnosis and possible treatments of the patients. As a group they went through the process of defining problems, assigning tasks, seeking out information, and interpreting results. At the conclusion of their inquiry they would propose their diagnoses and treatment recommendations (Rankin, 1999). The PBL approach was proven successful in that the students’ bedside manners and compassion for patients were shown to improve. It was also found that a greater sense of ethical behaviour and camaraderie amongst students was developed. As well, the results of standardized test scores began to slowly rise under this new approach to teaching, proving that the required level of “objective knowledge” was still being learned and retained (Palmer, 1998). Since the introduction of PBL at McMaster in the sixties, the method has been used in many other medical schools in the United States and around the globe. It has also been brought into other professional fields of study such as law, business, architecture, education, engineering, and social work (Gallagher & Stepien, 1993). At the undergraduate level, PBL has been introduced in individual courses, often aided by the use of computer tutorials and chat sessions to connect larger undergraduate classes and groups of students. A form of problem-based learning has been implemented into the inquiry-based, field oriented and student focused Master of Teaching program in the Faculty of Education, at the University of Calgary (for more information: http://external.educ.ucalgary.ca/dtp/). It seems that a major obstacle to overcome when implementing PBL at the post-secondary level is the required change in mind-set for both students and the teachers taking part. PBL involves a different educational philosophy from that which most students and teachers have become accustomed to in the first twelve years of schooling. Thus, it seems important to look at PBL as it might be applied to the first twelve years of schooling for two main reasons. First, by introducing the skills and concepts needed for PBL in the K-12 years, the transition may be that much easier at the post-secondary level. Second, if the approach has proven valuable at the post-secondary level then there exists a good chance it will have value for students in the younger grades. In the past few years, PBL has been used at various institutions for students in grades K-12. However, it has yet to become a widespread commonly accepted approach to education at this level (Torp & Sage, 1998). The aim of this inquiry paper is to examine the issues surrounding problem-based learning at the elementary and secondary levels of education. Several questions frame this inquiry: What are the differences between PBL in the K-12 setting as compared to professional educational settings? What additional issues might have to be considered? Is PBL a realistic approach for even the youngest of elementary grades? What are the benefits for students and possible implementation problems for teachers? What are the underlying philosophies and messages about education and learning that are being transmitted when using a PBL approach? BENEFITS OF PBL Increased Motivation For a teacher of medical education, being able to motivate a student to learn is not a pressing issue – taking on the medical profession is a personal choice and in most cases the student would not be there if he or she did not want to learn. However, for the elementary or secondary school teacher, motivating students is always at the forefront of discussion – how do we get students to take an active role in learning? With traditional systematic instructional methods, students are often so disconnected from the learning process that their motivation for learning is largely external. The student completes his or her assignment to please the teacher, to get the grade, or to obtain some other type of external reward. There are many problems that go along with constant external motivation, including the focus on the ‘end products’ of learning instead of the process of learning itself (Chard & Katz, 1989). There also exists the problem of entering a situation where learning is required, but the external rewards are not there – how will students cope in the ‘real world’ without the ability to be self-motivated? A benefit of PBL is that it develops intrinsic motivation in students. In the psychological literature, intrinsic motivation is often referred to as the “development of interest” and is defined as the disposition to pursue an activity or goal in the absence of expected rewards; the capacity of a student to lose oneself in an educational activity. Studies have found that interest and the capacity for absorption in a task are increased when children are engaged in projects that require sustained effort and involvement over a period of several days or weeks (Chard & Katz, 1989). This is exactly the kind of engaged learning environment that PBL enables as the process involves extensive researching and in-depth thought and analysis. By making the problems relevant to the students’ lives, there is less need for the question “Why do we need to learn this?” Students are motivated by the importance and direct applicability that is inherent in the work they are undertaking. Another critical factor in terms of motivation are the elements of choice and control (Deci & Ryan, 1987, cited in Chard & Katz, 1989). Because PBL problems are open-ended, they can be taken in a variety of different directions which gives students choice and control regarding how to approach the problem, what aspects to work on, what resources to use, and how to divide up and carry out the work. This feeling of ownership further adds to the development of self-direction and intrinsic motivation. Mary Bidle, a social studies teacher who uses PBL at Franklin Middle School in Champaign, Illinois, noticed this motivational force in her students: “Some students were immediately hooked when they realized they owned the problem…Once they could see that their ideas were indeed valid (or why they were not) according to criteria they provided for themselves, then the grin appeared and momentum picked up” (Torp & Sage, 1998, p. 9) Development of Collaborative Environments and Learning Communities A second benefit of PBL is the community approach to learning, as opposed to learning in isolation. Students are required to work together and use teamwork to solve their problems. Students develop leadership skills and learn how to compromise; these are critical skills that students need to develop in the early elementary years. The practice that PBL affords students in this development is evident in this grade two student’s experience with PBL and group learning at the Illinois Math and Science Academy:
Aside from the inherent value of collaboration, the reality is that when students enter post-secondary education and or the world of work they will have to collaborate with colleagues in some capacity. Thus, in addition to PBL problems being connected to the ‘real-world’, so too is the collaborative nature with which they approach the problem. A spin-off of this collaborative aspect is that students learn from an early age that real-world learning communities extend far beyond the classroom (Rogovin, 1998). Students learn from each other and their teacher, but also from a wide variety of outside sources. They might contact their local fire department for information, question members of their school board, or contact expert researchers in a certain field. For example, a fourth grade class that was faced with the problem of why their principal’s garden would not grow healthy plants contacted experts from a local nursery for information (Torp & Sage, 1998). In comparison, traditional methods of instruction tend to unrealistically frame education as an endeavor that takes place only between the hours of 9am and 3pm and within the four walls of the school building. PBL forces students to widen the narrow view of education as “schooling” and the teacher as the sole expert in the classroom and the sole source of authoritative information. Promotion of Higher-Order Thinking and Interdisciplinary Connections A characteristic often used to describe ‘authentic’ learning is that of higher-order thinking. Higher-order thinking (HOT) is defined as thinking that requires students to “manipulate information and ideas in ways that transform their meaning and implications” (Newmann & Wehlage, 1993). HOT involves students combining facts and ideas and using them to synthesize, generalize, explain, hypothesize, and eventually come to some conclusion or interpretation. Higher order thinking requires problem solving and creative construction of new meanings and understandings. HOT moves the student away from seeking out the one correct answer in favour of critically evaluating a wide range of possible solutions. In contrast, lower –order thinking focuses on the receiving and reciting of pre-specified knowledge and leaves no room for personal interpretations and constructions (Newmann & Wehlage, 1993). HOT raises standards for students’ metacognitive capabilities and it has often been found that given the opportunity, students readily rise to meet these standards. Louise Robb, a language arts teacher from Barrington Middle School in Illinois, describes the high level of complexity that her middle school students are able to deal with: “we’ve had some panels of experts come in and hear solutions from our groups – the adults are just astounded by the depth of [students’] knowledge and the kinds of things they’ve been able to deal with….The kids are asking just incredibly complex questions, which show they do have a lot of understanding of content” (Torp & Sage, 1998, 22). A third benefit of PBL is realized when students are able to practice higher order skills on a variety of different problems, and begin to generate a set of general and effective strategies for each step of the PBL process: problem definition, information gathering, data analysis, hypothesis building, and testing. As such students are learning how to learn, a skill that they will be able to apply to whatever complex situations they might be faced with at other stages of their lives (Gordon, 1998). Along with the promotion of higher order thinking skills comes the ability to make interdisciplinary connections between subjects. Traditionally, academic subjects are taught in isolation from each other – they are physically separated by walls and space in the school and mentally separated by the designation of certain times of the day for the study of certain disciplines. Realistically we know that authentic problems, information, and questions do not come in individual packages labeled “math”, “history”, or “science”. To deal with the complexities of our rapidly changing world, students need to be able to integrate subjects and pull knowledge from a wide range of subject areas. Problem-based learning allows for interdisciplinary approaches to be built right into the problem scenario. For example, a sample problem might put students in the position of committee members who are setting up a new school in which a certain amount of money is available for the arts. This problem would require at least the use of mathematics in making calculations regarding budgets and square footage considerations; language arts in the use of writing, speaking, and reading skills; and art education in the selection and form of pieces that will be displayed in the school (Delisle, 1997). As well as crossing individual subject areas, a problem such as this may lead students to consider the larger philosophical issues of discipline categorizations and physical separations. In addition to the practical aspect of interdisciplinary education there also exists another level to the argument. When students have ample opportunity to practice PBL scenarios that are grounded in a variety of different core subject areas, they learn to recognize key “big picture” ideas, concepts and issues that are common across all disciplines from the sciences to language arts to geography and history. Issues like the search for ‘truth’; the individual versus society; subjective and objective knowledge; health and the environment; understanding the social web, among others (Gordon, 1998). While there are those who might deem this kind of high-level, cross-discipline, integrative thinking as not being appropriate for K-12 students, I would argue that this is not necessarily the case. PBL allows even an extremely young learner to develop this type of ‘seeing’ in a way that makes sense for them, at their level of comprehension. Teacher Paula Rogovin, who has used an inquiry based approach in her grade one classroom for many years, recognizes the connections being made by her students: “In areas such as literature and mathematics, children learn to think about patterns. In social studies, too, there are patterns: All people need food, clothing, and shelter; people have thoughts and feelings. Because there are many interviews and subsequent activities, children learn to see these common patterns of life” (Rogovin, 1998, xvi). Diverse Learners and Special Needs Teachers today are more aware of the increasingly diverse range of learners in their classrooms. In my student teaching experience in one suburban junior high school and one small town senior high school, I have come across a wide range of learners, each with their own particular needs and challenges. Consequently, when considering a new implementation such as PBL, educators must consider whether it is applicable and effective for a diverse range of learners and for those with special needs. Because of its open-ended and flexible nature, PBL naturally complements a wide range of learners. And since the inquiry is self-directed, it allows students to approach the work in a way that makes sense for their particular learning style. More importantly, since students are working in groups, different approaches to a problem are valued as an asset instead of looked down upon as a handicap (Cole, 1995). Diversity as an asset became evident when PBL was first introduced into the medical school setting: “As a group they know even more. Here sits a student who has a gift for observation, who is noticing the dullness of the patient’s eyes. There sits a student with a gift for intuition, who is picking up information from the patient’s body language. And there is a student with a gift for asking questions, who can get more information from the patient in a few minutes than most of us could get in an hour” (Palmer, 1998, p. 125-6). In many cases, students with special needs are put in remedial or compensatory classes that do little to raise their level of skills. In these classes the curriculum is often fragmented and students are put to low-level, unchallenging, pencil-and-paper tasks (Cole, 1995). Consequently the teachers’ expectations of what these students can achieve is very low. Rhona Weinstein of the University of California at Berkeley conducted interviews and questionnaires with elementary school children and has concluded that poor and minority students “often receive barren, remedial materials, which imply the belief that they are unable to grapple with higher-order ideas…these students are typically allowed little input or self-direction; they are not allowed to take responsibility for their own learning” (Cole, 1995, p. 12). We can easily see how PBL offers a solution to each of these claims – it promotes higher-order thinking, it involves intrinsic motivation, and it promotes self-direction in learning. As such, PBL is a realistic means to reach not only the mainstream elementary or secondary learner, but also a wider range of learners with a variety of diverse needs. CHALLENGES OF PBL Changing Role of the Teacher A major obstacle to the implementation of PBL in the elementary or secondary classroom is the change it requires in the role of the teacher. The teacher must move from the traditional role of teller, explainer and instructor, and into the role of a mentor, facilitator, and coach. The Illinois Math and Science Academy uses a player/coach analogy to explain this new relationship: the teacher acts as a coach who for the most part works on the sidelines to support their players in decision making and strategy selection (Torp & Sage, 1998). For a teacher this requires approaching teaching from an entirely new perspective – learning to ask guiding questions instead of giving immediate answers, becoming attuned to the group process and identifying non-participators, and recognizing when to “let the player play” versus when to jump in and intervene (Torp & Sage, 1998). For example, PBL science teacher John Thompson recalls an instance where a panel of stakeholders had been brought in to discuss a proposed wolf-study plan with his class. A native representative asked the students how their plan would affect the Native population in the area since they fell under different laws due to their religious practices and beliefs. The students had failed to consider this perspective in their research and were taught a valuable lesson because of this awkward moment. As one student involved in the group explained, “We completely missed this aspect, because we were focusing somewhere else. That taught me to be a lot more thorough in the research we’re doing and to get different perspectives” (Torp & Sage, 1998, p. 67). In this case the teacher made the decision to let his students stumble across the roadblock themselves; as a guiding mentor he felt it would be more beneficial than directly leading them to the information that they had missed. Conversely, a teacher must recognize when more direct instruction might be called for in the PBL process. After all, the teacher still holds responsibility for students learning a designated amount of content during the school year -- they have parents, principals, and school boards, and a provincial curriculum to answer to. Therefore, if students are missing a critical concept or content point in their work the teacher may need to ask explicit questions or directly intervene to ensure that the information is ‘covered.’ In the same PBL wolf-study scenario, the teacher found that his students had completely missed the aspect of hunting in the wolf population cycle. He decided to intervene and organize an activity where his students would go out into the field and examine a kill site (Torp & Sage, 1998). Again, this was a judgment call – one of many complex decisions that the PBL teacher must learn to handle daily. As one author accurately describes this complexity: “Teachers using PBL face the difficult task of guiding without leading and assisting without directing” (Delisle, 1997, p. 16). Undoubtedly PBL poses many challenges for the individual classroom teacher. Not the least of which is how the teacher is perceived by those outside his/her classroom. Since much of the work for a PBL teacher takes place backstage and on the sidelines, it may appear to onlookers that the teacher is ‘not doing anything’. In fact, the teacher is still carrying out all of their previous tasks (making content decisions, assessing, dealing with discipline, etc.), yet much of this work is so embedded in the PBL process that it may not be obvious to the untrained eye. PBL requires careful and deliberate instructional planning. In fact many teachers consider PBL to require more work than traditional instruction, but they pursue it because they feel it offers greater rewards for the students (Delisle, 1997). Content Coverage and Depth vs. Breadth of Knowledge Another major roadblock to the implementation of PBL in the classroom is the commonly held belief that curriculum coverage will automatically be sacrificed. Although students become deeply engaged and knowledgeable within the realm of a certain problem, it is argued that they may not obtain the solid foundation of knowledge required by the core disciplines. This is a reasonable concern given the nature of the PBL process: one of its strongest features is the fact that students are determining their own direction of inquiry and research. It is possible that they might overlook some aspect of the problem that is a crucial link to covering a major concept or piece of content. Although these are valid concerns, there are features of the PBL process that minimize these oversights. First, PBL questions are specifically designed such that regardless of their approach, students will need to draw on previously learned knowledge and will be required to attain specific new knowledge and skills. For example, the National Science Foundation’s Interactive Mathematics Program specifically designs PBL units to cover basic high school mathematics content. For example, a land-use problem designed for the second year high school curriculum requires students to solve systems of equations, understand the intersection of two-dimensional planes in three dimensional space, and develop abstract concepts such as the identity element and inverses (Alper, Fendel, Fraser, & Resek, 1996). In addition, PBL is flexible enough such that if students are missing a major concept, the teacher/facilitator can step in and lead the students in the right direction. We observed this in the previous example in which John Thompson made a direct intervention in the students’ wolf study analysis that forced the students to consider a missed topic. With society’s obsession with content mastery and achievement on standardized tests, numerous studies have been conducted to compare test results of traditional teaching methods with those of innovative approaches such as PBL. All of the authors that I analyzed in my research indicated that the results of content-based tests for PBL students were as high or higher than students who had written the same test after traditional instruction methods (Blackwell & Ljung, 1996; Krynock & Robb, 1996; Palmer, 1998). The problem with these studies is that standardized content tests do not reveal the greater and more comprehensive depth of knowledge that is obtained by PBL. One study that compared test scores for four eighth grade classes (two PBL and two traditional) on a biology genetics unit found that the PBL classes scored marginally above the standard classes on content tests (Krynock & Robb, 1996). However, the test validators commented that the PBL tests were more difficult to grade because the students’ responses discussed a great deal of issues outside of the specific genetics content (Krynock & Robb, 1996). Perhaps instead of viewing this as a roadblock for implementing PBL, it should be viewed as an assessment problem. As such it should challenge us to develop more comprehensive (and not purely content-based) methods of assessment. Ability Limitations for Young Students The PBL process can be quite complex. Consequently an argument against the implementation of PBL at the elementary and junior high levels can be made that students are not sophisticated enough learners to manage the process. For instance, researchers Corno and Mandinach (1983) argue that although students may find group work enjoyable, many may not have the developed the skills needed to benefit from collaborative work. Students require cognitive and metacognitive sophistication to discuss ideas, communicate clearly, consider alternatives systematically, monitor their own understanding, compare their point of view with that of others, and ask clear questions (Corno & Mandinach, 1983). However, there are many examples that counter this challenge to PBL in the elementary classroom. In many cases, embracing PBL methods with young learners simply calls for modifications. Researchers Wayne Keil and Gil Blais, who have examined the use of the case-method (a form of PBL) in elementary education, found this to be true and easily implemented. When they first tried the case-method at the elementary level, they faced several challenges including: limited attention spans of young children; students in small groups consistently trying to discover the “right” answer; wide ranges of reading abilities; lack of experience in higher-order thinking; and an inability to independently deal with open-ended questions. Instead of dropping the case-method approach, they chose to modify it and develop the ‘mini-case’ that involved a shorter and more focused narrative that incorporated more guiding questions and focused discussion. This allowed the young students the opportunity to develop their case-method skills in the mini-case practice sessions before having to handle the larger case studies (Blais & Keil, 1995). Students’ opportunities to practice PBL skills are a crucial defense against those who argue that young students aren’t developmentally ready for its complexities. While it may be true that children don’t inherently possess the refined skills that are needed, the iterative nature of the PBL process gives them ample opportunity to develop these skills. By constantly repeating the cycle of hypothesizing, researching, analyzing, testing, and evaluating, students cannot help but come to identify what works, what doesn’t, and what skills they need to work on. With so much opportunity for practice, the problem based learning skills will develop. Paula Rogovin recognizes the improvement in note-taking skills by her grade one class that uses class interviews as the basis for their inquiries: “Children who remembered an interview by drawing stick figures in September are taking copious notes in June….How can you not grow when you have such ample opportunity for repeat performances?” (Rogovin, 1998, x). Finally, I think it is important not to underestimate the natural curiosity that young children possess. Rogovin (1998) argues that young children are natural researchers; it is part of their way of life to constantly be asking “why?” This natural enthusiasm can often more than make up for a lack of sophisticated skills, as former principal Emily Alford explains:
LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS I do not propose that this paper has been a complete and exhaustive analysis of problem-based learning and its implications for grades K-12. Indeed, this inquiry faces many limitations. I have largely presented pedagogical considerations regarding how the nature of teaching and learning might change by adopting this new method of instruction. I have examined how PBL might motivate students to work differently and how collaborative work can enhance the students’ learning environment. I have considered cognitive issues and how PBL speaks to learners with diverse needs. Finally, I have considered the challenges that hinder implementation of PBL in K-12 education. First, obstacles for teachers as they are asked to change their position in the classroom and are also forced to deal with concerns regarding content coverage; and second, mental obstacles as we are faced with changing our beliefs surrounding the capabilities of our youngest students. Not considered within the scope of this paper are the more practical issues of PBL implementation. Issues regarding organization – how large can groups be and still remain effective? How to ensure all students have access to good resources? Cost is also a factor – would widespread PBL require more teachers and more supplies? What would be the cost of teacher training for PBL and how long would it take? The role of technology must also be considered – how will students use technological resources and who will have access to technology? And while assessment was briefly touched on in the paper, there are certainly many more issues to consider regarding what authentic student assessment means in the PBL process. Acknowledging these limitations, I believe I have demonstrated in this paper that problem-based learning has great potential for elementary and secondary education. The benefits that PBL has to offer outweigh the challenges that its implementation might present. In fact, while the benefits are real and tangible, most of the challenges that have been highlighted here are challenges to our established ways of thinking. In many cases these may prove more difficult to overcome than physical roadblocks, however with time and persistence they can be overturned. The great feature of PBL is that it is a flexible approach and therefore change does not need to occur all at once or overnight. While PBL is overall a constructivist approach to learning, there is ample opportunity to still retain some direct instructional methods in the process. PBL eliminates the unproductive either/or mentality. Student teachers in the Faculty of Education know that PBL is effective because we live its effectiveness everyday in the MT Program at the University of Calgary. We are doing a disservice to our students if we ‘save’ this highly effective way of learning for only our future doctors, lawyers, architects, and teachers. The greatest gift I can give my future students to take with them as they leave my class will be their own ability to learn how to learn. What I have learned from this inquiry is that PBL is an extremely useful way to achieve this goal. References Alper, L., Fendel, D.M., Fraser, S., and Resek, D. (May 1996). Problem-based mathematics: Not just for the college-bound. Educational Leadership, 53, p.18-21. Blackwell, M., and Ljung, E.J. (1996). Project OMEGA: A winning approach for at-risk teens. Illinois School Research And Development Journal, 33(1), p. 15-17. Blais, Keil (1995). Case Method Teaching is Elementary. Winnipeg, MB: Peguis Publishers Limited. Chard, S., and Katz, G. (1989). Engaging children’s minds: The project approach. New Jersey, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Cole, R. (1995). Educating everybody’s children: Diverse teaching strategies for diverse learners. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Corno, L., and Mandinach, E.B. (1983). The role of cognitive engagement in learning from instruction. Educational Psychologist, 18 (2), p.88-108. Delisle, R. (1997). How to use problem-based learning in the classroom. Alexandrias, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Gallagher, S.A., and Stepien, W.J. (April 1993). Problem-based learning: As authentic as it gets. Educational Leadership, 50, p.25-28. Gordon, R. (January 1998). Balancing real-world problems with real-world results. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, p. 390-393. Krynock, K., and Robb, L. (Fall 1996). Is problem-based learning a problem for your curriculum? Illinois School Research And Development Journal, 33 (1), p. 21-24. Newmann, F.M., Wehlage, G. (April 1993). Five standards of authentic instruction. Educational Leadership, 50, p.8-12. Palmer, P.J. (1998). The Courage to Teach: Exploring the Inner Landscape of a Teacher's Life. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Rogovin, P. (1998). Classroom interviews: A world of learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Rankin, J. (1999). Handbook on problem-based learning. New York, NY: Forbes Custom Publishing. Sage, S., and Torp, L. (1998). Problems as possibilities: Problem-based learning for K-12 education. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. |
These pages are maintained by Michele Jacobsen
© 2002-2003 Krista Kerr and EGallery
