>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.
nate writes:
>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.
>
> 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.
Hmmm...at first I was going to agree with you but I thought about it,
the more I find the intention of PBL in K-12 (the IMSA model) to be
about moving from away from a curriculum-centered approach to
teaching. You know: cover and expose. As such, when teachers implement
it I'd bet that it *is* transformational for them. They do a lot of
"rethinking the role of the teacher." You can't run a PBL unit as a
teacher-centered or curric.-centered unit. Stuff happens. Based on some
similar experiences with graduate students who are themselves K-12
teachers, I'd have to say that good PBL turns out to be a negotiated
experience between teacher(s) and students, and often with outsiders
relevant to the student-defined tasks. I'm not sure the experience is
as profound for the students; I imagine that would depend on what they
encounter in non-PBL classroom life. I sense that the framework of
schooling is way too overpowering for kids to break free, at least by
the middle elementary years. That's why some of us half joke about the
need to dismantle schooling or to let childhood learning eek out to a
new venue.
>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.
It would be really interesting to have some of the folks from here
posting/dialoguing with the NCSS listserv folks, or even revealing this
discussion to them. The most interesting thing about the list is the
way sense gets made by the community. It's not quite the same as here.
These folks are often unknown to each other. Here's one of the
responses to the teacher's initial posting.
<color><param>0000,0000,FFFF</param>Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 22:07:34
EDT
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: Re: Problem Based Learning
Check out books on Constructivist Learning Approaches. Constructivism
is the
basis for PBL, and is wonderful for all inquiry based education
Chris S.
Teacher of the Deaf
</color>>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.
I do see a difference. In this list we're discussing implications and
underlying assumptions that might affect the implementation. The
teachers on the NCSS listserv tend to be focused on procedural and
logistical detail. (In most but not all of the threads on that list,
this would seem to be the case. Recent more theoretical/philosphical
discussions have revolved around things like testing.) They are not
questioning or reflecting on whether or not, or to what extent, PBL
transforms their students. I think the self-selection occurs before you
decide to <bold>do</bold> PBL. You either groove with it or you don't.
And, this reminds me of a phenonmenon, much like you've described, that
I see in my teacher ed. students. Often their first take on, say,
"constructivistm" is to apply it to what they do. THey take some unit
or lesson or activity chunk and try to "make it constructivist." I see
these funny little parodies of constructivism on very teacher-centered
lessons. Then we have the discussion about the difference between
remodeling the house and rebuilding the house. It's usually a huge
insight for them, the idea that concepts such as constructivism are
intended to be completely different takes on learning, not add-ons or
"techniques." They report that they are "relieved" by this news, and
that they have been uncomfortable with their prior interpretations and
work. [I'm just using constructivism as an example; no implicit
endorsement intended.]
Btw, the irony I was referring to was a division of labor issue. I find
this list and its participants to occupy a particular place in the
community or activity or culture of education as a profession. Ditto
with the NCSS listserv folks, for instance. I'm just sitting here
highly amused and intrigued by what I see in the larger view of
professionals at work making education.
Linda