One more PBL post!!
The Buck Institute just generated a post requesting a search for the PBL gold standard. While promoting PBL activities, the post argues that many such activities are not effective. I like the way they describe the issue:
Do we really need to see another classroom stocked with sugar-cube pyramids or Styrofoam solar systems?
Perhaps what you get when you look at all classroom activities labelled by someone as PBL are the kind of results I point to in my last two posts. There are certainly “activities” that have led to the concern for the importance of “minds on, not just hands on” implying that there are too many busy-work activities. Also, as I described in my recent posts, there are papers identifying cognitive and affective conditions that PBL activities should address (Belland, et al., 2013; Hung, 2011). While it would be impractical to evaluate all activities in this fashion, there are examples of activities that have been studied using careful research techniques (e.g., Wirkala & Kuhn, 2011). If the Buck Institute wants a place to begin, I would propose using such examples.
I get the feeling of deja vu as I follow the new arguments for and against PBL. I was at one time very interested in the WebQuest model. I found it concrete and theoretically sound and it seemed to generate a good deal of interest. What seemed to happen (IMHO) is that many did not understand many of the original expectations for a quality WebQuest. The glut of examples available online left it to the “consumer” to determine whether the activity was a fun way to spend class time and/or a meaningful learning activity. I remember Bernie Dodge attempting to create a curated site (I think users had to pay a small fee to use) that would offer examples, invite feedback, and encourage enhancements. I might now describe it as an “Angie’s List”. Interest just seemed to fade.
This issue also reminds me of Merlot. In fact, I wondered whether Merlot still exists (it does). I remember the interest in Merlot at my University when it first became available. It was promoted as a way to find quality “learning objects” for your classroom. I found that I was the 8th faculty member from my institution to sign up in 2006. I did not find many of the resources of value, but I did find some things I used. I really cannot explain why I stopped looking, but my reaction may have been common. The service seems to generate little buzz of late.
I agree with Buck that we need some high quality examples and we probably need these examples from a variety of disciplines/levels. It seems possible to me that the general advantage of direct instruction may occur because many motivated educators who understand something are simply better at explaining what they understand than they are at creating environments and activities that both motivate and educate students. Asking deep questions and creating authentic problem scenarios are not easy tasks.
Perhaps the design of “problems/projects” should be left to those with the time and skill to generate resources that meet high standards. We certainly do not expect educators to create all of the other educational resources they use in their classrooms.
Belland, B. R., Kim, C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2013). A Framework for Designing Scaffolds That Improve Motivation and Cognition. Educational Psychologist, 48(4), 243-270.
Hung, Woei (2011). “Theory to reality: A few issues in implementing problem-based learning”. Educational Technology Research and Development 59 (4): 529.
Wirkala. C. & Kuhn, D. (2011). Problem-Based Learning in K–12 Education: Is it Effective and How Does it Achieve its Effects?, American Educational Research Journal, 48, 1157–1186
