Essential Readings in Problem-Based Learning: Exploring and Extending the Legacy of Howard S. Barrows

By Andrew Walker

Like most good educational interventions, problem-based learning (PBL) did not grow out of theory, but out of a practical problem. Medical students were bored, dropping out, and unable to apply what they had learned in lectures to their practical experiences a couple of years later. Neurologist Howard S. Barrows reversed the sequence, presenting students with patient problems to solve in small groups and requiring them to seek relevant knowledge in an effort to solve those problems. Out of his work, PBL was born. The application of PBL approaches has now spread far beyond medical education. Today, PBL is used at levels from elementary school to adult education, in disciplines ranging across the humanities and sciences, and in both academic and corporate settings. This book aims to take stock of developments in the field and to bridge the gap between practice and the theoretical tradition, originated by Barrows, that underlies PBL techniques.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Purdue University Press
• Release date: Jan 15, 2015
• ISBN: 9781612493688

Book preview

SECTION I

THE PROCESS AND STRUCTURE

OF PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING

Edited by Cindy E. Hmelo-Silver

Introduction

The five chapters in this section consider the fundamental nature of problem-based learning (PBL) as a student-centered approach to learning. When Dr. Barrows started PBL, he sought to solve a problem he encountered while teaching medical students: they did not remember what they had learned and did not use the reasoning processes characteristic of physicians (Barrows, 1996). Although he built on his own experience as a teacher and research in medical expertise, he did not necessarily have an educational theory in which to ground PBL. Despite claims to the contrary (Colliver, 2000), a strong educational theory has been developed to explain the mechanism for PBL. In typical PBL, problems are used to provide a context for covering learning objectives, whether at a course level or more programmatically (Barrows, 1985; Barrows & Kelson, 1995). One of the defining features of PBL is the tutorial process (Barrows, 1988). In the model of PBL that Barrows developed, the learning environment is truly a system of interconnected parts. Complex and ill-structured problems require good facilitation (Kapur & Kinzer, 2007). Good facilitation requires building on student thinking as the tutor helps to guide and scaffold collaborative inquiry while keeping the learning goals in mind (Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, & Chinn, 2007). The process and structure of PBL have a strong basis in educational and psychological theory as it provides an integrated approach to learning. In this section of the book, we begin with the beginning. We examine the theories, processes, and fundamental nature of PBL.

Overview of Chapters

Striving for a theoretically-driven approach to instruction, Dr. Barrows developed a learning cycle designed to be generally applicable. The chapter by Savery, Overview of Problem-Based Learning: Definitions and Distinctions, makes clear what is and is not PBL. Following a discussion of the history of PBL, this chapter explains how PBL differs from other models of inquiry, such as case-based or project-based learning. The chapter ends with an argument for why PBL can be used to help all students learn 21st century competencies.

Jonassen and Hung’s chapter All Problems Are Not Equal: Implications for Problem-Based Learning provides a theoretical analysis of how different problem characteristics may make a problem more or less suitable for PBL. They consider a range of commonly used problem types such as diagnosis-solution, decision-making, situated case/policy problems, troubleshooting, and design problems. They conclude that problem difficulty is a multidimensional construct that interacts with a learner’s zone of proximal development.

The next chapter, by Hmelo-Silver, examines problems from a different perspective in The Learning Space in Problem-Based Learning. This chapter overlays a content analysis of PBL group discussion with an analysis of the affordances of a problem for learning. She makes an argument that PBL problems provide opportunities for learning that go beyond just solving the problem. The chapter suggests that this methodology might be useful to help evaluate how well problems support achieving particular learning goals.

Another critical factor in PBL is the tutorial process. McGaughan’s chapter on Theoretical Anchors for Barrows’ PBL Tutor Guidelines suggests that Barrows’ approach to facilitation builds on an integration of Carl Rogers and John Dewey’s theories to guide the non-directive tutor role. This thoughtful analysis can help guide new PBL facilitators in understanding the non-directive guidance of PBL facilitation, grounded in personal experience working with Dr. Barrows.

The role of the tutor in action is examined in Hmelo-Silver and Barrows’ chapter Problem-Based Learning: Goals for Learning and Strategies for Facilitating. This chapter is an analysis of Dr. Barrows’ facilitation that included both interaction analysis and his own reflections on video of a PBL tutorial. The chapter demonstrates the dynamic interaction among the facilitator’s goals, beliefs and strategies. It helps reveal some of the tacit knowledge about how good facilitation takes place. They provide some suggestions about how others might appropriate some of these strategies and adapt them to their own contexts.

Final Thoughts

The chapters in this section have theorized the overall processes and structures of PBL and provide some empirical evidence relative to those processes and structures. However, the work here is a just a beginning. As a research community we need to better understand how these theories and practices apply in a range of contexts and on a broader scale. We need to be able to provide a repository of effective PBL problems and best practices for those researchers, practitioners and educational leaders new to PBL. Such a repository could have a dual purpose. Practitioners could benefit in seeing what PBL is intended to look like, including how some vary it to meet programmatic or learner needs. Researchers could benefit by having new opportunities for empirical research of practice and additional theory building.

References

Barrows, H. S. (1985). How to design a problem-based curriculum for the preclinical years. New Yorkn NY: Springer.

Barrows, H. S. (1988). The tutorial process. Springfield: Southern Illinois University Press.

Barrows, H. S. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1996(68), 3–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tl.37219966804

Barrows, H. S., & Kelson, A. C. (1995). Problem-based learning in secondary education and the problem-based learning institute. Springfield, IL: Problem-Based Learning Institute.

Colliver, J. A. (2000). Effectiveness of problem-based learning curricula: research and theory. Academic Medicine, 75, 259–266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200003000-00017

Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42, 99–107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263368

Kapur, M., & Kinzer, C. K. (2007). Examining the effect of problem type in a synchronous computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55, 439–459. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9045-6

OVERVIEW OF PROBLEM-BASED

LEARNING: DEFINITIONS AND

DISTINCTIONS

John R. Savery

Preface

Problem-based learning (PBL) is an instructional approach that has been used successfully for over 30 years and continues to gain acceptance in multiple disciplines. It is an instructional (and curricular) learner-centered approach that empowers learners to conduct research, integrate theory and practice, and apply knowledge and skills to develop a viable solution to a defined problem. This overview presents a brief history, followed by a discussion of the similarities and differences between PBL and other experiential approaches to teaching, and identifies some of the challenges that lie ahead for PBL.

When asked to provide an overview of PBL for the introductory issue of the Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, I readily agreed, thinking it was a wonderful opportunity to write on a subject I care about deeply. As I began to jot down ideas about What is PBL? it became clear that I had a problem. Some of what I knew about PBL was learned through teaching and practicing PBL, but so much more had been acquired by reading the many papers authored by experts with decades of experience conducting research and practicing problem-based learning. These authors had frequently begun their papers with a context-setting discussion of What is PBL? What more was there to say?

Origins of PBL

In discussing the origins of PBL, Boud and Feletti (1997) stated:

PBL as it is generally known today evolved from innovative health sciences curricula introduced in North America over 30 years ago. Medical education, with its intensive pattern of basic science lectures followed by an equally exhaustive clinical teaching programme, was rapidly becoming an ineffective and inhumane way to prepare students, given the explosion in medical information and new technology and the rapidly changing demands of future practice. Medical faculty at McMaster University in Canada introduced the tutorial process, not only as a specific instructional method (Barrows & Tamblyn, 1980) but also as central to their philosophy for structuring an entire curriculum promoting student-centered, multidisciplinary education, and lifelong learning in professional practice. (p. 2)

Barrows (1994; 1996) recognized that the process of patient diagnosis (doctor’s work) relied on a combination of a hypothetical-deductive reasoning process and expert knowledge in multiple domains. Teaching discipline specific content (anatomy, neurology, pharmacology, psychology, etc.) separately, using a traditional lecture approach, did little to provide learners with a context for the content or for its clinical application. Further confounding this traditional approach was the rapidly changing knowledge base in science and medicine driving changes in both theory and practice.

During the 1980s and 1990s the PBL approach was adopted in other medical schools and became an accepted instructional approach across North America and in Europe. There were some who questioned whether or not a physician trained using PBL was as well prepared for professional practice as a physician trained using traditional approaches. This was a fair question and extensive research was conducted to answer it. A meta-analysis of 20 years of PBL evaluation studies was conducted by Albanese and Mitchell (1993), and also by Vernon and Blake (1993), and concluded that a problem-based approach to instruction was equal to traditional approaches in terms of conventional tests of knowledge (i.e., scores on medical board examinations), and that students who studied using PBL exhibited better clinical problem-solving skills. A smaller study of graduates of a physical therapy program that utilized PBL (Denton, Adams, Blatt, & Lorish, 2000) showed that graduates of the program performed equally well with PBL or traditional approaches but students reported a preference for the problem-centered approach. Anecdotal reports from PBL practitioners suggest that students are more engaged in learning the expected content (Torp & Sage, 2002).

However, a recent report on a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of PBL used in higher education programs for health professionals (Newman, 2003) stated that, existing overviews of the field do not provide high quality evidence with which to provide robust answers to questions about the effectiveness of PBL (p. 5). Specifically this analysis of research studies attempted to compare PBL with traditional approaches to discover whether PBL increased performance in such tasks as adapting to and participating in change; dealing with problems and making reasoned decisions in unfamiliar situations; reasoning critically and creatively; adopting a more universal or holistic approach; practicing empathy by appreciating another person’s point of view; collaborating productively in groups or teams; or identifying one’s own strengths and weaknesses and undertaking appropriate remediation (self-directed learning). A lack of well-designed studies posed a challenge to this research analysis and an article on the same topic by Sanson-Fisher and Lynagh (2005) concluded that, Available evidence, although methodologically flawed, offers little support for the superiority of PBL over traditional curricula (p. 260). This gap in the research on the short-term and long-term effectiveness of using a PBL approach with a range of learner populations definitely indicates a need for further study.

Despite this lack of evidence, the adoption of PBL has expanded into elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, universities, and professional schools (Torp & Sage, 2002). The University of Delaware (http://www.udel.edu/pbl/) has an active PBL program and conducts annual training institutes for instructors wanting to become tutors. Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama (http://www.samford.edu/pbl/) has incorporated PBL into various undergraduate programs within the schools of arts and sciences, business, education, nursing, and pharmacy. The Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy (http://www.imsa.edu/center/) has been providing high school students with a complete PBL curriculum since 1985 and serves thousands of students and teachers as a center for research on problem-based learning. The Problem-Based Learning Institute (PBLI; http://www.pbli.org/) has developed curricular materials (i.e., problems) and teacher-training programs in PBL for all core disciplines in high school (Barrows & Kelson, 1993). PBL is used in multiple domains of medical education (dentists, nurses, paramedics, radiologists, etc.) and in content domains as diverse as MBA programs (Stinson & Milter, 1996), higher education (Bridges & Hallinger, 1996,) chemical engineering (Woods, 1994), economics (Gijselaers, 1996), architecture (Kingsland, 1989), and pre-service teacher education (Hmelo-Silver, 2004). This list is by no means exhaustive, but is illustrative of the multiple contexts in which the PBL instructional approach is being utilized.

The widespread adoption of the PBL instructional approach by different disciplines, for different age levels, and in different content domains has produced some misapplications and misconceptions of PBL (Maudsley, 1999). Certain practices that are called PBL may fail to achieve the anticipated learning outcomes for a variety of reasons. Boud and Feletti (1997, p. 5) described several possible sources for the confusion:

• Confusing PBL as an approach to curriculum design with the teaching of problem-solving

• Adoption of a PBL proposal without sufficient commitment of staff at all levels

• Lack of research and development on the nature and type of problems to be used

• Insufficient investment in the design, preparation, and ongoing renewal of learning resources

• Inappropriate assessment methods which do not match the learning outcomes sought in problem-based programs

• Evaluation strategies which do not focus on the key learning issues and which are implemented and acted upon far too late.

The possible sources of confusion listed above appear to hold a naïve view of the rigor required to teach with this learner-centered approach. In the next section I will discuss some of the essential characteristics and features of PBL.

Characteristics of PBL

PBL is an instructional (and curricular) learner-centered approach that empowers learners to conduct research, integrate theory and practice, and apply knowledge and skills to develop a viable solution to a defined problem. Critical to the success of the approach is the selection of ill-structured problems (often interdisciplinary) and a tutor who guides the learning process and conducts a thorough debriefing at the conclusion of the learning experience. Several authors have described the characteristics and features required for a successful PBL approach to instruction. The reader is encouraged to read the source documents, as brief quotes do not do justice to the level of detail provided by the authors. Boud and Feletti (1997) provided a list of the practices considered characteristic of the philosophy, strategies, and tactics of problem-based learning. Duch, Groh, and Allen (2001) described the methods used in PBL and the specific skills developed including the ability to think critically, analyze and solve complex, real-world problems, to find, evaluate, and use appropriate learning resources; to work cooperatively, to demonstrate effective communication skills, and to use content knowledge and intellectual skills to become continual learners. Torp and Sage (2002) described PBL as focused, experiential learning organized around the investigation and resolution of messy, real-world problems. They describe students as engaged problem solvers, seeking to identify the root problem and the conditions needed for a good solution and in the process becoming self-directed learners. Hmelo-Silver (2004) described PBL as an instructional method in which students learn through facilitated problem solving that centers on a complex problem that does not have a single correct answer. She noted that students’ work in collaborative groups to identify what they need to learn in order to solve a problem, engage in self-directed learning, apply their new knowledge to the problem, and reflect on what they learned and the effectiveness of the strategies employed.

On the website for the PBL Initiative (http://www.pbli.org/pbl/generic_pbl.htm), Barrows (n.d.) described in detail a set of Generic PBL Essentials reduced to bullet points below. Each of these essential characteristics has been extended briefly to provide additional information and resources.

• Students must have the responsibility for their own learning.

PBL is a learner-centered approach—students engage with the problem with whatever their current knowledge/experience affords. Learner motivation increases when responsibility for the solution to the problem and the process rests with the learner (Savery & Duffy, 1995) and as student ownership for learning increases (Savery, 1998; 1999). Inherent in the design of PBL is a public articulation by the learners of what they know and what they need to learn more about. Individuals accept responsibility for seeking relevant information and bringing that back to the group to help inform the development of a viable solution.

• The problem simulations used in problem-based learning must be ill-structured and allow for free inquiry.

Problems in the real world are ill-structured (or they would not be problems). A critical skill developed through PBL is the ability to identify the problem and set parameters on the development of a solution. When a problem is well-structured learners are less motivated and less invested in the development of the solution. (see section on Problems vs. Cases below).

• Learning should be integrated from a wide range of disciplines or subjects.

Barrows notes that during self-directed learning, students should be able to access, study and integrate information from all the disciplines that might be related to understanding and resolving a particular problem—just as people in the real world must recall and apply information integrated from diverse sources in their work. The rapid expansion of information has encouraged a cross-fertilization of ideas and led to the development of new disciplines. Multiple perspectives lead to a more thorough understanding of the issues and the development of a more robust solution.

• Collaboration is essential.

In the world after school most learners will find themselves in jobs where they need to share information and work productively with others. PBL provides a format for the development of these essential skills. During a PBL session the tutor will ask questions of any and all members to ensure that information has been shared between members in relation to the group’s problem.

• What students learn during their self-directed learning must be applied back to the problem with reanalysis and resolution.

The point of self-directed research is for individuals to collect information that will inform the group’s decision-making process in relation to the problem. It is essential that each individual share coherently what he or she have learned and how that information might impact on developing a solution to the problem.

• A closing analysis of what has been learned from work with the problem and a discussion of what concepts and principles have been learned is essential.

Given that PBL is a very engaging, motivating and involving form of experiential learning, learners are often very close to the immediate details of the problem and the proposed solution. The purpose of the post-experience debriefing process (see Steinwachs, 1992; Thiagarajan, 1993 for details on debriefing) is to consolidate the learning and ensure that the experience has been reflected upon. Barrows (1988) advises that learners examine how all facets of the PBL process to better understand what they know, what they learned, and how they performed.

• Self and peer assessment should be carried out at the completion of each problem and at the end of every curricular unit.

These assessment activities related to the PBL process are closely related to the previous essential characteristic of reflection on knowledge gains. The significance of this activity is to reinforce the self-reflective nature of learning and sharpen a range of metacognitive processing skills.

• The activities carried out in problem-based learning must be those valued in the real world.

A rationale and guidelines for the selection of authentic problems in PBL is discussed extensively in Savery & Duffy (1995), Stinson and Milter (1996), Wilkerson and Gijselaers (1996), and Macdonald (1997). The transfer of skills learned through PBL to a real world context is also noted by Bransford, Brown, & Cocking (2000, p. 77).

• Student examinations must measure student progress toward the goals of problem-based learning.

The goals of PBL are both knowledge-based and process-based. Students need to be assessed on both dimensions at regular intervals to ensure that they are benefiting as intended from the PBL approach. Students are responsible for the content in the curriculum that they have ‘covered’ through engagement with problems. They need to be able to recognize and articulate what they know and what they have learned.

• Problem-based learning must be the pedagogical base in the curriculum and not part of a didactic curriculum.

These descriptions of the characteristics of PBL identify clearly 1) the role of the tutor as a facilitator of learning, 2) the responsibilities of the learners to be self-directed and self-regulated in their learning, and 3) the essential elements in the design of ill-structured instructional problems as the driving force for inquiry. The challenge for many instructors when they adopt a PBL approach is to make the transition from teacher as knowledge provider to tutor as manager and facilitator of learning (see Ertmer & Simons, this issue). If teaching with PBL were as simple as presenting the learners with a ‘problem’ and students could be relied upon to work consistently at a high level of cognitive self-monitoring and self-regulation then many teachers would be taking early retirement. The reality is that learners who are new to PBL require significant instructional scaffolding to support the development of problem-solving skills, self-directed learning skills, and teamwork/collaboration skills to a level of self-sufficiency where the scaffolds can be removed. Teaching institutions that have adopted a PBL approach to curriculum and instruction (including those noted earlier) have developed extensive tutor training programs in recognition of the critical importance of this role in facilitating the PBL learning experience. An excellent resource is The Tutorial Process by Barrows (1988), which explains the importance of the tutor as the metacognitive coach for the learners.

Given that change to teaching patterns in public education moves at a glacial pace, it will take time for institutions to commit to a full problem-based learning approach. However, there are several closely related learner-centered instructional strategies such as project-based learning, case-based learning, and inquiry-based learning that are used in a variety of content domains that can begin to move students along the path to becoming more self-directed in their learning. In the next section I examine some of similarities and differences among these approaches.

Problem-Based Learning vs. Case-Based and Project-Based Learning

Both case-based and project-based approaches are valid instructional strategies that promote active learning and engage the learners in higher-order thinking processes, such as analysis and synthesis. A well-constructed case will help learners to understand the important elements of the problem/situation so that they are better prepared for similar situations in the future. Case studies can help learners develop critical thinking skills in assessing the information provided, identifying logic flaws or false assumptions. Working through the case study will help learners build discipline/context specific vocabulary/terminology, and an understanding of the relationships between elements presented in the case study. When a case study is done as a group project, learners may develop improved communication and collaboration skills. Cases may be used to assess student learning after instruction, or as a practice exercise to prepare learners for a more authentic application of the skills and knowledge gained by working on the case.

Project-based learning is similar to problem-based learning in that the learning activities are organized around achieving a shared goal (project). This instructional approach was described by Kilpatrick (1921), as the Project Method and elaborated upon by several researchers including Blumenfeld, Soloway, Marx, Krajcik, Guzdial, and Palinscar, (1991). Within a project-based approach learners are usually provided with specifications for a desired end product (build a rocket, design a website, etc.) and the learning process is more oriented to following correct procedures. While working on a project, learners are likely to encounter several ‘problems’ that generate ‘teachable moments’. Teachers are more likely to be instructors and coaches (rather than tutors) who provide expert guidance, feedback and suggestions for ‘better’ ways to achieve the final product. The teaching (modeling, scaffolding, questioning, etc.) is provided according to learner need and within the context of the project. Similar to case-based instruction learners are able to add an experience to their memory that will serve them in future situations.

Although cases and projects are excellent learner-centered instructional strategies, they tend to diminish the learner’s role in setting the goals and outcomes for the problem. When the expected outcomes are clearly defined then there is less need or incentive for the learner to set their own parameters. In the real world it is recognized that the ability to both define the problem and develop a solution (or range of possible solutions) is important.

Problem-Based Learning vs. Inquiry-Based Learning

These two approaches are very similar. Inquiry-based learning is grounded in the philosophy of John Dewey (as is PBL) who believed that education begins with the curiosity of the learner. Inquiry-based learning is a student-centered, active learning approach focused on questioning, critical thinking, and problem solving. Inquiry-based learning activities begin with a question followed by investigating solutions, creating new knowledge as information is gathered and understood, discussing discoveries and experiences, and reflecting on newfound knowledge. Inquiry-based learning is frequently used in science education (see for example the Center for Inquiry-Based Learning, http://www.biology.duke.edu/cibl/) and encourages a hands-on approach where students practice the scientific method on authentic problems (questions). The primary difference between PBL and inquiry-based learning relates to the role of the tutor. In an inquiry-based approach the tutor is both a facilitator of learning (encouraging/expecting higher-order thinking) and a provider of information. In a PBL approach the tutor supports the process and expects learners to make their thinking clear, but the tutor does not provide information related to the problem—that is the responsibility of the learners. A more detailed discussion comparing and contrasting these two approaches would be an excellent topic for future PBL scholars.

Challenges Still Ahead for PBL

Problem-based learning appears to be more than a passing fad in education. This instructional approach has a solid philosophical and epistemological foundation (which due to space constraints was not discussed fully—see Duffy & Cunningham 1996, Savery & Duffy, 1995; Torp & Sage, 2002) and an impressive track record of successful graduates in medical education and many other fields of study. In commenting on the adoption of PBL in undergraduate education, White (1996) observed:

Many of the concerns that prompted the development of problem-based learning in medical schools are echoed today in undergraduate education. Content-laden lectures delivered to large enrollment classes typify science courses at most universities and many colleges. Professional organizations, government agencies, and others call for a change in how science is taught as well as what is taught. While problem-based learning is well known in medical education, it is almost unknown in the undergraduate curriculum. (p. 75)

The use of PBL in undergraduate education is changing gradually (e.g., Samford University, University of Delaware) in part because of the realization by industry and government leaders that this information age is for real. At the Wingspread Conference (1994) leaders from state and federal governments and experts from corporate, philanthropic, higher education, and accreditation communities were asked for their opinions and visions of undergraduate education and to identify some important characteristics of quality performance for college and university graduates. Their report identified as important high-level skills in communication, computation, technological literacy, and information retrieval that would enable individuals to gain and apply new knowledge and skills as needed. The report also cited as important the ability to arrive at informed judgments by effectively defining problems, gathering and evaluating information related to those problems, and developing solutions; the ability to function in a global community; adaptability; ease with diversity; motivation and persistence (for example being a self-starter), ethical and civil behavior; creativity and resourcefulness; technical competence and the ability to work with others, especially in team settings. Lastly, the Wingspread Conference report noted the importance of a demonstrated ability to deploy all of the previous characteristics to address specific problems in complex, real world settings, in which the development of workable solutions is required. Given this set of characteristics and the apparent success of a PBL approach at producing graduates with these characteristics one could hope for increased support in the use of PBL in undergraduate education.

The adoption of PBL (and any other instructional innovation) in public education is a complicated undertaking. Most state funded elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools are constrained by a state-mandated curriculum and an expectation that they will produce a uniform product. High stakes standardized testing tends to support instructional approaches that teach to the test. These approaches focus primarily on memorization through drill and practice, and rehearsal using practice tests. The instructional day is divided into specific blocks of time and organized around subjects. There is not much room in this structure for teachers or students to immerse themselves in an engaging problem. However, there are many efforts underway to work around the constraints of a traditional classroom (see, for example, the PBL Initiative, http://www.pbli.org/core.htm), as well as the article by Lehman and his colleagues in this issue. I hope in future issues of this journal to learn more about implementations of PBL in K–12 educational settings.

We do live in interesting times—students can now access massive amounts of information that was unheard of a decade ago, and there are more than enough problems to choose from in a range of disciplines. In my opinion, it is vitally important that current and future generations of students experience a problem-based learning approach and engage in constructive solution seeking activities. The bar has been raised as the 21st century gathers momentum and more than ever, higher-order thinking skills, self-regulated learning habits, and problem-solving skills are necessary for all students. Providing students with opportunities to develop and refine these skills will take the efforts of many individuals—especially those who would choose to read a journal named the Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning.

Reflections on Bringing PBL to Practice

My hope for innovation in K–12 educational settings that utilized PBL as a curricular approach became more concrete when the National Inventors Hall of Fame® School Center for STEM Learning launched in 2009 (http://www.akronschools.com/scienceschool). The planning for the school began in 2004, when partners from the public sector (Mayor of Akron, Superintendent of Akron Public Schools, University of Akron) and private sector (National Inventors Hall of Fame Board) envisioned a plan for a middle school that focused on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). It was the efforts of many that moved this project from a vision for what might be to the reality of a STEM-focused middle school in the downtown core that was based on the principles of inquiry-based/problem-based learning. I had the honor of working on the team that moved the vision to a functional reality. Some of the critical success factors include:

• A shared vision and beliefs about the goals we were working to attain. Too often multiple agendas get in the way but in this case the team was all pulling in the same direction. I believe we each realized this was a unique opportunity to make a significant change to the model of public education.

• We planned for sustainability from the beginning. The belief statements were prominently displayed and a culture of inquiry-based learning was developed. New learning coaches were carefully selected and supported through continuous professional development. The ownership for the vision was handed off to the school leadership and the faculty.

• Collaboration between members of the faculty was critical. The learning coaches met to plan a fully integrated curriculum around the selected problem(s) and continued to meet and refine their plans during the semester. In practice, activities in math or physical education or art or social studies or language each contributed to learner efforts to develop solutions to the selected problem while meeting state curriculum standards.

• Continued growth and visibility in the community. The STEM school serves as a professional development school for the College of Education at the university, thus student teachers get to see a functioning PBL oriented school in action. A STEM High School was developed to provide a pathway for students from the middle school through to a university.

The inaugural class in the middle school has now completed their first year in the high school. The middle school continues to maintain its rating of Excellent within the Ohio system. This example demonstrates how the vision of PBL can be realized in practice through a coordinated effort.

Acknowledgments

This chapter is an updated version of an article previously published in The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning. Original citation: Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1), 9–20.

References

Albanese, M. A., & Mitchell, S. (1993). Problem-based learning: A review of the literature on its outcomes and implementation issues. Academic Medicine, 68(1), 52–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199301000-00012

Barrows, H. S. (1988). The tutorial process. Springfield: Southern Illinois University School of Medicine.

Barrows, H. S. (1994). Practice-based learning: Problem-based learning applied to medical education. Springfield: Southern Illinois University School of Medicine.

Barrows, H. S. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview. New Directions in Teaching and Learning, 1996(68), 3–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tl.37219966804

Barrows, H. S., & Kelson, A. (1993). Problem-based learning in secondary education and the Problem-Based Learning Institute. Springfield: Southern Illinois University School of Medicine.

Barrows, H. S., & Tamblyn, R. M. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to medical education. New York: Springer.

Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palinscar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3/4), 369–398. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1991.9653139

Boud, D., & Feletti, G. (1997). The challenge of problem-based learning (2nd ed.). Kogan Page: London.

Bridges, E. M., & Hallinger, P. (1996). Problem-based learning in leadership education. New Directions in Teaching and Learning, 1996(68), 53–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tl.37219966809

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.

Denton, B. G., Adams, C. C., Blatt, P. J., & Lorish, C. D. (2000). Does the introduction of problem-based learning change graduate performance outcomes in a professional curriculum? Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 11(2&3), 147–162.

Duch, B. J., Groh, S. E., & Allen, D. E. (2001). Why problem-based learning? A case study of institutional change in undergraduate education. In B. J. Duch, S. E. Groh, & D. E. Allen (Eds.), The power of problem-based learning (pp. 3–11). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 170–198.) New York: Macmillan.

Gijselaers, W. H. (1996). Connecting problem-based practices with educational theory. New Directions in Teaching and Learning. 1996(68), 13–21.

Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3

Kingsland, A. J. (1989). The assessment process in architecture at Newcastle. In B. Wallis (Ed.), Problem-based learning: The Newcastle workshop, Proceedings of the ten-year anniversary conference (pp. 121–130). Newcastle, England: University of Newcastle.

Kilpatrick, W. H. (1921). Dangers and difficulties of the project method and how to overcome them: Introductory statement: Definition of terms. Teachers College Record, 22(4), 283–287.

MacDonald, P. J. (1997). Selection of health problems for a problem based curriculum. In D. Boud & G. Feletti (Eds.), The challenge of problem-based learning (2nd ed.; pp. 93–102). London: Kogan Page.

Maudsley, G. (1999) Do we all mean the same thing by problem-based learning? A review of the concepts and a formulation of the ground rules. Academic Medicine, 74(2), 178–185. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199902000-00016

Newman, M. (2003). A pilot systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of problem-based learning. London: Campbell Collaboration Systematic Review Group. Retrieved from http://www.medev.ac.uk/static/uploads/resources/pbl_report.pdf

Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of PBL: Definitions and distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1), 9–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1002

Savery, J. R. (1998). Fostering ownership with computer supported collaborative writing in higher education. In C. J. Bonk & K. S. King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse (pp. 103–127). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Savery, J. R. (1999). Enhancing motivation and learning through collaboration and the use of problems. In S. Fellows & K. Ahmet (Eds.), Inspiring students: case studies in motivating the learner (pp. 33–42). London: Kogan Page.

Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1995). Problem-based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. In B. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design (pp. 135–148). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Sanson-Fisher, R. W., & Lynagh, M. C. (2005). Problem-based learning: A dissemination success story? Medical Journal of Australia, 183(5), 258–260.

Steinwachs, B. (1992). How to facilitate a debriefing. Simulation & Gaming, 23(2), 186–195. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1046878192232006

Stinson, J. E., & Milter, R. G. (1996). Problem-based learning in business education: Curriculum design and implementation issues. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1996(68), 33–42). http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tl.37219966807

Thiagarajan, S. (1993). How to maximize transfer from simulation games through systematic debriefing. In F. Percival, S. Lodge, & D. Saunders (Eds.), The Simulation and Gaming Yearbook Vol. 1 (pp. 45–52). London: Kogan Page.

Torp, L. & Sage, S. (2002). Problems as possibilities: Problem-based learning for K–16 education (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Vernon, D. T. A., & Blake, R. L. (1993). Does problem-based learning work? A meta-analysis of evaluation research. Academic Medicine, 68(7), 550–563. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199307000-00015

White, H. B. (1996). Dan tries problem-based learning: A case study. In L. Richlin (Ed.), To improve the academy Vol. 15 (pp. 75–91). Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press and the Professional and Organizational Network in Higher Education.

Wingspread Conference. (1994). Quality assurance in undergraduate education: What the public expects. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.

Williams, S. M. (1992). Putting case-based instruction into context: Examples from legal and medical education. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(4), 367–427. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0204_2

Woods, D. R. 1994. Problem-based learning: How to gain the most from PBL. Waterdown, ON: Donald R. Woods.

John R. Savery is a professor of instructional technology at the University of Akron, with teaching and research interests in problem-based learning, rich environments for active learning, online learning, and technology in teaching. John is also the director of Instructional Services and leads campus wide efforts to incorporate best practices in teaching and learning through effective use of technology tools. Originally from Canada, John moved to the United States in 1992 to complete a Ph.D. in Instructional Systems Technology at Indiana University.

ALL PROBLEMS ARE NOT EQUAL:

IMPLICATIONS FOR

PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING

David H. Jonassen and Woei Hung

Preface

Problem-based learning (PBL) is an instructional model that assumes the centrality of problems to learning. Research on PBL has focused on student learning, student roles, tutor roles, problem design, and technology use, but little attention in the PBL literature has been paid to the nature of the problems that provide the focus for PBL. In this chapter, we articulate a model for evaluating problem difficulty. Problem difficulty is defined in terms of complexity, including breadth of knowledge, attainment level, intricacy of procedures, relational complexity, and problem structuredness including intransparency, heterogeneity of interpretations, interdisciplinarity, dynamicity, or competing alternatives. Based on these characteristics, we analyze five different types of problems: diagnosis-solution, decision-making, situated case/policy problems, troubleshooting, and design problems. We then examine the amenability of these problem types as foci for PBL curricula. Finally, we challenge PBL researchers and designers to consider the issue of problem difficulty in articulating PBL curricula.

Introduction

Centrality of Problem Solving

In everyday life and professional workplaces, people expend their greatest intellectual effort solving problems. According to the SCANS Report, problem solving is an essential thinking skill for workers (U.S. Department of Labor, 1991). The Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET Engineering Accreditation Commission, 2007) specified the abilities to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems as essential learning outcomes for any engineering program.

The National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics claimed, Learning to solve problems is the principal reason for studying mathematics (1977, p. 3). Workers solve problems (e.g., technicians troubleshoot; engineers design products, processes, or systems; physicians diagnose; managers plan). In our everyday lives, we all solve problems (e.g., diagnose the source of a toddler’s irritation; decide which health plan is most effective; plan home decorations). Because of the centrality of problem solving to work and everyday life, problem solving should also be central to education (Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1990; Middleton, 2002; Schaafstal, Johnston, & Oser, 2001; Vye, Goldman, Voss, Hmelo, & Williams, 1997).

Advocates of problem-based learning (PBL) assume problem solving should be the intellectual focus of curricula (see, for example, Barrows, 1986, 1996; Barrows & Tamblyn, 1980; Dunlap & Grabinger, 1996; Gijbels, Dochy, van den Bossche, & Segers, 2005; Norman & Schmidt, 1992; Savery & Duffy, 1996; Schmidt, 1983). In PBL curricula, as Perrenet, Bouhuijs, and Smits (2000) suggested, learners solve problems, self-direct their learning by collaboratively assuming responsibility for generating learning issues and processes through self-assessment, and monitor their understanding by employing metacognitive strategies. In scrutinizing advocates’ claims of the advantages of PBL, Norman and Schmidt (1992) conducted a review of the evidence from PBL research. They found that PBL students consistently retain knowledge, especially more principled knowledge, for longer periods of time than students in a traditional curriculum (see also Shahabudin, 1987); apply basic science knowledge and transfer problem-solving skills in real world professional or personal situations more effectively; and become more self-regulated (see also Vernon & Blake, 1993) lifelong learners.

The primary question that we address in this chapter is the amenability of PBL methods to different kinds of problems. The success of PBL has been most commonly demonstrated in medical schools where students learn to solve diagnosis-solution problems, which are moderately ill-structured (Jonassen, 2000). The goal of diagnosis is to find the source of the physiological anomaly; however, there are numerous paths that can lead to a diagnosis (Jonassen & Hung, 2006). In the treatment or management part of the process, the problem often becomes more ill-structured because of multiple treatment options, patient beliefs and desires, insurance companies, and so on.

PBL has been applied globally in a variety of professional schools (Boud & Feletti, 1991; Gijselaers et al., 1995; Wilkerson & Gijselaers, 1996). Furthermore, the types of the problems being used in PBL vary from one area to another, depending upon the nature of the discipline. For example, PBL students in architecture (Donaldson, 1989; Maitland, 1998), chemical engineering (Woods, 1996), and engineering studies (Cawley, 1989) solve design problems. PBL in nursing (Barnard, Nash, & O’Brien, 2005; Higgins, 1994), social work (Bolzan & Heycox, 1998), and teacher education (Oberlander & Talbert-Johnson, 2004) primarily deals with diagnosis-solution problems and simpler version of design problems. Business administration (Merchand, 1995) and leadership education (Bridges & Hallinger, 1995, 1996; Cunningham & Cordeiro, 2003) focus on decision-making and policy analysis problems. In law schools (Boud & Feletti, 1991; Kurtz, Wylie, & Gold, 1990; Pletinckx & Segers, 2001), PBL students learn to construct arguments, based on evidentiary reasoning, to solve a complex form of rule-using problems.

PBL is becoming increasingly popular in graduate business programs, where students primarily solve case analysis problems that are fairly ill-structured (Jonassen, 2000, p. 75). As PBL continues to migrate to other academic disciplines, research needs to consider the nature of the problems being solved and how efficacious PBL methodologies are for those kinds of problems.

When Jacobs, Dolmans, Wolfhagen, and Scherpbier (2003) surveyed medical students with a questionnaire based on Jonassen’s (2000) continuum of structuredness and complexity of problems, they found that students weighted the importance of problem structuredness more heavily than problem complexity, suggesting that students preferred some degree of structuredness to identify a solution more easily. While we know that student perceptions of problem difficulty affect their willingness to engage with problems, in this chapter we examine what kinds of problems are likely to be most successful in PBL methods. For example, can PBL be adapted to troubleshooting problems in vocational-technical education, despite the procedural nature of domain knowledge? How successful can engineering design problems, which are one of the most complex and ill-structured kinds of problem (Goel & Pirolli, 1989; Jonassen, 2000; Simon, 1973), be adapted to PBL methods? The overarching question is: What is the range of problem difficulty that allows for effective learning using PBL methods?

Problem Difficulty

Among the issues in PBL research, problem difficulty has received little attention. Most often, teachers or instructional designers use their best judgment to determine an appropriate difficulty level based mainly on their experiences or intuition. Problem difficulty is also obtained ex post facto, based on students’ performances solving different problems.

Wood (1985) described difficulty as a gauge of how likely the problem is going to be solved correctly or appropriately (p. 46). As median performance decreases, problems are perceived as more difficult. Therefore problem difficulty is the probability of it being successfully solved. This probability is a function of a number of factors that constitute a problem-solving process, which can be expressed in forms of mathematical formulae. However, because these formulae were derived using well-structured story problems, they offer little advice to PBL designers on the nature of problems that may be amenable to PBL.

Defining problem difficulty is a complex process. Jonassen (2007a) suggests that several external and internal factors contribute to problem difficulty. Internal factors are those internal to the learners, including level of domain knowledge (Greeno, 1980; Hayes, 1989; Rittle-Johnson & Alibali, 1999); experience in solving problems (Bereiter & Miller, 1989); reasoning skills, especially causal reasoning and analogical reasoning (Jonassen, 2007b); and epistemological development, especially for more complex and ill-structured problems (Dunkle, Schraw, & Bendixen, 1995; Wood, Kitchener & Jensen, 2002). These factors are seldom under the control of the teacher or professor, and so we will not examine their role any further regarding their applicability to PBL.

The difficulty of problem solving is also attributable to external factors, those that are external to the learner and endemic to the nature of the problem, such as abstraction and continuity. Bassok (2003) explained these two important external attributes of problems: abstraction refers to the representation of the content and context of a problem that either facilitates or impedes analogical transfer of one problem to another. Most classroom problems are more abstract than most everyday problems, which are embedded in various contexts. Continuity of the problem is the degree to which attributes of problems remain the same or change over time (described later as dynamicity). High continuity problems are more easily solved and transferred than low continuity problems.

In this chapter, we further describe external factors that affect problem difficulty, which in turn will have some effect on their applicability for PBL. Next, we describe two primary external factors that account for problem difficulty: complexity and structuredness. We describe complexity as a dimension that addresses the known portion of the problem and structuredness as a dimension that deals with the unknown portion of the problem.

Complexity of Problems

Kotovsky, Hays, and Simon (1985) contend that the degree of difficulty of a problem is determined by the size of problem space (Newell & Simon, 1972), which consists of the number of branches at each node and depth of search to a solution node (p. 248). The more inherent the nodes and branches of a problem, the more difficult the problem is to solve. Complexity of a problem manifests itself in a number of forms, including the breadth of knowledge required, the difficulty level of comprehending and applying the concepts involved, the skill and knowledge levels required to solve the problem, and the degree of non-linearity of the relations among the variables within the problem space. These four major parameters should be examined when determining the degree of complexity of a problem.

Breadth of Knowledge Required

Simply stated, how much domain knowledge does the problem solver need in order to solve the problem? This parameter determines the scale of a problem. Kotovsky et al. (1985) contended that the difficulty of problems varies positively with the size of problem space. Generally, the greater the amount of general and domain knowledge required for solving a given problem, the greater the size of the problem space, and therefore, the more complex the problem. This knowledge includes the factual information, concepts, principles, and procedures needed for solving the problem (Sugrue, 1995). For example, designing a football stadium equipped with a retractable roof is much more complex than designing a simple aluminum warehouse because it involves much more advanced architecture, structural engineering, civil engineering, and other related knowledge. From a cognitive perspective, when a problem solver is required to possess and apply a large amount of knowledge, the degree of the complexity of the task will vary with at least three factors: 1) the number of individual pieces of information needed to be processed, 2) the number of interrelationships needed to be understood and processed, and 3) cognitive load (van Merriënboer, 1997; Sweller, 1988) or processing load (Halford, Wilson, & Phillips, 1998). Thus, the greater the number of pieces of knowledge and information involved in the problem solving process, conceivably, the higher degree of complexity of the problem.

Attainment Level of Domain Knowledge

Kotovsky et al. (1985) stated that problem difficulty is a function of the difficulty of the concepts that must be applied to solve the problem. When the concepts involved in solving one particular problem are difficult for learners to grasp, most likely, the problem is more difficult to solve. Attainment level has different characteristics. First, the level of advancement of the concepts being used will determine problem difficulty. Although small in proportion, many engineering problems require the use of differential calculus or differential equations to solve, while others require only algebra or no mathematics at all. The former kind of problem is deemed more complex because of the sophistication level of the formalism needed to represent it.

Another related aspect is the degree of abstractness of the concepts (Bassok, 2003). For example, legal problems are often complex because of the intangible nature of the legal concepts being applied. Abstract concepts usually have a lower degree of perceptibility, which largely accounts for students’ difficulty in learning the concepts (Carey, 2002). Therefore, the more abstract the concepts required for understanding the problem and performing the problem solving process, the more complex and difficult the problem is.

When concepts are difficult for students to grasp, a natural consequence is that students will have difficulty applying the concepts during problem solving. Students can experience difficulty in applying concepts during problem solving even though they have demonstrated basic understanding of the concepts (Hung & Jonassen, 2006). For example, students may understand the concepts of and relationships between angular velocity, radians, and revolutions when given an example of a figure skater spinning; however, they may still have difficulty solving end-of-chapter physics problems that involve the same concepts.

Intricacy of Problem-Solution Procedures

The third parameter for assessing the complexity of a problem is the intricacy of the problem-solution