pbl – Learning Aloud

Allowing teachers to think critically about PBL

This is a follow-up to my last post and a reaction to an Edutopia annotated bibliography of PBL research .

I am aware of the calls for educational reform and the proposals that problem-based or project-based activities are a way to address this need for reform. Depending on the sources you follow, you may get the idea that educational leaders and educators are resistant to new and more productive approaches that help students learn if PBL methods are not implemented immediately. I am guessing that those who continue to rely on more traditional methods are aware of the advocacy for what have sometimes been described as “learner-centered”, “inquiry-based” or “discovery” methods and wonder about their own behavior as a consequence.

In reaction to this information environment, I have considered what my role should be. I with my wife have a textbook used in the preparation of future teachers and in the further development of teachers returning for graduate work. Here is my thinking on my role. My job is to identify key issues in the field and offer the best information available related to these issues. I do believe a textbook should be more than a “how to do it” manual. The information that should be made available when a situation is complex may often involve describing controversies and the evidence supporting the different sides of a given difference of opinion.

I believe my job is to encourage reflection on practice alternatives. You cannot encourage critical thinking if you knowingly leave out credible alternative positions. A partial description leaves the decision maker in the dark. To do so would be akin to propaganda. The goal of a textbook when valid controversies exist is not to sell one side of the issue but to help the learner come to a reasoned understanding.

My issue with PBL is that reviews of the research completed by some of the most established educational researchers (some examples appear at the end of this post) have found direct instruction to be a more productive method. These conclusions are based on what the researchers regard as quality studies. It should be noted that a summary of the research does not imply that a given method is always found to be superior. What I find objectionable about the Edutopia bibliography is that there is no hint that this is an area of disagreement. None of the research summaries I mention are included.

There are examples of quality research that demonstrate the potential of PBL (see references for Kuhn appearing below) and there are detailed analyses of the implementation and affective issues that must be considered for PBL methods to be effective (Belland, et al., 2013; Hung, 2011). To borrow the title of a book on a completely unrelated topic “it is complicated” (apologizes to d boyd) and to imply otherwise is simply misleading.

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.

Capon, N., & Kuhn, D. (2004). What’s so good about problem-based learning? Cognition and Instruction, 22(1), 61–79.

Hung, Woei (2011). “Theory to reality: A few issues in implementing problem-based learning”. Educational Technology Research and Development 59 (4): 529.

Kirschner, P.A.; Sweller, J.; Clark, R.E. (2006). “Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching”. Educational Psychologist 41 (2): 75–86.

http://learningaloud.com/grabe6/Chapter8/ch8_kuhnprojects.html

Lesgold, A (2001). “The nature and methods of learning by doing”. American Psychologist 56 (11): 964–971.

Mayer, R. (2004). “Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery? The case for guided methods of instruction.”. American Psychologist 59: 14–19.

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

PBL Challenge

It seems we point to the findings of science selectively. Most folks I know profess amazement that some ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change or evolution. They are concerned when the “scientific perspective” is not the basis for what students experience if these topics are considered.

Why then is the assumption that our best evidence should not guide practice applied when selecting learning activities? You will have to trust me on this (unless someone really wants to review my reference list), but direct instruction consistently results in better academic performance than project based learning, problem based learning, discovery learning, etc. How do PBL advocates rationalize this reality? I seriously want to know because I find the PBL philosophy appealing as well. I just personally struggle with ignoring what research findings suggest.

I try arguing with myself seeking answers. I know many of the proposals. Direct instruction works when the dependent variable is simple, factual knowledge. Direct instruction turns learners off because it is boring. Direct instruction results in learning that fails when it comes to application or flexibility. However, whatever the counter argument, the position is only an hypothesis unless tested. Show me the data (or the money if you prefer). I am waiting to be convinced.

I am aware of what I consider successful PBL research. Success is possible. Here is what I think until shown otherwise. I am guessing that successful PBL takes far more skill to implement with classroom groups than direct instruction. Most PBL attempts probably do not meet an acceptable standard. I know this sounds harsh, but what is the goal here? In general, I think many students are simply lost or overwhelmed when self directed. I do not think a substantial proportion of students are any more motivated by many PBL tasks. The outcome data simply do not support the argument that common implementations of PBL are as productive as more traditional methods.

So, at this point in my career, I do no longer have the opportunity to conduct research studies. I do have great interest in this topic and continue to search the journals for interesting studies. Learning experiences should not be promoted by talk or novelty.

It is only interesting if you are interested

It is interesting if you are interested – not everyone is.

This is a book report focused on the Martinez and Stager book “Invent to Learn”. My reaction to the book, while quite positive, is captured in my title. I think the book seriously over reaches and makes flawed assumptions regarding what proportion of students would be intrigued by the topics that are the focus of the book. Some students will be very interested. I would have been very interested as a student and am personally an active maker now. At best, I see the topics covered in the book as options among a wider selection of opportunities that might be made available to students.

My wife likes to describe this broader perspective as the 20% plan. This phrase refers to the motivating opportunity Google once offered employees to work on a project of personal interest as part of their commitment to the company. Of course, it was unclear what the 20% represented in real time – 20% of 60 hours still leaves more dedicated and inflexible time than the work week most assume. Google has also backed away from this ideal to focus on a smaller and carefully selected group of projects. I will leave it to you to evaluate the implementation of a similar model in education and to consider whether my observations about Google may also end up applying in educational settings (20% is misleading because it is likely additional rather than reallocated time and Google finally took a look at the bottom line or maybe brought a greater focus to the core business and backed away from encouraging such activity).

Makers do things for themselves. The immerse themselves in projects that to some extent are self defined and self directed. The collection of areas used as examples in Invent to Learn include programming, electronics, robotics, and fabrication. Most examples are technology-based, but a limited amount of attention considers more “old school” construction resources – cardboard, string, springs, and other stuff. If the maker movement interests you, the book does a great job of identifying information sources and physical resources for getting started.

Some reactions and/or related thoughts:

1) The research section of the book was one-sided and weak. I had some experiences working with LOGO and middle school students. I wrote about “programming to learn” and I carefully reviewed the fairly substantial research on the potential benefits of involving younger students in programming. At the time, the move was away from “computers for computers sake” (i.e., programming) and more toward whether programming experiences would develop general cognitive skills (e.g., problem solving). Some of the meta-analyses of these individual studies appear in the most prestigious educational research journals and seem to question the value of programming at the level of commitment that was being made by most middle schools. I have read all of the books mentioned in Invent to Learn written by Papert so I am aware of the arguments that seem so appealing to the authors. Perhaps the focus here is truly on learning to program because programming can be vocational skill. I would accept this position, but then I would return to the question of how many students would be interested (see my title). In my opinion, serious scholarship requires the identification of the existing literature – pro and con. Hence, I see this as a useful “methods” book for what might be an elective area and not a well research justification for a general change in the curriculum.

2) Why these topics? Is it because the areas emphasized are in some way more relevant than other areas of study (technology and new manufacturing methods)? What about options?

I have a long term interest in school-based, field biology projects. I spent some years associated with a program funded by the state Game and Fish Department that focused on the cultivation and study of habitats (OWLS – outdoor wildlife learning sites). The core idea was to develop small areas of land near schools as habitats – most were small patches of native prairie. Some were simply plots including butterfly gardens, bird houses and feeders, etc. and some in more rural settings might be several acres in size that bordered a pond or stream. Such ventures were developed to incorporate local history (state history is required), biology/ecology, communication, data collection and analysis. I was involved as the technology person – probe use, digital photography, web sites developed for communication among program participants and presentation to the general public. This type of project bears some similarity to schools that sponsor a school garden and use this resource to explore biology, nutrition, and exercise.

These experiences taught me some interesting things about changing the curriculum and project based learning. I learned that teacher passions vary and commitments change with personnel. The projects I mention are challenging because they require an investment of time over time and a critical part of the time involved with projects that make use of plants is that these projects do not mesh well with the school calendar. You cannot ignore the plants over the summer as you might equipment stored in the back room. There was typically money for the materials but not for the personnel. If there was not a teacher committed to maintain the garden over the summer, the plot turned to weeds, the administrators were embarrassed by the appearance of the school yard, and the plot was returned to grass because it was far easier to maintain.

I think I can describe hands-on experiences growing things in a way that argues for educational value. A wide variety of experiences have educational benefits. I liked the argument that technology exists all around us and is not limited to the stereotypical notion that technology involves programmers putting in hour after hour in a room relating to a computer. I like the counter-intuitive argument that technology can take us out of the classroom into the world and allow us the means to investigate that world. Students receive far to few of these experiences.

Again, I return to the question of whether the book argues for a specific addition to what schools already do or whether the commitments reviewed are a proxy for the notion of “deep electives” and choice. Can making apply to gardening in the same way it applies to fabrication?

3) It is inaccurate to represent schools as having no opportunities for passion-based learning. I would suggest that athletics and arts (music, theater, etc.) are obvious examples. Such activities are school sponsored extra-curricular activities often involving part of the school day (a scheduled open period). Sports and arts have advocates claiming learning outcomes that warrant the time and resources allocated. Each area also has critics questioning the time allocated to what might be seen as a distraction from a core mission.

Other “clubs” do exist with differing levels of participation from location to location. Is this book about an area of emphasis that is to receive the level of attention focused on athletics or the arts, but with the focus that is more typical of a club?

4) Do students really want to be independent, self-guided, deep learners? The answer from the book would seem to be – “yes, they just are never really given the chance.” I wonder. Existing clubs focused on the topics described in the book do sometimes exist and have a loyal, but small clientele. Anecdotal reasoning is a serious problem in thinking about educational practice. Assuming that the passion of a specific student you may know explains what would interest most students is dangerous. My experience with similar issues comes from higher ed. The university experience actually offers students a great deal of flexibility in selecting courses as long as general requirements are met. Beyond this general flexibility in the selection of courses, the department in which I work offers specific individualized opportunities – readings and special projects – that would allow a student to identify a topic, develop a learning plan, and with faculty supervision generate a product. I can tell you based on my experience as a department administrator that these opportunities are very seldom utilized. I wonder why? Is it possible that these opportunities just come too late and students have long since given in to the notion that education is something done to them and not something they, with assistance, do for themselves,