predictable learning processes that are powered by a complex scaffolding system. Scaffolding consists of both hard and s
Susan Neal Indiana University What does it Mean to Learn through Problem-Solving?
Although problem based learning suffers from a wealth of demonstrable research showing its effectiveness for learning, I do have direct observations that attest to the meaning of its learning. My experience in teaching curriculum utilizing both traditional and PBL models of instruction, supports the central premise of PBL that students are more motivated to learn when inspired by a mission to find solutions for an authentic problem that they perceive has value and relevancy in their lives. The interaction with a problem-centered multi-disciplinary environment as noted by (Sing, 1999), “highlights the necessity for "cognitive conflict or puzzlement" which provides a reason and incentive for the students to inquire and explore the resources surrounding them.” I also found that students benefited greatly from the
collaborative aspect of PBL where opportunities are provided to express their voice and share learning in a small group environment. The value of PBL’s emphasis on collaboration is supported by the following view that “real learning occurs in the process of dialoguing and interacting with learners, teachers and experts, not simply in the receiving of content” (Lin, 2008). My students expressed the feeling that these aspects of PBL motivated them towards more ownership of the learning and was subsequently validated when I would overhear my students continuing the discussion of a problem outside of class. This is not to say that the design and implementation of PBL presents an easy task as I am made increasingly aware of through the learning in this class. Its foundation relies on the design of an ill-structured type of problem
carefully chosen to align with learning goals as well as learning capabilities. This can be challenging for the designer as it involves careful examination of the problem space in terms of complexity for the learners in consideration of previous knowledge. The structuring of the problem is additionally influenced by variables of intransparency, heterogeneity of interpretations, interdisciplinary, dynamicity and competing alternatives that must be carefully weighed and balanced in order to maintain ill-structuredness yet not exceed complexities that would impede the learner’s ability to arrive at solutions. This coincides with the suggestion that the problems most likely to be successfully implemented are those that are moderately ill-structured and slightly above average in complexity (Jonassen & Hung, 2015). Supporting this foundation is a framework of
predictable learning processes that are powered by a complex scaffolding system. Scaffolding consists of both hard and soft scaffolds that are purposefully designed, timed and/or facilitated to enable the learner to ultimately take responsibility for their own learning. Their primary goals are to not only act as a guide to engage with the problem but assist students to problematize tasks (Ertmer & Glazewski, in press). Hard scaffolds, such as paper or technology resources, are static and can be planned in advance;; whereas soft scaffolds consist of facilitation strategies and techniques such as redirecting, revoicing, summarizing, surfacing, just-in-time conferencing and fading of instructor support. These scaffolds act as a system as they are dependent on each other for the movement of learning forward, interact throughout the cyclic system and require careful purposeful distribution,
depending on the environment, to ensure learning goals are met. Additionally, formative and summative assessment assume different roles from traditional instruction as they continually exert a powerful presence throughout PBL. For example, formative assessment occurs for the facilitator when determining the “reflective toss” chosen to be utilized as well as evaluating its effectiveness after use. Summative assessments are also occurring not only at the end of the entire PBL unit, but also in determining whether to proceed to the next of many steps within the predictable instructional process. Additionally, the learner is assessing their progress as well through self-assessment and peer collaborative feedback. Problem based learning aligns with the constructivist philosophy of education with its basic tenets of student-
centered, purposeful instruction based on previous knowledge provided in an authentic environment with the instructor in a facilitator role. It only makes sense that a designer or facilitator holding an aligned philosophical framework for practice would be better able to innately determine and apply strategies and techniques more effectively. For example, reflection is a key cyclic PBL component that a facilitator utilizes in hard and soft scaffolds within the scaffolding system and aligns with Dewey’s assertion that reflection “converts action that is merely appetitive, blind and impulsive into intelligent action,” (Saltmarsh, 1996). Although I view expert facilitating as requiring these aligned philosophical understandings, I also recognize that it needs to be developed through experiences just as strategic tools are acquired in a designers or facilitators toolbox for
application. In terms of professional development, a good starting point can be found in the recommendation, “considering facilitation in terms of goals and strategies provide concrete steps that a new facilitator might take in first analyzing their teaching practice and providing actionable teaching moves,” (Hmelo-Silver & Barrows, 2015). It is ironic that the very nature of PBL with its ambitious goals of not only facilitating content knowledge, but also fostering critical thinking skills and self-direction presents difficulties for measurements in support of furthering recognition of its value for learning. I believe this points out the critical need for educational research to progress as I believe self-directed learning not only opens the door to lifelong learning opportunities but also addresses the skills necessary for a learner to
successfully navigate an ever expanding technology knowledge base that has dramatically altered previous dynamics in learning.
References Ertmer, P. & Glazewski, K. (in press). Scaffolding in PBL environments: Structuring and problematizing relevant task features. Hmelo-Silver, C. & Barrows, H.S. (2015). The process and structure of PBL. In A. Walker, H. Leary, C. Hmelo-Silver, and P. Ertmer, (Eds.), Essential readings in problem-based learning: Exploring and extending the legacy of Howard S. Barrows. Jonassen, D.H. & Hung, W. (2015). All problems are not equal: Implications for problem-based learning. In A. Walker, H. Leary, C. Hmelo-Silver, and P. Ertmer, (Eds.), Essential readings in problem-based learning: Exploring and extending the legacy of Howard S. Barrows. Lin, L. (2008). An online learning model to facilitate learners’ rights to education. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 12(1), pp. 127-143. Retrieved from: http://www.distanceandaccesstoeducation.org/contents/JALN_v12n1 Lin.pdf Saltmarsh, J. (1996). Education for critical citizenship: John Dewey’s contribution to the pedagogy of community service learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 3(1), p.18. Retrieved from: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/mjcsl/3239521.0003.102/6/--education-forcritical-citizenship-john-deweys-contribution?page=root;size=50;view=text Sing, L.C. (1999). Problem-solving in a constructivist environment. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 2(4). Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.2.4.137?seq= 1#page_scan_tab_contents
