> Your perception of the PBL tutor/coach's role is accurate to the extent
> that faculty members when in this role are discouraged from telling what
> they know, but you should realize that there are multiple faculty roles
in
> PBL. Once students have formulated a "learning issue" (i.e., recognized
> that there is something that they need to know), they are encouraged to
> utilize faculty as resources along with reference works, journals, the
> Internet, and anything else they can think of. Tutor/coaches do
facilitate
> inquiry and do model appropriate strategies for problem solving, but an
> important part of the method is that at no point does the tutor/coach
tell
> the students "This is something that you need to learn."
> ---Tim
>
I took a math math class awhile back that was very similar to the PBL
approach. I interpreted the Dean's style as playing mind games. My
experience in the School of Education is most students get very resentful
at such a pedagogical style. It IMHO is based on an outdated form of
constructivism in which the teacher is simply unfolding cognitive
structures inside the head. If we see our students as "humans" it seems to
me it would go against either extreme. In this sense I would go so far to
argue such an approach is very inauthentic.
For example; if we are in a conversation on xcma, for example, and someone
has an inquiry we do not sit back and wonder how to set the question asker
on some sort of problem solving trajectory. In everyday conversation we
don't think that way. If I ask someone who has read a mutual book a
question, I would become upset if their response was withheld because they
did not want to get in the way of my learning. For me, I see both extreme
forms of constructivism and teacher directed teaching as forms of control.
In teacher directed classrooms knowledge is only in the teachers head, and
in constructivism its still in the teachers head but is approached as a
mind game of the teacher guessing what is inside the head. Everyday
conversations normally does not go to either extreme.
In a more Foucaultian framework such approaches of the "students need to
learn" is seen as the use of power through decenterism. My problem with
PBL is not so much the practice in itself, but the ideology and assumptions
about learning behind such an approach. It is actually ideologically very
congruent with Socrates. A belief that education is simply an unfolding of
universal, innate cognitive abilities. Such an approach it seems would
also convey a teacher as observer rather than a participant in learning.
For me an good educational context is one where its difficult to
distinguish what part of the activity is teacher centered or student
centered.
Such an example is below with the differentiation of novice/expert from 5D
Clearinghouse.
Expert: Do not assume that a child has understood something he or she has
read on the computer screen or in the Adventure Guide
Novice: Rely upon the computer or Adventure Guide to instruct
Expert: See the task as a joint activity and will use words like "Why don't
we try this?"
Novice: See the task as being the primary responsibility of the child
Expert: Tend to anticipate when a child needs help before he asks
Novice: Will wait to be asked by the child to provide assistance
http://www.ced.appstate.edu/projects/5dClhse/tehome.html
I see the example as a challenge to both teacher directed and neo-student
centered environments.
Nate