Tell me and I hear. Show me and I see. Involve me and I understand...

     There are probably as many theories concerning effective teaching methods as there are practitioners of the teaching craft. Traditional pedagogy certainly has its place in the teaching of basic skills, from reading and mathematics to science and engineering. Teacher-centered methodologies like lecture, discussion, and tests, provide the foundation upon which further, more complex, learning is constructed. 

     Problem-Based Learning (PBL), also referred to as guided discovery, model-centered, situated, case-based, and exploratory learning by Merrill (2007), deals less with the acquisition of basic skills and more with the application of those skills to real life situations. PBL is open ended; broad questions are posed to students (or developed by the students themselves), and the goal of the learning becomes the development of answers and solutions through information gathering, organization and aggregation of the information, and the synthesis of new information. Jones (1996) puts it this way: “The ability to solve problems is more than just accumulating knowledge and rules; it is the development of flexible, cognitive strategies that help analyze unanticipated, ill-structured situations to produce meaningful solutions.” Tardi, Catarina and Goldstein (2006) point out that "The human cost of not preparing students to compete successfully in the global marketplace and possibly remaining at poverty levels ensures a large disenfranchised segment of the population unprepared and unable to assume their roles as citizens in this increasingly complex society" (p.79). Sternberg (2008) contends that we need to teach not only for facts, but to go beyond those facts and teach students how to use what they learn. Kind of the antithesis of "teaching to the test", right? 

          Many researchers and theorists distinguish between the different student-centered methods described above and other methods like project-based or inquiry-based learning; for our purposes I am treating them as one and the same. Regardless of the label or the specific method, it's all about students teaching themselves.

     Jones (1996) and Kerr (2003) enumerate several advantages of PBL over traditional pedagogy:  

• An emphasis on meaning, not just memorization of facts 
• Increased self direction and self motivation as students take on more responsibility for their education 
• Higher comprehension and skill development, with a subsequent improvement in the transferability of those skills to a work environment 
• Better interpersonal skills because of the collaborative nature of PBL 
• Increased technical skills because of the research and presentation skills required
• Enhanced teacher/student relationships as teachers become guides and mentors instead of lecturers and directors

      I think the proof of the efficacy of PBL is in the level and complexity of the skills used and developed. Traditional didactic (drill and regurgitate) methods, especially when assessed by standardized tests, focus on the lowest of the cognitive skills described by Bloom's taxonomy, namely knowledge and comprehension. The problem-solving nature of PBL requires the student to additionally use the higher-level skills in application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation. They just plain learn more, and learn it more completely.

     To be sure, many teachers resist the use of student-centered methods like PBL. In PBL, teachers are cast more as facilitators, serving as subject matter experts and guides rather than as founts of knowledge, and they resent the perceived loss of control. Students and parents have also been known to resist PBL since it redefines the learners' roles as well. Students, especially at the primary and secondary levels, have historically been cast as passive recipients of information, and many feel unprepared to take on a more proactive role. Parents who themselves grew up in a more traditional educational environment sometimes feel that teachers teach, students learn, and ne'er the twain shall meet. Heaven forbid that their little darlings should have to work at anything.

     But let's be serious here - PBL and its permutations have been proven time and again to be a more effective instructional method. Traditional pedagogic methods are all too often disconnected from the students' realities, information offered up in isolation from any frame of reference. Remember multiplying x + y and x - y in your early algebra class? I took me over 20 years to realize that the whole point of that exercise was to explore the relationship between positive and negative numbers. It meant nothing at all to me when I was 12 years old. PBL is so very different, mainly because the context of the entire exercise is so very real. 

Next Page -Making it Real

References:

Catarina, M., Goldstein, M. T. & Tardi, S. (2006). Maximizing teaching and learning effectiveness: Diversity issues and discourse. International Journal of Learning, 12 (11), 79-83
Clark, D.R. (2007). Learning domains or Bloom's taxonomy: The three types of learning.    Retrieved January 20, 2008 from http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html
Jones, D. (1996). The advantages of PBL. Distributed Course Delivery for Problem-Based Learning workshop, San Diego State University, April 1996. Retrieved October 4, 2007 from http://edweb.sdsu.edu/clrit/learningresource/PBL/PBLadvantages.html
Kerr, K. (2003). Ski wax and science Class: An inquiry into problem-based learning for elementary and secondary students. EGallery, 5(3). Retrieved October 12, 2007 from http://www.ucalgary.ca/~egallery/volume5/kerr.html
Merrill, M.D. (2007). A task-centered instructional strategy. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(1), 5-22
Sternberg, R.J. (2008). Assessing what matters. Educational Leadership, 65(4), 20-26