PBL

[Guest guest]

An excerpt from this article follows the abstract below.

 

Abstract

Educational Psychologist

2006, Vol. 41, No. 2, Pages 75-86

(doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1)

 

Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of

the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based,

Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching

 

Paul A. Kirschner‌

Educational Technology Expertise Center, Open University of the

Netherlands, Research Centre Learning in Interaction, Utrecht

University, The Netherlands

John Sweller‌

School of Education, University of New South Wales

Richard E. Clark‌

Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California

 

Evidence for the superiority of guided instruction is explained in

the context of our knowledge of human cognitive architecture, expert–

novice differences, and cognitive load. Although unguided or

minimally guided instructional approaches are very popular and

intuitively appealing, the point is made that these approaches ignore

both the structures that constitute human cognitive architecture and

evidence from empirical studies over the past half-century that

consistently indicate that minimally guided instruction is less

effective and less efficient than instructional approaches that place

a strong emphasis on guidance of the student learning process. The

advantage of guidance begins to recede only when learners have

sufficiently high prior knowledge to provide " internal " guidance.

Recent developments in instructional research and instructional

design models that support guidance during instruction are briefly

described.

 

>

> Medical Problem-Based Learning Research.

>

> All in all, a lack of clarity about the difference between

> learning a discipline and research in the discipline coupled with

> the priority afforded to unbiased observation in the best

> inductivist-empiricist tradition has led many educators to

> advocate a problem-based method as the way to teach a discipline

> (Allen, Barker, & Ramsden, 1986; Anthony, 1973; Barrows & Tamblyn,

> 1980; Obioma, 1986). Not only did problem-based learning seem to

> mesh with ideas in, for example, the philosophy of science, but it

> also fit well with progressive learner-centered views emphasizing

> direct experience and individual inquiry. Cawthron and Rowell

> (1978) stated that it all seemed to fit. The logic of knowledge

> and the psychology of knowledge coalesced under the umbrella term

> discovery. Why, he asked, should educators look further than the

> traditional inductivist-empiricist explanation of the process?

>

> In an attempt to rescue medical students from lectures and memory-

> based recall exams, approximately 60 medical schools in North

> America have adopted problem-based learning (PBL) in the past two

> decades. This variant of constructivist instruction with minimal

> guidance, introduced at the McMaster University School of Medicine

> in 1969, asks medical students to work in groups to diagnose and

> suggest treatment for common patient symptoms. PBL student groups

> are supervised by a clinical faculty member who is directed not to

> solve problems for the students but instead to offer alternatives

> and suggest sources of information.

>

> The best known survey of the comparisons of PBL with conventional

> medical school instruction was conducted by Albanase and Mitchell

> (1993). Their meta-analysis of the English language literature of

> the effectiveness of PBL produced a number of negative findings

> concerning its impact including lower basic science exam scores,

> no differences in residency selections and more study hours each

> day. They reported that while PBL students receive better scores

> for their clinical performance, they also order significantly more

> unnecessary tests at a much higher cost per patient with less

> benefit. There was an indication in their review that increased

> clinical practice evaluation scores may have been due to the fact

> the PBL students are required to spend more time in clinical

> settings.

>

> Berkson (1993) also reviewed much of the literature on PBL and

> arrived at many of the same conclusions as Albanase and Mitchell

> (1993). She reviewed studies where the problem solving ability of

> PBL students were compared with conventionally trained students

> and found no support for any differences and so failed to replicate

> the clinical advantage found by Albanase and Mitchell. Colliver

> (2000) reviewed existing studies comparing the effectiveness of

> problem-based learning (PBL) in medicine to conventional medical

> school curricula. He concluded that PBL studies show no

> statistical effect in the performance of medical students on

> standardized tests or on instructor designed tests during the first

> two years of medical school. Also important for medical educators

> has been the constant finding in research summaries that PBL is not

> more effective but is more costly than traditional instruction. Of

> course, some supporters of PBL are aware of its limitations. Hmelo-

> Silver (2004) placed strong question marks concerning the general

> validity of PBL. According to her, “Certain aspects of the PBL

> model should be tailored to the developmental level of the

> learners...there may be a place for direct instruction on a just-

> in-time basis. In other words, as students are grappling with a

> problem and confronted with the need for particular kinds of

> knowledge, a lecture at the right time may be beneficial†(p.

> 260). “Some techniques such as procedural facilitation, scripted

> cooperation, and structured journals may prove useful tools in

> moving PBL to other settings†(p. 261).

>

> Two major components of PBL are the explicit teaching of problem

> solving strategies in the form of the hypothetico-deductive method

> of reasoning (Barrows & Tamblyn, 1980), and teaching of basic

> content in the context of a specific case or instance. Proponents

> argue that problem-centered education is superior to conventional

> education. Students taught problem solving skills, in particular

> through the use of the hypothetico-deductive method, and given

> problems to practice those skills learn in a more meaningful way.

> It is assumed that since students are exposed to problems from the

> beginning, they have more opportunity to practice these skills and

> that by explicitly applying the hypothetico-deductive method; they

> learn to analyze problems and search for explanations, improving

> their comprehension of clinical problems (Norman & Schmidt, 1992).

> According to Patel, Arocha, and Leccisi (1995), “although these

> ideas seem intuitively appealing, the efficacy of these methods of

> clinical training is questionableâ€. Patel and colleagues argue

> that the hypothetico-deductive method may not be the most

> efficient way of solving clinical problems (Groen & Patel, 1985;

> Patel, Arocha, & Kaufman, 1994).

>

> In the medical domain, Patel, Groen, and Norman (1993) have shown

> that teaching basic science within a clinical context may have the

> disadvantage that once basic science knowledge is contextualized,

> it is difficult to separate it from the particular clinical

> problems into which it has been integrated. They showed that

> students trained in a PBL curriculum failed to separate basic

> science knowledge from the specific clinical knowledge associated

> with particular patients. Though PBL students generated more

> elaborate explanations, they had less coherent explanations and

> more errors. If students have difficulty separating the biomedical

> knowledge they have learned from the particular clinical cases

> associated with that knowledge, then it is not surprising that

> when given a different problem they bring to bear on the new

> problem some irrelevant biomedical knowledge. And this appears

> to persist after training. In a study of the effect of

> undergraduate training in PBL - as opposed to a conventional

> curriculum - on the performance of residents on the organization

> of clinical and biomedical knowledge and the use of reasoning

> strategies Patel et al. (1995) found that subjects trained in PBLC

> retain the backward directed reasoning pattern, but do not seem to

> acquire forward directed reasoning, which is a hallmark of

> expertise. This finding means that something in PBL may hinder the

> development of the forward reasoning pattern.

>

> Experts use schema-based pattern recognition to determine the cause

> of a patient's illness. According to Elstein (1994) knowledge

> organization and schema acquisition are more important for the

> development of expertise than the use of particular methods of

> problem solving. In this regard, cognitive research has shown that

> in order to achieve expertise in a domain, learners must acquire

> the necessary schemata that allow them to meaningfully and

> efficiently interpret information and identify the problem

> structure. Schemata accomplish this by guiding the selection of

> relevant information and the screening out of irrelevant

> information. Patel et al. (1995) concluded that the negative

> results “can be accounted for by the effect of splitting of

> attention resources and the high working memory load on schema

> acquisition during problem solving. In solving clinical problems,

> subjects must attend to the current diagnostic hypothesis, the

> data in the problem presented to them, and any intermediate

> hypothesis between the diagnosis and the patient data (e.g., a

> pathophysiological process underlying the signs and symptoms). If

> we consider that more than one hypothesis has been generated, the

> cognitive resources needed for maintaining this information in

> working memory must be such that few cognitive resources are left

> for acquiring the problem schema. Although problems can be solved

> successfully using the hypothetico-deductive method, the scarcity

> of attentional and memory resources may result in the students

> having difficulties learning problem schemata in an adequate

> manner. It is possible to hypothesize that one of the reasons for

> the failure of PBLC subjects to acquire a forward-directed

> reasoning style as found in this study may be the use of problem

> solving strategies, such as the hypothetico-deductive method, as a

> learning strategy.†This is completely in line with our claim that

> the epistemology of a discipline should not be confused with a

> pedagogy for teaching/learning it. The practice of a profession is

> not the same as learning to practice the profession.

>

 

 

Instructional Designer

Department of e-Learning

Savannah College of Art and Design

voice: (912) 525-8033

fax: (912) 525-8035

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

On 11/23/06, < wrote:

>

> The

> advantage of guidance begins to recede only when learners have

> sufficiently high prior knowledge to provide " internal " guidance.

>

 

 

 

 

 

This is why I favor problem based learning (PBL) that is consistent with the

level of a students exposure to the topic. Students need to have a map that

they can use that defines the width and breadth of possible syndromes before

being given the task of diagnosis and early on students would benefit from

simply becoming familiar with the map.

 

Later on, PBL makes more sense. I tried to get my intro to herbs students to

start thinking TCM and found it to be very difficult for many. Others picked

up on it like a duck to water, though. I believe that PBL has some benefit,

but as this article mentions, let's make sure that the student's resources

are devoted to solving the problem rather than spending all their time with

superfluous skills such as defining the possible answers.

 

> > cognitive research has shown that

> > in order to achieve expertise in a domain, learners must acquire

> > the necessary schemata that allow them to meaningfully and

> > efficiently interpret information and identify the problem

> > structure.

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exactly. If you've never even seen a map, don't expect a student to use it

successfully. What this abstract is suggesting is that PBL requires of

students early on is that they create the map and *then* use it to make a

diagnosis or otherwise solve the clinical problem. However when asking a

student in their first or second year to solve a clinical problem, we're

requiring them to not only solve the problem, but figure out how to draw a

map as well.

 

Map drawing skills then seems like a very good step in PBL type programs.

However this may be of more benefit amongst teachers and curricular

development types. I think of this as formatting a hard disc, students need

to figure out first where and how to organize all the information coming

their way. One of the first lectures that I provide in my theory classes is

simply setting up a chart on the board that describes the key diagnostic

paradigms and how you know when you're talking about one rather than the

other.

 

For instance, two elements (phases) being mentioned like " wood/earth

disharmony " ? That's your five elements. If you hear about a syndrome that

mentions one of the six channels, that comes from the Shang Han Lun

(presuming you're not talking about meridian therapies specifically). Four

levels? that's wen bing theory. Organs being mentioned in the diagnosis,

think zang fu.

 

Now they have at least the outline of all the diagnostic terms that they may

hear in a class on herbs. It gets really fun when you show how Yang Ming

Jing syndrome, Lung/Stomach heat, and Qi level heat all converge on the four

big symptoms. Same illness, but three different ways of looking at it.

 

Problem based learning is highly respected in medical education, but we have

to make sure that the problems we hope our students can solve don't include

reinventing the wheel. Let's get them up to the ability in which they can

drive before asking them to take themselves somewhere.

 

--

 

Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.