ID Meets IT Part 5: Problem-Based Learning

Anyone familiar with a KWL chart and its big brother the KWHL chart, probably has at least some experience with problem-based learning (PBL). In it's simplest form, PBL starts with what you (K)now about a problem, identifies gaps between (W)hat you know and need know to solve the problem, progresses to (H)ow you will bridge this gap, and ultimately evaluate what you've (L)earned. This process repeats, continuously building upon prior knowledge, integrating new knowledge and ultimately synthesizing what's been learned until there is enough information to solve the problem. I this sense, PBL flips the traditional deficit driven approach to learning on it head by having student immediately address the problem first with what they know, not informing them of what they don't. Students tackle problems immediately, acquiring the necessary knowledge and skills along the way, rather than being taught the skills and content necessary to solve the problem beforehand.

Having watched several episodes of House with my mother-in-law over last winter break, it's not surprising PBL originated in the medical field, at least if anything about the true medical professional can be inferred from a fictional dramedy about a crotchety caregiver and his supporting staff. As an instructional method, PBL was designed to address two problems in the medical field: the need for doctors to develop relevant knowledge and problem-solving skills, and the ability to continue doing so in a constantly evolving profession.

The later adoption of PBL by other professional schools, undergraduate programs and even the K-12 level makes increasing sense in a world that is rapidly changing as a result of the exponential growth of new technologies and the problems and opportunities they create.  Aside from from the inquiry and problem-solving skills gained by placing an emphasis on learning as a process, students of PBL have also demonstrated deeper understanding and retention of content, increased motivation and teamwork skills.

Despite these advantages, its been my experience that PBL still remains on the relative fringe of K-12 and even higher education. Hung, Harpole & Jonassen (2003) suggest a number of reasons for this, but two that I think especially resonate with K-12 education --obstacles in which I've encountered myself-- are depth vs. breath and long term gains vs. short term outcomes. As elementary practitioner, I'm familiar with the vast number of objectives that students are expected to individually demonstrate mastery of, both on regular formative assessments and summative benchmarks and end of grade tests. NCLB has in some sense turned education into a series short games by indirectly placing an emphasis on frequent assessment of isolated skills. Because the rationale behind PBL, and cooperative learning in general, closely align with my own personal philosophy of learning, I've frequently used group work and cooperative learning, and PBL proper to a lesser degree, on small, structured activities like designing floor a plan during a perimeter/area unit. But using PBL on a larger scale and over longer periods, despite the long-term advantages for the student, feels like a very risky endeavor to many teachers who are in school where assessment results are constantly being monitored and are a primary means of evaluation for the student and teacher.

That being said, Hung et al. provide a number informative strategies, but I think technology also plays a role in solving the very problems it helped to create, i.e. the need to continuously learn in an rapidly changing world and the need to keep pace with the technologies that are driving this change. Individual accountability, a difficult task in PBL, can be addressed through virtually any online collaboration tool requires an account, as these technologies allow teachers to easily track individual contributions such what students already (K)now.  The search engine and online databases such as NC LIVE provide powerful tools for filling the gap between what's known and (W)hat needs to be known in the form of relatively quick and easy access to nearly limitless supply of information. Of course effective use of these tools requires digital literacies which need to be taught, but once gained, provide a key to unlocking the (H)ow learning gaps can be bridged. And whether our learners or face-to-face or distant, presentation tools allow students to share what they've (L)earned with a larger audience and in a more engaging way.

I mentioned the importance of digital literacy in assisting problem based learning, but I think PBL addresses something far more important and is best summed up with this quote by Alvin Toffler, "The illiterate of the future will not be those who cannot read or write. They are those that can not learn, unlearn, relearn."

ID Meets IT Part 4: Cooperative Learning

Cooperative learning has probably played a role in public education long before the radical new models shunning traditional learning spawned during the '60s. In its simplest form, cooperative learning is a small group of students working together on a specific task (Millis, 2002). This is something students have been doing in American schools since the time of the one-room schoolhouse. As part of some enjoyable self-assigned readings in preparation for future read-alouds with my baby girl, I've been blazing through the the Little House series and can recall several instances of cooperative learning that happened both out of necessity and out of intention. In one instance, the children were simply too poor have their own separate readers, so consequently they shared the materials and worked through the exercises together. In another, Laura Ingalls and classmates were working together on a recitation for the folk living in and around the little town on the prairie. Outside of the classroom, I would wager that cooperative learning has taken some shape or form since the first band of wandering neanderthals roamed the earth in search of mammoth meat.

Officially, "Cooperative Learning" proper differs from traditional small group work through its careful structuring designed to maximize the learning potential inherent in the possible interaction between students (Millis, 2002). And unlike the "natural learning" that occurs when members of a community simply work collaboratively on a common task, such as Almazo Wilder learning the ropes of farming by working along side his brother and Pa, cooperative learning results from highly structured situations (Johnson, Johnson & Smith, 1998).

The premise behind cooperative learning is simple: students learn better by interacting with their peers than by learning alone (Haller et al., 2000). The bold claim is not without evidence. Slavin stated that cooperative learning is "one of the most thoroughly researched of all instructional methods" (as cited in Millis, 2002).  Among the documented benefits are improved students achievement, interpersonal relationships, attitude and self-esteem.  Millis noted that this "enhanced learning" is conditional upon number best practices related the "structure" mentioned earlier. These key principles include heterogeneous grouping to maximize knowledge base and talents, individual accountability, criterion-reference grading, continuous monitoring, and formative assessments of progress.

Given these potential benefits, one would expect to find cooperative learning in nearly every classroom, yet I think that is seldom the case. Based on my experience as an elementary educator, I think this approach fall prey to number of barriers mentioned in my previous post. The key principles laid out by Millis, as well as number of other suggestions she recommends, require an intense commitment from the teacher in terms of detailed planning, as well as a deep faith by teachers that students can be trusted with taking responsibility for their own learning by working productively with their peers. I think many teachers fear that students will see cooperative learning as an opportunity to socialize rather than learn, though ideally the latter results from the forum. In addition, from my own experience with arranging what I believe to be potentially functioning groups, and from creating a second set of instructional materials because this approach is seldom incorporated into the materials I've been provided by my school (with the exception of what are feel are some excellent programs such as Investigations and Battle Creek Area Math and Science Center's Science Curriculum) and calls for a lot of time-consuming planning and structuring that many teachers simply don't have. 

Since this is ID meet IT, I feel it's necessary to address the translation of the approach to today's technology enhanced or fully online classroom. For classrooms with the luxury of 1:1 learning, the accountability and monitoring piece of cooperative learning can be facilitated through networked spaces such Moodle, Ning, Edmodo or even Facebook allowing teachers to easily access student work and provide feedback both in and out of the classroom. Since much of the communication aspect is done face to face, technology becomes an additional tool at the student's and teacher's disposal and can extend learning beyond the classroom.  For distance learners working entirely online, cooperative learning is certainly feasible with the plethora of online tools aimed at collaboration and communication, but poses additional challenges for both the instructor and student. Communication, especially among a small group, is certainly easier face-to-face than it is online. While there are a number of video conferencing tools such as Skype that can simulate this process, students and teachers need to place a certainly amount of effort into not only learning how to use these tools, but also focusing part of their attention on using these tools that could be directed towards their group. With the exception of incredibly well designed and supported tools, technology becomes a distraction to the conversations and collaborative effort rather than and enhancement.

Personally, I feel that cooperative learning both powerful and problematic. When I've used cooperative learning in my own practice, it was either because I had the desire to make learning more engaging for my students and the time to due so, or because I had the luxury of curriculum designed with cooperative learning in mind. Cooperative learning taps into a way of learning that humans have been using since the prehistoric hunt, the medieval apprenticeship, or life on the prairie. In fact, the classroom is one of the few places in which you will find a group of people not interacting and learning from one another; where columns and rows of students studiously working in quiet independence is likely to elicit praise from parents and administrators. I think Johnson summed it up when when he stated, "While it is never easy to implement, when all the critical elements are in place, it is very powerful."

Haller, C. R., Gallagher, V. J., Weldon, T. L., &  Felder, R. M. (2000). Dynamics of peer education in cooperative learning workgroups. Journal of Engineering Education 89(3), 285-293.

Millis, B. J. (2002). Enhancing learning and more! Through cooperative learning. Manhattan, KS: The IDEA Center.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998). Cooperative learning returns To college: What evidence is there that it works? Change, 27-35.

ID Meets IT Part 3: Guided Design

The 60's were apparently fertile ground in the transformation of Instructional D & D. The Guided Design process is linked both to the A-T approach and the PSI model with the inclusion of self-paced instruction, sequential lessons, and it's emphasis on mastery learning. What sets guided design apart from the others, however, is it's emphasis on real-world problem solving through cooperative learning.  Guided design does share some of the rigidity of the other models in this component, however, with its systematic, linear approach to solving  problems, be they convergent on single solution or divergent with multiple answers. Trivette (2005) neatly summarizes this model by providing it 4 major components:

1. a sequential process for mastering course content,
2. a team or small-group processing component, 
3. the provision of verbal or written feedback from the perspective of an expert in the field
4. the use of realistic problems to be solved.

The rational behind this model is not difficult to grasp, and seems just as relevant today is it did in 60s with it roots growing out of the field of engineering. If anything, the model's combination of an emphasis on self-motivation, team work, information gathering and problem-solving skills seem even more relevant today given the job market's shift from a manufacturing-based society to that of a knowledge-based one. As Wilson (2004) mentioned, these skills are often more valued by an employer than their content background and are a standard skill set looked for during the hiring process. It's also difficult to find a set of educational standards that don't include the direct mention of collaboration and problem-solving. Just take a look at the National Educational Technology Standards, the Partnership for 21st century Learners, and even the Common Core Standards that most states will be implementing in the coming years. Additionally, in a synthesis of the research on guided design, Trivette (2005) concluded that when the components above were included, it was likely to increase the learner's ability to retain instructional content, critically apply the content to realistic problems, and increase confidence in their learning ability while being generally satisfied with this type of instruction as well. 

So, given the convincing rationale behind this model and its apparently important skill set, one would think that guided design would be a common model used in schools. Although I can't speak for the upper grades, I can safely say that it's use at the elementary level in the schools I've worked in has been infrequent, and to be honest, is becoming increasingly rare despite what I believe to be a consensus among educators on the importance of these skills. One simple reason for this is high-stakes testing. While guided design incorporates self-instructional components to master prerequisite skills, the emphasis is on tackling complex problems through group deliberation, fact finding, decision making, and evaluation of results. All of which are undeniably important skills that unfortunately our standardized tests do not assess. Rather, they focus on a broad range of isolated skills that the individual student possesses and with the importance placed on these tests. This does not provide much of an incentive for teachers to take risks on methods that may not specifically help their students perform better on a test that could seen be tied to their evaluations and even their pay, especially if these method such as guided design present additional obstacles for teachers.

As a teacher, I've used guided design components on several occasions, particularly in math and science, but I've also frequently given into the temptation of teaching specifically to the test and its format, especially towards the end of the year when time is tight. Aside from testing, I think there are also a couple additional barriers that prevent teachers from having student tackle real-world problems through group-work. In schools where students have little experience working in groups, either in school or out, managing cooperative activities can be stressful and take a lot of preparation. The skills needed to work in groups also often need to be taught, which places and additional burden on teachers. Time for teachers is also limited, and with many teachers relying on district provided instructional materials that don't incorporate this model (as many prepacked curricula don't) teachers have little additional time to adapt these materials. There is also the worry that skills and content learning through this approach will be difficult for students to transfer to other contexts, including standardized tests. In summary, testing, time, and transfer pose problems for teachers, even though who see the benefits of adopting such an approach.

While this model was designed prior to the availability of the Internet and the number of tools for communication and collaboration available online,  I have come across this model in used in higher ed, though with about the same frequency as I've seen at the elementary level. Because my graduate education has consisted primarily of online coursework, this may have biased my perception. Wilson (2004) states that guided design can be either a monster or a miracle, the monster being a "complete collaborative breakdown" that can result from competition, conformity, lack of leadership, or time. While I've encountered a number of group projects and discussion over the years, group problem-solving tackling relevant, real world issues has been rare, not only because of the issues mentioned above, but because distance education provide an additional barrier with due to the asynchronous methods usually employed and the difficulty for students in collaborating online, either due to scheduling or lack of technical expertise. This is an additional worry for educators who fear Wilson's monster. Though, there are obvious constraints when considering guided design for web-based instruction, a number of web-based conferencing tools such as Skype, Dim Dim, Adobe Connect and Elluminate now make this feasible. 

Despite the infrequent use I've encountered with guided design, I feel that is a greater need for its incorporation in education. Not only because of the essential job skills it fosters, or the potential learning benefits found by Trivette (2005), but because of the potential for students to see perspectives and solutions beyond their own and because, as demonstrated by Wilson (2004), the group can often think of a solutions to a complex problem that is superior to what the individual come up with on their own. For educators interesting in incorporating this model, either online or off, careful planning, and possibly instruction, is need to prepare students for working in teams and to ensure that the work and credit is distributed equitably.  Additinal considerations need to be made by distance educators as well, including technical training for students on online tools for communication and collaboration listed here.

Trivette, C. M. (2005). Effectiveness of guided design learning strategy on the acquisition of adult problem-solving skills. Bridges , 3 (1), 1-28.

Wilson, P. N. (2004). Mutual gains from team learning: A guided design exercise. Cardon Research Papers in Agricultural and Resources Economics , 1-18.