Re: Problem Based Learning

nate (schmolze who-is-at students.wisc.edu)
Thu, 27 May 1999 07:52:40 -0500

----- Original Message -----
From: Linda Polin <lpolin who-is-at pepperdine.edu>
To: <xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 1999 12:45 AM
Subject: Problem Based Learning

> I find it hugely ironic that this sort of posting is going on in NCSS
> (Nat'l Council on the Soc'l Studies) while we're having the PBL
discussion
> in XMCA. We debate the distinctions and details, and the teachers just
roll
> it out and bang away on it.
>
There will always be teachers who will roll out the carpet for every new
invention, but there will be others who will negate it as just the most
recent invention that will fade away. Some teachers as in your example by
the reference of "we" will incorporate such approaches into their theory.
I would suspect that such teachers theories would be more relational than
appossitional as in teacher centered vs student centered.

However; there are others that will reject such approaches outright and see
the individual programs as theories in themselves. My reaction to PBL (the
details) was how its appositional framing made its implentation less not
more likely. The details I did not see as a rejection of PBL but rather
saw it as a part of something larger not the whole itself. Constructivism
seems to be constructed through particulars rather than a general
theoretical framework. If we see mutual transformation (activity,
artifacts, teacher, students) as I see Activity Theory more or less
embracing, PBL focuses on the transformation role of students, but does not
focus on the relational nature of activity, teachers, artifacts etc. In
this sense, the students only transform but are not transformed. They
transform or utilize artifacts (internet, books etc) but those artifacts do
not transform them. The teacher's role is contructed in reaction to their
role in a teacher centered classroom rather rethinking the role of the
teacher itself. Teacher as facilitater, what does it mean? My sense is
its defined more by what they don't do rather than what they do.

In this sense the focus on the details is probally not that different, in
maybe a different way, than the teacher who rolls out the carpet for PBL.
S/he sees PBL as a particular that can be incorporated into his or her
general theoretical framework. The teacher in the example sees that with
how PBL can have a role in studying Africa and Asia. I highly doubt s/he
is going to throw everything previous out to incorporate PBL. The focus on
details I don't see as any different than the teacher, but on a different
level. An emphasis on details as meaning making in which questions are
asked about how PBL as a particular addressses or doesn't address the
theory I am operating under. PBL focuses on not isolating the world
outside of school from instruction, and how the students are able to
transform artifacts in order to learn. I find these ideas very
complementary to my theory, but what is not answered, for me, is how the
students are also tranformed as part of this process and the relational
nature of activity, artifacts, teacher, and students. So, I don't
necessarily see the teacher who rolls out the PBL carpet that different
from a focus on details. The details or critique of the teacher would be
more embedded or implicit as in incorporating what is most congruent to
his/her theory, not taking the particular as a whole. In this sense, a
focus on details or critique is really not that different from rolling out
the carpet and banging away at it.

My criticalness was PBL like other CGI in early education is the founders
usually see them as a cure all not part of a larger whole. In our math
method course the teacher was a CGI guru and the only approach that was
taught was CGI. Rarely do teachers only teach with this particular method
and it is usually apllied to various degrees. I guess in some sense I
react to PBL as I would to a school that came up with one program and said
all kids need to learn in a particular way. In relating this to the Best
Practice site they fund various projects with different theoretical
assumptions as examples of "best practices", rather than PBL which I see as
putting itself up as a best practice.

Nate

> >Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 20:47:57 -0400
> >Reply-To: ncss-l who-is-at ecnet.net
> >Sender: owner-ncss-l who-is-at ecnet.net
> >From:
> >To: NCSS-L who-is-at ecnet.net
> >Subject: Problem Based Learning
> >Mime-Version: 1.0
> >
> >Hi,
> >
> >I am a 7th-grade AG social studies teacher. We study Africa and Asia.
> >I have recently been introduced to PBL in an AG certification course.
> >
> >I would like to know if anyone can suggest resources I can access to
> >plan PBL units for Africa and Asia?
> >
> >Thanks
> >
>
>