ssis su pbl

8/14/2019 SSIS su PBL

1/10

PROBLEM BASED LEARNING:

An Instructional Model Based On Constructivist Learning

EUCLIDES Enhancing the Use ofCooperative Learning to Increase Development ofScience studies134246-LLP-1-2007-IT-1-COMENIUS-CMP

Grant Agreement 2007-3434/001-001This project has been funded with support from the European Commission.

This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use

which may be made of the information contained therein.


2/10

(Prof.ssa Floriana Falcinelli, SSIS, Universit degli Studi di Perugia)

Graduate School of Specialization in Secondary Education, University of Perugia

In the Problem Based Learning process the student acquires knowledge by allowing a given

problem to act as a stimulus. In this way, the student is driven to discover the information

he or she needs to understand and face the very problem itself. This approach embraces

the idea that learning is a process in which the student takes an active role in building his or

her own knowledge. The student becomes the focal point and is given complete autonomy,

thus paving the way for him or her to become a learner who learns how to learn.

Problem Based Learning was initially practiced and implemented in 1960 at the McMaster

School of Medicine and Surgery, in Canada, with Karin Von Schilling. In 1976, H.S. Barrows

experimented and applied it at the Springfield School of Medicine and Surgery in the United

States. In Europe, it was experimented in The Netherlands in 1980, also in the School of

Medicine and Surgery, by Schimdt.

In setting up a Problem Based Learning framework, particular importance in given to the

teamwork of the teachers who must create an appropriate learning environment. This is

achieved by dividing the students into small groups and offering them situations that

function both as stimulus and problem which the students must tackle by following some

fundamental steps (the 7-step method) under the guidance and supervision of a tutor.

In order to confront a problem and come up with a possible solution, the group must: 1)

clarify the terms found within the problem through an accurate analysis; 2) establish how

much is known about the problem in order to lay the bases for solving it (what do we

know); 3) analyze its contents (define the problem); 4) identify the learning objectives

(what are the new things that have to be learned) in order to come up with the strategies

needed to arrive at the solution; 5) select the best solution and test it; 6) present and

perhaps be ready to defend the proposed solution; and 7) allow each participant to examine

and evaluate his or her own contribution and performance.

At this stage of the procedure, a lot of importance is given to group discussion and the

ability to negotiate and share with the other members the hypothetical solutions that have

been gathered within the group. In addition to this, the ability of each group member to


3/10

back up his or her own point of view with documentary evidence is equally important in that

it allows all of the group members to benefit from each others findings.

In Barrows model (see attached) students entering a medical course are divided into

groups of 5 and each group is assigned a facilitator. The students are then given a problem

in the form of a case study containing particular symptoms. The students must diagnose

the problem and come up with a possible treatment.

The students are unaware of what the problem is until they are presented with it. They

then discuss the problem, formulate hypotheses based on their experience and knowledge,

identify which elements are relevant in the problem and establish what the learning

objectives must be. These objectives are paramount to each of the aspects that are

deemed relevant in solving the problem that the group feels they do not understand as well

as they should. A training session is not considered complete until each student has been

given the opportunity to reflect upon his or her initial opinions regarding the diagnosis and

take responsibility for the particular learning objectives which had been established. There

are no pre-defined objectives; the objectives are established by the students based on their

analysis of the problem. After the training session, the students undertake a self-study

session. There are no assigned textbooks and, although the Department designates special

tutors the students can turn to and consult should they wish to do so, the students are

completely autonomous and free to choose the information they are looking for on their

own.

Problem Based Learning, therefore, calls into play all of the didactic strategies that are

centered on the student and are based upon the guided solution of real problems, which

falls well within the problem-solving approach. In an e-learning environment, the process

can be divided into different phases that are accompanied by the specific support of a tutor.

Formulating the problem is the first of these phases. Here, the tutor must present the

participants with a problematic situation and offer them the type of information that will

allow them to identify and define the problem. In fact, this first step requires that the

students examine the problem on the basis of the information available so they can draft

some possible solutions by using, for example, an apposite web forum or chat line.

Afterwards, each participant can gather the appropriate information individually by further

examining any available resources, comparing similar cases and, of course, turning to the

support of a tutor who will continue to be available for consultation. The problem is then re-

read based on the information that has been gathered. The hypotheses that were


4/10

previously drafted are reviewed and those that are deemed most suitable are chosen to

solve the problem. The participants compare each others findings as well as the case

studies and an abstraction process begins whereby different elements are linked together in

order to increment the usefulness of the information that has been gathered, even when

derived from diverse contexts. Lastly, a lessons learned session takes place wherein the

group reflects upon the entire experience in order to define the aspects that need

improvement.

It is especially important and relevant to rely on certain forms of collaboration among the

students; particularly, for example, on the use ofcooperative learning.

The term cooperative learning refers to those work groups in which there is a high level of

reciprocity, exchange and interdependence among the participants; i.e., all the members

work on the same problem and the individual contributions of any one member are no

longer clearly definable in the final results or project. There is a constant exchange of

information, an alternating of activities, a sharing of resources, and an enhancement of the

skills of all the members so as to promote mutual benefit and foster the achievement of the

common goal (Johnson & Johnson, 1990).

Problem Based Learning falls well within the constructivist epistemology and its didactic

approach. Constructivism was first introduced in the 1980s and it was the result of a

coming together of various teachings: the cognitive component, which has expressed some

reservation regarding informational cognitive psychology (Bruner), combined with

epistemological cognitive psychology (Von Foerster, Von Glasersfeld, Bateson, Goodman),

pragmatism (Rorty), contextualism (Brown, Resnick), the theories of self-poiesis (Maturana

and Varela), the theory of complexity (Morin) and, without excluding of course, the

influences deriving from hermeneutics.

Nevertheless, what must be remembered is that the idea that knowledge is actively

constructed by the learner is widely present in 20th century psycho-pedagogical research

and teaching methodologies; so much so, that Dewey, Piaget and Vygotskji can be

considered constructivists.

In constructivist epistemology, learning is the result of an active construction whereby the

subject re-elaborates in a personal way the stimuli that come from his or her environment:

knowledge is the result of an active construction on the part of the subject, its nature is well


5/10

placed, it is anchored in a concrete context and it is exercised through particular forms of

social collaboration and negotiation.

According to J. Bruner learning is situated, distributed and significant: it implies the ability

to act in relation to a given context and to control ones own mental activity. Learning is

reflective because it captures the connections among various pieces of information and the

meanings attributed to them. It does this in close relation to the culture and the system of

meanings existing within it. Learning is cooperative and it is distributed among the persons

who work together to solve the problem.

According to D.H. Jonassen learning is active, constructive, cooperative, intentional,

conversational, contextualized and reflective.

According to constructivist epistemology, and in particular to the current defined by social

constructivism, the acquisition of knowledge is achieved through multiple, complex and

interactive paths. This means that it is impossible to conceive a programming of curricula in

which we find pre-defined, standardized, linear and segmented phases that are guided by

the idea that knowledge is a more or less real representation of an ontological world that is

independent of the subject/knower.

In constructivism, reality, as we know it, is instead the result of the subjective construction

of the individuals and social groups who themselves become epistemic agents.

In the light of this, schools must present themselves as social contexts in which each

individual can follow a personalized itinerary. Learning environments must be set up in such

a way as to allow students to work together and help one another in order to learn to use a

multiplicity of informative tools and resources in the common pursuit of the learning

objectives and problem solving activity, (B.G. Wilson, 1996, p.5).

Therefore, situations must be created in which the student, through the exploration of

pursuable paths within a recursive and reticular process, can determine his or her own

itinerary. These are paths that are enriched by moments of individual as well as collective

reflections; by heuristic questions; by willfully polysemous and open deliveries that the

student can confront on the basis of personal interests and learning strategies, (M.

Colombo, A. Varani, 2008, p.14).


6/10

According to the logic of social constructivism, learning must have as its objective the

possibility of allowing the learner to develop awareness, responsibility and autonomy. This

can be achieved by creating cooperative learning environments in which practices of

comparison; discussion; argumentation; negotiation; sharing of meanings; distribution and

sharing of human, technological and material resources; and, the building of various levels

of self-awareness and identity are widespread.

Particular attention is given to the designing of the learning environments, which can also

be continuously restructured based on the evaluation and quality control of the learning

processes that have been created. The word environment here refers to a complex system

that includes a group of doers; a specific space and setting; operational timetables; rules

and obligations; activities and tasks; a set of tools and artificial materials; a system of

meanings; and, a combination of relationships, expectations and emotions.

The learning environment can be planned and designed according to the following

fundamental principals: a) to enhance the learning experience through the process of

knowledge building; b) to promote understanding through multiple perspectives; c) to foster

learning within realistic, relevant and significant contexts; d) to encourage autonomy and

self-expression; e) to make learning a social experience; f) to encourage the use of multiple

methods of classroom delivery; and g) to promote self-awareness.

Setting up a learning environment, therefore, means keeping several interactive elements

under control. Some of these can be negotiated and decided upon along with the students

in order to allow them to take part as principal players in the process. A combined decision

can be made, for example, regarding the spaces to be used; the times; the group of

characters and the relationships among them; the expectations; the ground rules; the

activities and tasks; and, the expected results.

A learning environment that is structured in this way becomes a place of knowledge-building

that adheres to a procedural logic which, having overcome the need to follow a pre-

established planning program, underscores the value of knowledge-gaining in situations that

are the result of social interaction and the complete use of the various resources that the

environment has to offer.

In this way, the social dimension of knowledge, the importance of the negotiating processes,

the sharing of the solutions to the problems presented, the constant confrontation and


7/10

integration between the students experiential world and the proposed didactic experiences

also attain value.

The teacher, therefore, becomes the one who prepares and organizes the environment,

stimulates, suggests, facilitates, guides, and aids the students learning process in

accordance with an open and flexible course design and planning that provides a constant

redefining, implementation and reorganization of the learning situations. The teacher is a

person who reflects constantly on the didactic activity and confronts himself with other

educators or members of the educational community who are willing to share their

experiences and together build a new teaching knowledge.

Through the teachers continually sustained act of scaffolding, the learning environment

fosters the development of the typical didactic sequence of the constructivist approach:

motivation, guidance or orientation toward the problem, identification of the subject

area;

problem based situation for which the students must, either individually or in groups,

render their ideas and ingenuous knowledge explicit and come up with hypothetical

solutions;

re-designing of ideas through the knowledge of scientific materials, stimuli and

experiences which allow the students to get to know new elements, clarify and

deepen their already existing knowledge, evaluate and restructure their individual

thinking;

application of the newly acquired knowledge to the problem that has been identified;

critical analysis of the changes and transformations that are made with regard to the

initial ideas, including the activation of meta-cognitive procedures.

What confers meaning to the entire process are the disciplines, when these are understood

to mean epistemic forms; that is to say, tools for gaining knowledge of the world with its

own key concepts, languages and probing methods.

Of paramount importance is the search for the founding nuclei of a given discipline; that is

to say, those concepts that weave together the very discipline itself and have a structuring

and generating value for creating knowledge which allows us to recognize what we have


8/10

previously encountered and prefigure the meaning of a new context/content (M. Colombo- A

Varani, 2008, pp.15-16).

It must be stressed that faced with the complexity of the problems, the traditional frontiers

among the disciplines blend together and the demarcations become less defined, thus giving

way to new abilities and fluid knowledge, trans-disciplinary paths and overlapping areas

(Bocchi e Ceruti, 2004 p. XII).

We must, therefore, build a complex thinking process in our studentsone which can move

in a flexible and creative way, elaborate original solutions and share them with their peer-

group.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barrows H.S., How To Design A Problem-Based Curriculum For The Pre-Clinical Years, New

York: Springer Publishing Co., 1985.

Bateson G., Verso unecologia della mente, Adelphi, Milano, 1976.

Bocchi G., Ceruti M., Educazione e globalizzazione, Raffaello Cortina, Milano, 2004.

Bruner J., La ricerca del significato, Bollati Boringhieri, Torino, 1990.

Bruner J., La cultura delleducazione, Feltrinelli, Milano, 1997.

Calvani A., Rete comunit e conoscenza, Erickson, Trento, 2005.


9/10

Colombo M., Varani A., Costruttivismo e riflessivit, Junior, Bergamo, 2008.

Cosentino A., Costruttivismo e formazione, Liguori, Napoli, 2002.

Cristiani P., Didattica cognitivista, Armando, Roma, 2004.

Damiano E., La nuova alleanza, La Scuola, Brescia, 2006.

Dewey J., Come pensiamo, La Nuova Italia, Firenze, 1961.

Duffy T.M., Lowyck J. & Jonassen D. (Eds.), Designing Environments For Constructivist

Learning, Heidelberg: Spinger-Verlag, 1993.

Gardner H., Sapere per comprendere, Feltrinelli, Milano, 2001.

Gergen K.J., Social Construction And The Educational Process in Steffe L.P. - Gale E.J.

Constructivism In Education, Hillsdale, New York: Erlbaum, 1995.

Goodman N., Vedere e costruire il mondo, Laterza, Bari, 1998.

Johnson D.W. & Johnson R.T., Cooperative Learning And Achievement in Sharan (Ed.)

Cooperative Learning: Theory and Practice, New York: Praeger, 1990.

Jonassen, D.H., Toward A Design Theory Of Problem Solving, Educational Technology:

Research & Development, 2000, p.48 (4).

Laneve C., La didattica tra teoria e prassi, La Scuola, Brescia, 2003.

Lave J., Wenger E., Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Maturana H.R., Varela F.J.,Autopoiesi e cognizione, Marsilio, Venezia, 1985.

Morin E., La testa ben fatta, Cortina, Milano, 2000.

Piaget J., Biologia e conoscenza, Einaudi, Torino, 1983.

Pontecorvo C., Ajello A.M., Zucchermaglio C., Discutendo si impara. Interazione sociale e

conoscenza a scuola, Carocci, Roma, 2004.

Rivoltella P. C., Costruttivismo e pragmatica della comunicazione on line, Erickson, Trento,

2003.

Rorty R., Objectivity, Relativism and Truth, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Savery J.R. & Duffy T.M., Problem Based Learning: An Instructional Model and Its

Constructivist Framework, CRLT Technical Report No.16-01, June 2001, Indiana University.

Schoen D.A., Formare il professionista riflessivo, Angeli, Milano, 2007.

Slavin R., Cooperative Learning. Theory, Research and Practice, Boston: Allyn and Bacon,

1990.

Varisco B.M., Costruttivismo socio-culturale, Carocci, Roma, 2002.

Vygotskij L.S., Il processo cognitivo, Boringhieri, Torino, 1980.

Wenger E., Comunit di pratica. Apprendimento, significato e identit, Raffaello Cortina,

Milano, 2007.


10/10

Wilson B.G., Constructivist Learning Environments. Case Studies In Instructional Design,

Englewood Cliff, New York: Educational Technology Publications, 1996.

ssis su pbl

Documents