Ssis Su Pbl

PROBLEM BASED LEARNING: An Instructional Model Based On Constructivist Learning

EUCLIDES – Enhancing the Use of Cooperative Learning to Increase Development of Science studies 134246-LLP-1-2007-IT-1-COMENIUS-CMP Grant Agreement 2007-3434/001-001 This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

(Prof.ssa Floriana Falcinelli, SSIS, Università degli Studi di Perugia) Graduate School of Specialization in Secondary Education, University of Perugia In the Problem Based Learning process the student acquires knowledge by allowing a given problem to act as a stimulus. In this way, the student is driven to discover the information he or she needs to understand and face the very problem itself. This approach embraces the idea that learning is a process in which the student takes an active role in building his or her own knowledge. The student becomes the focal point and is given complete autonomy, thus paving the way for him or her to become a learner who learns how to learn. Problem Based Learning was initially practiced and implemented in 1960 at the McMaster School of Medicine and Surgery, in Canada, with Karin Von Schilling. In 1976, H.S. Barrows experimented and applied it at the Springfield School of Medicine and Surgery in the United States. In Europe, it was experimented in The Netherlands in 1980, also in the School of Medicine and Surgery, by Schimdt. In setting up a Problem Based Learning framework, particular importance in given to the teamwork of the teachers who must create an appropriate learning environment.

This is

achieved by dividing the students into small groups and offering them situations that function both as stimulus and problem which the students must tackle by following some fundamental steps (the 7-step method) under the guidance and supervision of a tutor. In order to confront a problem and come up with a possible solution, the group must: 1) clarify the terms found within the problem through an accurate analysis; 2) establish how much is known about the problem in order to lay the bases for solving it (what do we know); 3) analyze its contents (define the problem); 4) identify the learning objectives (what are the new things that have to be learned) in order to come up with the strategies needed to arrive at the solution; 5) select the best solution and test it; 6) present and perhaps be ready to defend the proposed solution; and 7) allow each participant to examine and evaluate his or her own contribution and performance. At this stage of the procedure, a lot of importance is given to group discussion and the ability to negotiate and share with the other members the hypothetical solutions that have been gathered within the group. In addition to this, the ability of each group member to

back up his or her own point of view with documentary evidence is equally important in that it allows all of the group members to benefit from each others’ findings. In Barrows’ model (see attached) students entering a medical course are divided into groups of 5 and each group is assigned a facilitator. The students are then given a problem in the form of a case study containing particular symptoms. The students must diagnose the problem and come up with a possible treatment. The students are unaware of what the problem is until they are presented with it.

They

then discuss the problem, formulate hypotheses based on their experience and knowledge, identify which elements are relevant in the problem and establish what the learning objectives must be.

These objectives are paramount to each of the aspects that are

deemed relevant in solving the problem that the group feels they do not understand as well as they should. A training session is not considered complete until each student has been given the opportunity to reflect upon his or her initial opinions regarding the diagnosis and take responsibility for the particular learning objectives which had been established. There are no pre-defined objectives; the objectives are established by the students based on their analysis of the problem.

After the training session, the students undertake a self-study

session. There are no assigned textbooks and, although the Department designates special tutors the students can turn to and consult should they wish to do so, the students are completely autonomous and free to choose the information they are looking for on their own. Problem Based Learning, therefore, calls into play all of the didactic strategies that are centered on the student and are based upon the guided solution of real problems, which falls well within the problem-solving approach. In an e-learning environment, the process can be divided into different phases that are accompanied by the specific support of a tutor. Formulating the problem is the first of these phases.

Here, the tutor must present the

participants with a problematic situation and offer them the type of information that will allow them to identify and define the problem.

In fact, this first step requires that the

students examine the problem on the basis of the information available so they can draft some possible solutions by using, for example, an apposite web forum or chat line. Afterwards, each participant can gather the appropriate information individually by further examining any available resources, comparing similar cases and, of course, turning to the support of a tutor who will continue to be available for consultation. The problem is then reread based on the information that has been gathered.

The hypotheses that were

previously drafted are reviewed and those that are deemed most suitable are chosen to solve the problem.

The participants compare each others’ findings as well as the case

studies and an abstraction process begins whereby different elements are linked together in order to increment the usefulness of the information that has been gathered, even when derived from diverse contexts.

Lastly, a lessons learned session takes place wherein the

group reflects upon the entire experience in order to define the aspects that need improvement. It is especially important and relevant to rely on certain forms of collaboration among the students; particularly, for example, on the use of cooperative learning. The term cooperative learning refers to those work groups in which there is a high level of reciprocity, exchange and interdependence among the participants; i.e., all the members work on the same problem and the individual contributions of any one member are no longer clearly definable in the final results or project.

There is a constant exchange of

information, an alternating of activities, a sharing of resources, and an enhancement of the skills of all the members so as to promote mutual benefit and foster the achievement of the common goal (Johnson & Johnson, 1990). Problem Based Learning falls well within the constructivist epistemology and its didactic approach.

Constructivism was first introduced in the 1980s and it was the result of a

coming together of various teachings: the cognitive component, which has expressed some reservation

regarding

informational

cognitive

psychology

(Bruner),

combined

with

epistemological cognitive psychology (Von Foerster, Von Glasersfeld, Bateson, Goodman), pragmatism (Rorty), contextualism (Brown, Resnick), the theories of self-poiesis (Maturana and Varela), the theory of complexity (Morin) and, without excluding of course, the influences deriving from hermeneutics. Nevertheless, what must be remembered is that the idea that knowledge is actively constructed by the learner is widely present in 20th century psycho-pedagogical research and teaching methodologies; so much so, that Dewey, Piaget and Vygotskji can be considered constructivists. In constructivist epistemology, learning is the result of an active construction whereby the subject re-elaborates in a personal way the stimuli that come from his or her environment: knowledge is the result of an active construction on the part of the subject, its nature is well

placed, it is anchored in a concrete context and it is exercised through particular forms of social collaboration and negotiation. According to J. Bruner learning is situated, distributed and significant: it implies the ability to act in relation to a given context and to control one’s own mental activity. Learning is reflective because it captures the connections among various pieces of information and the meanings attributed to them. It does this in close relation to the culture and the system of meanings existing within it. Learning is cooperative and it is distributed among the persons who work together to solve the problem. According to D.H. Jonassen learning is active, constructive, cooperative, intentional, conversational, contextualized and reflective. According to constructivist epistemology, and in particular to the current defined by social constructivism, the acquisition of knowledge is achieved through multiple, complex and interactive paths. This means that it is impossible to conceive a programming of curricula in which we find pre-defined, standardized, linear and segmented phases that are guided by the idea that knowledge is a more or less real representation of an ontological world that is independent of the subject/knower. In constructivism, reality, as we know it, is instead the result of the subjective construction of the individuals and social groups who themselves become epistemic agents. In the light of this, schools must present themselves as social contexts in which each individual can follow a personalized itinerary. Learning environments must be set up in such a way as to “allow students to work together and help one another in order to learn to use a multiplicity of informative tools and resources in the common pursuit of the learning objectives and problem solving activity,” (B.G. Wilson, 1996, p.5). Therefore, situations must be created in which the student, through the exploration of pursuable paths within a recursive and reticular process, can determine his or her own itinerary. These are “paths that are enriched by moments of individual as well as collective reflections; by heuristic questions; by willfully polysemous and open deliveries that the student can confront on the basis of personal interests and learning strategies,” (M. Colombo, A. Varani, 2008, p.14).

According to the logic of social constructivism, learning must have as its objective the possibility of allowing the learner to develop awareness, responsibility and autonomy. This can be achieved by creating cooperative learning environments in which practices of comparison; discussion; argumentation; negotiation; sharing of meanings; distribution and sharing of human, technological and material resources; and, the building of various levels of self-awareness and identity are widespread. Particular attention is given to the designing of the learning environments, which can also be continuously restructured based on the evaluation and quality control of the learning processes that have been created. The word environment here refers to a complex system that includes a group of doers; a specific space and setting; operational timetables; rules and obligations; activities and tasks; a set of tools and artificial materials; a system of meanings; and, a combination of relationships, expectations and emotions. The learning environment can be planned and designed according to the following fundamental principals:

a) to enhance the learning experience through the process of

knowledge building; b) to promote understanding through multiple perspectives; c) to foster learning within realistic, relevant and significant contexts; d) to encourage autonomy and self-expression; e) to make learning a social experience; f) to encourage the use of multiple methods of classroom delivery; and g) to promote self-awareness. Setting up a learning environment, therefore, means keeping several interactive elements under control. Some of these can be negotiated and decided upon along with the students in order to allow them to take part as principal players in the process. A combined decision can be made, for example, regarding the spaces to be used; the times; the group of “characters” and the relationships among them; the expectations; the ground rules; the activities and tasks; and, the expected results. A learning environment that is structured in this way becomes a place of knowledge-building that adheres to a procedural logic which, having overcome the need to follow a preestablished planning program, underscores the value of knowledge-gaining in situations that are the result of social interaction and the complete use of the various resources that the environment has to offer. In this way, the social dimension of knowledge, the importance of the negotiating processes, the sharing of the solutions to the problems presented, the constant confrontation and

integration between the students’ experiential world and the proposed didactic experiences also attain value. The teacher, therefore, becomes the one who prepares and organizes the environment, stimulates, suggests, facilitates, guides, and aids the student’s learning process in accordance with an open and flexible course design and planning that provides a constant redefining, implementation and reorganization of the learning situations. The teacher is a person who reflects constantly on the didactic activity and confronts himself with other educators or members of the educational community who are willing to share their experiences and together build a new teaching knowledge. Through the teacher’s continually sustained act of scaffolding, the learning environment fosters the development of the typical didactic sequence of the constructivist approach: •

motivation, guidance or orientation toward the problem, identification of the subject area;

•

problem based situation for which the students must, either individually or in groups, render their ideas and ingenuous knowledge explicit and come up with hypothetical solutions;

•

re-designing of ideas through the knowledge of scientific materials, stimuli and experiences which allow the students to get to know new elements, clarify and deepen their already existing knowledge, evaluate and restructure their individual thinking;

•

application of the newly acquired knowledge to the problem that has been identified;

•

critical analysis of the changes and transformations that are made with regard to the initial ideas, including the activation of meta-cognitive procedures.

What confers meaning to the entire process are the disciplines, when these are understood to mean epistemic forms; that is to say, tools for gaining knowledge of the world with its own key concepts, languages and probing methods. Of paramount importance is the search for the founding nuclei of a given discipline; that is to say, those concepts that weave together the very discipline itself and have a structuring and generating value for creating knowledge which allows us to recognize what we have

previously encountered and prefigure the meaning of a new context/content (M. Colombo- A Varani, 2008, pp.15-16). It must be stressed that faced with the complexity of the problems, “the traditional frontiers among the disciplines blend together and the demarcations become less defined, thus giving way to new abilities and fluid knowledge, trans-disciplinary paths and overlapping areas (Bocchi e Ceruti, 2004 p. XII). We must, therefore, build a complex thinking process in our students—one which can move in a flexible and creative way, elaborate original solutions and share them with their peergroup.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barrows H.S., How To Design A Problem-Based Curriculum For The Pre-Clinical Years, New York: Springer Publishing Co., 1985. Bateson G., Verso un’ecologia della mente, Adelphi, Milano, 1976. Bocchi G., Ceruti M., Educazione e globalizzazione, Raffaello Cortina, Milano, 2004. Bruner J., La ricerca del significato, Bollati Boringhieri, Torino, 1990. Bruner J., La cultura dell’educazione, Feltrinelli, Milano, 1997. Calvani A., Rete comunità e conoscenza, Erickson, Trento, 2005.

Colombo M., Varani A., Costruttivismo e riflessività, Junior, Bergamo, 2008. Cosentino A., Costruttivismo e formazione, Liguori, Napoli, 2002. Cristiani P., Didattica cognitivista, Armando, Roma, 2004. Damiano E., La nuova alleanza, La Scuola, Brescia, 2006. Dewey J., Come pensiamo, La Nuova Italia, Firenze, 1961. Duffy T.M., Lowyck J. & Jonassen D. (Eds.), Designing Environments For Constructivist Learning, Heidelberg: Spinger-Verlag, 1993. Gardner H., Sapere per comprendere, Feltrinelli, Milano, 2001. Gergen K.J., Social Construction And The Educational Process in Steffe L.P. - Gale E.J. Constructivism In Education, Hillsdale, New York: Erlbaum, 1995. Goodman N., Vedere e costruire il mondo, Laterza, Bari, 1998. Johnson D.W. & Johnson R.T., Cooperative Learning And Achievement in Sharan (Ed.) Cooperative Learning: Theory and Practice, New York: Praeger, 1990. Jonassen, D.H., Toward A Design Theory Of Problem Solving, “Educational Technology: Research & Development,” 2000, p.48 (4). Laneve C., La didattica tra teoria e prassi, La Scuola, Brescia, 2003. Lave J., Wenger E., Situated Learning:

Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1991. Maturana H.R., Varela F.J., Autopoiesi e cognizione, Marsilio, Venezia, 1985. Morin E., La testa ben fatta, Cortina, Milano, 2000. Piaget J., Biologia e conoscenza, Einaudi, Torino, 1983. Pontecorvo C., Ajello A.M., Zucchermaglio C., Discutendo si impara. Interazione sociale e conoscenza a scuola, Carocci, Roma, 2004. Rivoltella P. C., Costruttivismo e pragmatica della comunicazione on line, Erickson, Trento, 2003. Rorty R., Objectivity, Relativism and Truth, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Savery J.R. & Duffy T.M., Problem Based Learning:

An Instructional Model and Its

Constructivist Framework, CRLT Technical Report No.16-01, June 2001, Indiana University. Schoen D.A., Formare il professionista riflessivo, Angeli, Milano, 2007. Slavin R., Cooperative Learning. Theory, Research and Practice, Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1990. Varisco B.M., Costruttivismo socio-culturale, Carocci, Roma, 2002. Vygotskij L.S., Il processo cognitivo, Boringhieri, Torino, 1980. Wenger E., Comunità di pratica. Milano, 2007.

Apprendimento, significato e identità, Raffaello Cortina,

Wilson B.G., Constructivist Learning Environments. Case Studies In Instructional Design, Englewood Cliff, New York: Educational Technology Publications, 1996.