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