|
Review of Relevant Literature
“…what we
know and believe about human learning will determine how we use
instructional technologies…” Tiene,
2000
Introduction
In the search to help students become active learners who find
relevance in their education, the action researchers have a good
grounding in learning theory. This review is an exercise in
backward mapping. Years of collective experience as teachers and
learners formed the authors’ perception that constructivism
fosters effective educational practices. However, the need to
understand the academic bases for such beliefs is necessary. At
first glance, educators can be stereotyped into two categories:
traditionalists who believe that direct instruction through
teacher delivery is the best method for imparting knowledge and
those who are constructivists who believe that knowledge can’t
be taught but must be constructed by the learner through
educational experiences, discovery, collaboration, and problem
solving.
In the maze of literature written about
education, the investigation narrowed to three sequential
theories: behaviorism, cognitive theory of information
processing, and constructivism, that appear to have the greatest
influence on modern educational practices. Since the overriding
purpose of this review of literature is to prepare its authors
for the action research project, the scope of investigation into
learning theories is not meant to be all encompassing. In each
of the theoretical areas, the authors investigate leading
theorists who make important contributions to their particular
branch of learning theory. Although the list of contributors to
educational theory is vast and the scope of this review cannot
include them all, those of the theorists included and quoted for
supporting evidence are Skinner, Ausubel, Gagne, Piaget, Dewey,
Vygotsky, and Thornburg.
Following the Introduction, the
structure of this paper progresses with a description of
Behaviorism, Cognitive information processing, Constructivism,
and Problem-based Learning. Following each theory is a section
called Implications of “Theory X” on Educational Practices.
These sections interpret the impact of each particular theory on
education and how one theory builds on or dovetails with
another. The Conclusion discusses how the Web Quest is an
appropriate PBL model as evidenced through support from the
review of relevant literature.
Behaviorism
Behaviorism, which hit its height of popularity in the 1950’s,
focuses on observable behavior. Behaviorism has its roots in the
works of Ivan Pavlov who is famous for showing how a dog can be
conditioned to salivate at the prompting of an arbitrary
stimulus (Tiene, 2000). How might Pavlov’s theories translate to
human behavior and from there into educational behaviors? If a
dog can be conditioned or trained to produce a particular
response to stimuli, then why not humans? B. F. Skinner is one
of the most influential behaviorists to influence American
education. Working on Pavlov’s foundation, Skinner “concentrated
on cause-and-effect relationships that could be established by
observation (Roblyer, 2000).” Like his fellow behaviorists,
“Skinner focused only on external, directly observable
indicators of human learning (Roblyer, 2000).” He developed what
he called the “conditioned operant, three elements of the
learning experience: discriminative stimulus, the response, and
the reinforcing stimulus, the building blocks of everything that
we do (Tiene, 2000).” Skinner identified three types of
situations that can shape behavior: “positive reinforcement
(praise, good grades, etc.), negative reinforcement (avoiding a
consequence results in the desired behavior), and punishment
(undesirable consequence) (Roblyer, 2000).” Thus, with the
appropriate positive or negative reinforcement, behavior is
shaped into the desired response. Skinner’s theories influence
many of the behavioral and classroom management practices that
many K 12 institutions use even today.
Probably most influential in Skinner’s
work is his belief that “even such high level capabilities as
critical thinking and creativity could be taught in this way
[operant conditioning]; it was simply a matter of establishing
chains of behavior through principles of reinforcement (Roblyer,
2000).” These “chains of behavior” lead to the principle of
programmed instruction that Skinner and other behaviorists felt
was “the most efficient means available for learning skills (Roblyer,
2000).” Programmed instruction means carefully sequencing and
developing the instruction itself and is based on three
principles: 1) instructions are broken down into extremely small
steps or building blocks, 2) people learn best by making active
responses to each step, and 3) behavior is learned (and recurs)
when it is reinforced (Tiene, 2000). Thus, programmed
instruction teaches a complex skill that “consists of a long
series of small steps in which the learner reads some small bit
of information, answers a question about it, and gets reinforced
for a correct answer . . . (Tiene, 2000).”
Robert Mager, another behaviorist and
protégé of Skinner’s, stated “we need to be very clear about our
goals if we are to reach them, and we cannot assess how much
someone has learned without defining in observable terms what
learning we are seeking (Tiene, 2000).” Mager also suggested
that educators should, “specify the goals of instruction in
terms of behavioral objectives, which usually consist of three
parts: the behavior to be learned, the conditions under which
the behavior is to be demonstrated, and the criteria by which to
judge the amount of learning (Tiene, 2000).” Mager’s ideas
paved the way for programmed instruction in educational
practices. Programmed instruction coupled with cognitive
information processing ideas developed into the direct
instruction practices that are still prevalent in most
classrooms today.
Implications of
Behaviorism on Educational Practices
One of Behaviorism’s most lasting legacies to education is its
influence on classroom management. “Skinner and others viewed
the teacher’s job as modifying the behavior of students… (Roblyer,
2000).” Experience informs us that educators frequently use a
system of rewards and punishments as reinforcements for desired
classroom behavior. If Johnny performs this desired behavior
then he is rewarded. If Johnny commits this undesired behavior
then he is rewarded with this negative consequence. Often steps
of intervention are designed to redirect undesired behavior
rather than to instill positive behaviors.
The weakness for educational practice
exposed here is that the classroom becomes focused on
teacher-centered behavior management rather than on
student-centered learning. It reveals an attitude of the teacher
in control and the students needing to be controlled. The
teacher is responsible for filling the students’ mind with facts
and information. What comes to mind is the image of the perfect
traditional classroom setting with desks lined up in rows, the
teacher at the head of the class, and the students sitting
silently and orderly. With so much energy focused on control,
both physically and mentally, little energy or thought is left
for focusing on engaging students in concepts and activities
that motivate them to learn independently. Student initiative,
motivation, and responsibility don’t fit into this picture. No
wonder student’s find little relevance to his or her education.
Another legacy of Behaviorism
establishes the foundation for programmed instruction and
heavily influences the advent of direct instruction. Direct
instruction is highly structured and relies on programmed
instruction “which is characterized by three key principles:
breaking instruction into extremely small steps, making active
responses at each step, and behavior is learned (and recurs)
when it is reinforced (Tiene, 2000).“ One clear effect of
Behaviorism on educational practice is the “emphasis on writing
objectives (learning objectives, behavioral objectives,
performance objectives) for all lessons (Tiene, 2000).” It has
been the experience of the action researchers that many schools
and districts that require teachers to submit lesson plans
insist that these objectives be included. One can look at
Madeline Hunter’s lesson plan format, still taught in many
teacher preparation programs, and see the influence of
Behaviorism.
Behaviorism, and subsequently
programmed instruction, has also impacted the development of
Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI) (Roblyer, 2000). Programs
like Accelerated Reader and Accelerated Math are examples of CAI
found in classrooms. CAI relies heavily on the programmed
instruction model with its step-by-step instruction, immediate
response, and regular reinforcement. The problem with most any
early remediation software programs is that they are very linear
(Tiene, 2000) and require repetitious practice until the program
determines that the student has gained mastery. Unfortunately,
with many CAI programs if teacher intervention is not immediate,
students often repeat the same faulty practice without
understanding why their results are incorrect. Therefore CAI,
even for skill and drill type activities, without
teacher-student or small group interaction loses its
effectiveness.
While behaviorist theories encourage
developing structure in classroom practices and lesson planning,
one of behaviorism’s main drawbacks is that it concentrates on
only observable behaviors. Many educational theorists find this
approach “too limiting” and feel that it places too much
emphasis on lower-order skills such as memorization. It is very
difficult to teach higher thinking skills such as synthesis,
analysis, and evaluation based on behaviorist principles. By
the 1970s, critics felt that “behaviorism was unable to
effectively address a critical issue: How do people think (Tiene,
2000)?” Since thinking cannot be directly observed, educational
theorists need to investigate ways in which people gain
knowledge. Behaviorism does not address the “cognitive aspects
such as memory, problem solving, hypothesizing, and more could
not be the sum total of behaviors engaged in (Tiene, 2000).”
Theorists need something more flexible and expansive than
behaviorism.
Cognitive Theory
of Information-Processing
Cognitive theorists believe there is a need “to address central
cognitive processes like memory, attention, and logical
reasoning. Thus, cognitive psychology was born out of the need
to understand more about human thought process (Tiene, 2000).”
Information-processing theorists were the first to hypothesize
how humans learn and remember. The human information-processing
model asserts the basic idea that people process information
through a series of different systems: the sensory system, the
short-term memory, and the long-term memory. Our sensory
systems, like sight, hearing, and so on take in stimuli from the
environment. Next an attention and control system helps
determine which information is processed and acted upon (Roblyer,
2000). The sensory register is very short, only a few seconds.
If the learner does not pay attention to the sensory information
it is lost. Therefore, attention getting becomes very important
and has a significant impact on teaching practices (Roblyer,
2000).
Sensory information is “channeled
through a limited-capacity system called working (or short-term)
memory (Tiene, 2000).” “It is where we do most of our conscious
thinking, but it seems not to be very large, and it takes time
and effort to successfully transfer information from working
memory to long-term memory (Tiene, 2000).” If information
entering the short-term memory is not acted on (rehearsal,
meaningful learning, organizing, elaborating, imagery), then it
too is lost (Roblyer, 2000). However, information acted upon
(processed or practiced) is transferred to long-term memory
where we hold most of what we know (Roblyer, 2000, Tiene, 2000).
Cognitive researchers hypothesize that information is stored in
long-term memory as three types of “memory: episodic (memory of
events), semantic (memory of meaning), and eidetic (memory of
visual images) (Tiene, 2000).” Information-process theorists
also believe that in order for information transference to be
successful, new information must be linked in some way to prior
knowledge that already exists in the long-term memory (Roblyer,
2000). It becomes important then to design instruction to
accommodate students’ connection to prior experience and
knowledge.
Ausubel, Gagne and other researchers
understood the importance of these connections. They used
behavioral and information-processing theories to expand direct
instruction models. Gagne, who prefers a bottom-up approach to
learning, believes lesson design should ensure “students learn
lower-order skills first and build upon them (Roblyer, 2000).”
Much like Skinner before him, Gagne sees learning as a hierarchy
of skills. He feels that “lower-level skills provide a necessary
foundation (building-blocks) for higher-level skills (Roblyer,
2000).” Ausubel, who prefers a top-down approach, advocates the
use of advanced organizers as a way to provide learners with a
frame of reference on “which to hang new information (Roblyer,
2000).” These ideas are the beginnings of implementation of
formalized stages in the learning process.
Although their approaches are from
different perspectives, Ausubel, Gagne and other cognitive
psychologists believe that prerequisite skills are necessary for
further learning and build on behaviorist principles to further
develop their theories. Cognitive theorist Benjamin Bloom uses
“Skinnerian principle to develop methods that became known as
mastery learning (Roblyer, 2000).” Bloom’s Taxonomy, which is
well known among educators, classifies cognitive skill into a
hierarchical schematic. Bloom’s theory of learning hierarchy
establishes “ascending levels of thinking: Knowledge [reciting
information], Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis,
and Evaluation (Tiene, 2000).” Educators often use Bloom’s
Taxonomy in lesson planning as a linear and sequential approach
to achieving learning objectives.
Robert Gagne manifests his version of
learning hierarchies in his Nine Events of Learning. In
ascending order, those hierarchies are gaining attention,
informing the learner of the objective, stimulation recall of
prerequisite learning, presenting new material, providing
learning guidance, eliciting performance, providing feedback
about correctness, assessing performance, and enhancing
retention and recall (Roblyer, 2000). While developing a
hierarchy of skills, it is easy to see that the
behaviorist-training model heavily influences the sequence Gagne
created. Behaviorists and cognitivists shared the belief that
learning is sequential and linear; furthermore, “… directed
instruction is grounded primarily in behaviorist learning theory
and the information-processing branch of the cognitive learning
theories (Roblyer, 2000).”
Implications of
Information-Processing on Educational Practices
“The information-processing model implies certain things about
how we should teach people of all ages.” Additionally, “the goal
is to get information and skills entered and consolidated into
long-term memory in such a way that the learners can retrieve it
when they need it (Tiene, 2000).” Thus, cognitive theory has
significant impact on teaching practices. Educators, whether
advocates of direct instruction or constructivism, must pay
special attention to developing activities that gain attention
and aid the transfer of data from short-term memory to long-term
memory. Gagne, who built on both behavioral and
information-processing theories to form his own learning theory,
believes that gaining attention of students is the first and
most essential condition of his set of Nine Events of Learning (Roblyer,
2000). Teachers must balance their lesson design to find that
effective medium between too much and too little attention
getting. If a lesson provides too little attention getting,
students will not focus on the delivered content. However, too
much attention getting will distract students from the content.
Teachers have an extremely short time period to engage students
in the lesson so there is a need to capture student attention as
quickly as possible in order to move information to the working
or short-term memory.
“It appears that most of us can hold
only about seven discrete items in short-term memory at any one
time (Tiene, 2000).” Given this, it is necessary for educators
to plan lesson content carefully, being sure that critical
material is present and extraneous material is limited. However,
“cognitive science points out that people must actively process
the information and practice the skill in order to learn (Teine,
2000).” Learning does not occur simply through passive receiving
and storing of information. As information-processing theorists
point out, interaction with the information transmitted to the
short-term memory must be acted on or it is lost (Roblyer,
2000). Strategies must be used that facilitate the interaction
and transfer of information into knowledge. Linking to prior
knowledge becomes critical as a strategy to gaining new
knowledge through information transference. Lesson designs need
to include activities (and processing time) that enhance
information transfer to long-term memory such as applying new
skills or centering around the episodic, semantic, or eidetic
memory to help give students context to new information. This
way students can “link new information and skills to what they
already know, put them in context, develop their own perspective
about it and decide how meaningful this material is to them (Tiene,
2000).”
Piaget, Bloom, and Gagne adapt many
programmed instruction ideas from behaviorists in their
theories. Behaviorists “stress the importance of practice in
training people to develop certain skills; cognitive
psychologists emphasize the need to perform skills in real
contexts and to learn strategies, not simply to be trained to
engage in specific behaviors (Tiene, 30).” Critics find direct
instruction not only limiting in its scope (breaking topics into
small discrete skills taught in isolation), but they also
contend that such instruction makes it more difficult for
students to engage in problem-solving activities that apply
critical thinking skills. In addition, direct instruction
emphasizes teacher delivery of information and rarely
incorporates collaborative learning. This passive acquisition of
information does not involve students in their learning and does
not facilitate transfer to long term memory. The researchers
observe that many students find this approach to content boring
and of little relevance. This becomes particularly important to
educators in respect to meeting student needs in the 21st
century and adapting to those needs.
Cognitive theory paves the way for
constructivism. Cognitive theorists are concerned with
understanding how humans think. Constructivists seek to
understand how to apply thinking and learning to gain new
understanding. Gaining new knowledge is not the passive process
to information intake but the active process of connecting prior
knowledge to new information in order to construct new
knowledge.
Constructivism
Constructivism is an evolving theory with many contributors.
“The term constructivism refers to the emphasis on students
‘constructing’ their own sense of the world, their own
perspectives on critical issues, their own professionalism in a
field, and their own identities as learners (Tiene, 2000).” Both
behaviorism and cognitive science stress the structure and
sequences of learning as well as the role of the teacher in
education (Tiene, 2000). Constructivism, on the other hand,
emphasizes the “learner’s initiative in the learning process
through self-discovery, individuality, and independent thinking
(Tiene, 2000).” Constructivists see learners as developing and
growing over time through interactions with their environments.
Constructivists, particularly Dewey, see children as learners
not as blank slates “passively waiting to receive knowledge (Roblyer,
2000).” They see learners as “active inquirers who are shaped
by their environment while simultaneously shaping their
environment (Dewey, 1916).”
Constructivists hold that all learning
is social (Dewey, 1916). Authentic learning cannot be separated
from the learner’s background [culture and family belief
system], experiences, and attitudes (Roblyer, 2000). Like Dewey,
Vygotsky believes that learning occurs in a social context and
“knowledge is acquired through social interaction, becomes
individual knowledge and individual knowledge grows and becomes
more complex (Roblyer, 2000).” Students learn in accordance to
their own potential, building knowledge through collaboration
and social activities.
Gardner blends these ideas with his own
perspective on learning and he builds upon the social aspect of
constructivism. He looks to what the learner brings to the
learning experience and “attempts to define the role
intelligence plays in learning (Roblyer, 2000).” Key to
Gardner’s theory is the belief that “intelligence is
culture-dependent, intelligent behavior is likely to take
different forms in children from different ethnic backgrounds (Roblyer,
2000).” Gardner’s theory includes eight different intelligences:
1) linguistic, the use of language effectively, 2) musical, the
understanding and use of musical structure and composition; 3)
logical-mathematical, the recognition patterns and logical
reasoning; 4) spatial, perceptions of the world in visual terms;
5) bodily-kinesthetic, use and manipulation of body skills; 6)
intrapersonal, awareness of one’s own motives and heightened
metacognitive abilities; 7) interpersonal; awareness of
motivation in others’ behavior; 8) naturalist; discrimination
among living things (Tiene, 2000). Gardner’s ideas on the eight
intelligences anticipate how students best process information
into learning and influence how important educational
environments are to learning.
For constructivists environment is also
essential to learning and is twofold. On one hand there is the
learner’s social environment mentioned above, and on the other
hand there is the physical learning environment that is designed
to include atmosphere and artifacts that stimulate imagination
and inquiry (Dewey, 1916, Thornburg, 2000, Tiene, 2000). Dewey
and others held that it is through this interaction with their
environment that learners work to construct new knowledge.
Learning experiences are enhanced in rich environments that
encourage exploration and inquiry.
The importance of social and physical
environment dovetails into another major principle of
constructivism - that of shared intelligence. Children “learn by
interaction with others, testing ideas, and modifying those
ideas as necessary (Teine, 2000).” Distributed learning,
collaborative learning for sharing knowledge, is a primary
attribute of constructivism. Through collaboration learners
develop a “learning community” based on shared interest, “add to
one another’s knowledge, challenge one another’s ideas, and work
together to find solutions to their inquiry (Teine, 2000).”
Through interaction and collaboration with others, learners work
at constructing and reconstructing their knowledge by making
connections to prior knowledge and adapting (or self-correct)
new information to refine their knowledge.
Jean Piaget studies children’s
cognitive development. He identifies a series of stages through
which children progress as learners. Those stages include:
sensorimotor phase (birth to 2 years) in which the child
establishes a sense of self; preoperational phase (3-7 years) in
which the child uses simplistic and erroneous cues for
determination of meaning; concrete operation phase (7-11 years)
at which children develop more sophisticated concepts; and the
formal thinking phase (11 years and on) where the learner
develops abstract thinking (Tiene, 2000). Key to Piaget’s
theories is the belief that children are innately active and
motivated learners. As a child progresses from one developmental
stage to the next, s/he attempts to assimilate new information
into his/her schema (world view) of understanding or changes
that schema to fit the new information (Roblyer, 2000). Vygotsky
developed the learning principal called the zone of proximal
development (ZoPD). The zone of proximal development means “that
at any given time, children are primed to learn and develop in
certain ways, if appropriately assisted by an adult (Tiene,
2000).”
According to constructivists learners
will not learn outside their current ZoPD. Students must
challenge and master new content to move outside one range and
into another as they construct new knowledge. Thus while
students do advance from one ZoPD to another, they will always
be learning and always in a zone of proximal development.
Vygotsky believed that teachers must “provide good instruction
by finding out where each child is in his or her development and
build upon the child’s experience (Roblyer, 2000).” This
principle is what Vygotsky refers to as scaffolding.
As the connotation of the word
suggests, scaffolding provides an external supporting frame
while a structure (knowledge) is built. With scaffolding, the
teacher facilitates the “novice learner while developing
understanding of a new concept then gradually removes supports
as the learners constructs their own knowledge (Tiene, 2000).”
As students, novices in their exposure to the concept, become
more experienced and capable of performing the task, the
teacher’s support is lessened and the students take more
responsibility for their performance. Scaffolding
characteristics include clear directions [how to meet
expectations], clarified purpose [continuous sorting and sifting
of information to match problem/question], clarified process
[pathway to information], clarified expectations [standards and
rubrics], identified sources, focused inquiry, and momentum
toward insight and understanding (McKensie, 1999). The intense
support and guidance at the beginning gives students confidence
as they progress and become more independent learners.
Constructivism is also grounded in the
principle that learning is situational; that is, learning occurs
when “learners solve problems, perform tasks, and learn new
material in a context that makes sense to them (Roblyer).”
Learning does not occur effectively when the content is
delivered in isolation of context. One of the major criticisms
of direct instruction is that it is isolated into single subject
courses and fragmented information bits. Constructivism
encourages a more interdisciplinary approach in which the
learners connect to integrated knowledge based in the long-term
memory. This contributes to the relevance of content. Clearly,
constructivism has the “potential to foster a radically
different approach to teaching as well as exciting new uses for
technology in the classroom” (Teine, 2000).
Implications of
Constructivism on Educational Practices
In his work Democracy and Education, Dewey states,
To learn from experience is to make a
backward and forward connection between what we do to things
and what we enjoy or suffer from things in consequence.
Under such conditions, doing becomes a trying; an experiment
with the world to find out what it is like; the undergoing
becomes instruction—discovery of the connection of things
(1916).
Constructivists strive to help educators
understand how to facilitate learners make connections in
learning. They go beyond information processing to look at how
information can be transferred from sensory to short-term to
long-term memory. They believe that while information can be
imparted to the learner, it cannot become new learning until the
learner makes it his or her own. Try as hard as they may,
teachers cannot make students learn; learners must initiate
learning in order to gain knowledge.
Cognitive science aims at helping
educators understand how the mind processes information for
learning. Cognitivists and Behaviorists show how structure in
presenting information can aid learners in attaining mastery of
new information and concepts. But, it is the constructivists who
show the educator how to facilitate learners in making
connections between past learning and present learning. “The
teacher’s role shifts from that of an authority who provides
information to one of a facilitator, who asks questions,
suggests, resources, encourages exportation, and learns
alongside the student (Teine, 2000).” This is supported by the
current concept of the teacher moving from “sage-on-the-stage”
to “guide-on-the-side.”
Many of our educational practices are
based on the antiquated needs of an industrial society. Many
educators now believe that the world is changing too quickly to
define education in terms of specific information or skills;
they believe education should focus on more general capabilities
such as “’learning to learn’ skills that will help future
citizens cope with inevitable technological change (Roblyer,
2000).” “When students in the class of 2015 graduate, many of
them will take jobs that did not exist when they entered school
and will use technologies not yet invented (Roblyer, 2000).”
Popular belief estimates that 80% of the jobs our students will
perform have not even been developed. The question becomes then,
how do educators prepare their students for changing
requirements of a workforce when no one really knows what tools
they will need?
The tools of a communication-based
society are far different than those of an industrial society. A
large part of the dilemma facing educators in this
communication-based society is how to educate students so that
they become skilled workers in a workplace that is changing at
such a fast pace. During the industrial age, workplace skills
were fairly consistent over long durations. However, with the
advent of technology and the information age, workplace skills
have changed drastically. Now with the communication age,
workplace skills and technologies are changing more rapidly than
anyone could have imagined 20 or 30 years ago. The task of
education is to develop learners who can adapt to a future that
cannot be predicted.
In its paper, e-Learning: putting a
world-class education at the fingertips of all children, the
United States Department of Education set information literacy
as a primary skill for the future and as a priority for
education. The USDE outlines the new “21st -century literacy”
as “information problem-solving skills, such as how to define
tasks, identify information seeking strategies, locate and
access information, determine information’s relevance, organize
and communicate the results of the information problem-solving
effort and valuate the effectiveness and efficiency of the
solution (USDE, 2000).” Reports and studies of the last decade
(Nation at Risk, 1983; America's Choice: High Skills or Low
Wages, 1990) point to “high numbers of students entering the
labor force without the requisite academic and work-related
skills needed to succeed in an increasingly competitive
workforce (WestEd, 1997).”
Industry has led the push for reforms
that equip students with the adaptable, higher level skills
needed for a "high performance," decentralized workplace where
workers take on greater responsibility, collaborate effectively,
and become more involved in decision-making processes. In recent
years, several national reports such as the Commission on the
Skills of the American Workforce, 1990, underscore industry's
demand for employees with competencies in these areas (WestEd,
1997). The question for educators then becomes: how do we best
prepare students for the workforce in light of such a rapidly
changing tools and necessary skills?
The solution is that educational
practices must move learning beyond isolated skill sets into
higher order critical thinking skills. In short, we must to
teach our students how to think. This brings to mind an old
cliché: Give a hungry man a fish and he’ll be hungry the next
day. Teach a man how to fish and he’ll never be hungry again. To
put the old cliché into context, it might be rephrased as: Teach
a student a skill and he or she can use it toward a specific
task. Teach a student how to think and he or she can address any
task.
Constructivism emphasizes facilitating
thinking rather than memorization of collected data. Direct
instruction methods alone can no longer meet the needs of
students propelled into the new global society and economy.
“Clearly, 21st century
educators will have to deal with issues that their predecessors
could not even have imagined and must have skills and knowledge
not previously recognized (Roblyer, 2000).”
Problem-Based Learning (PBL)
“How do we provide sufficient
structure to keep students productive without confining them
to strait jackets that destroy initiative, motivation, and
resourcefulness?” - Jamie McKenzie, 1999
Project-based learning is a “model for
classroom activity that shifts away from the classroom practices
of short isolated, teacher-centered lessons and instead
emphasizes learning activities that are long-term,
interdisciplinary, student-centered, and integrated with real
world issues and practices…(USDE, 2000).” Problem-based
learning is synonymous with project-based and inquiry-based
learning. Its defining characteristics are that students focus
on investigating and engaging in problem-solving activities that
focus around central concepts and principles of a particular or
inter-related discipline (Tiene, 2000). The key to PBL is “to
develop meaningful problems to solve that require learners to
acquire the underlying knowledge (Tiene, 2000).” Meaningful
tasks are designed to encourage and support student autonomy and
real-world outcomes. PBL is a more engaging, thought provoking,
and interdisciplinary approach to learning that encourages
students to participate in a community of inquiry and to
struggle with an ambiguous, complex and unpredictable
questioning environment.
In PBL the problem for inquiry is the
first component the students encounter. Essential to the
principles of PBL is that the problems are “presented in a
realistic context (Tiene, 2000)” and that students work on the
problem at his/her appropriate abilities (ZoPD). Although
constructivism requires no prior preparation or study, “ the
problems are structured in such a way that learners must
identify what they need to know in order to solve the problem (Tiene,
2000).” Students join in collaborative groups to share what they
know (distributed knowledge) and identify research questions.
In contrast to more traditional
approaches of learning, students involved in PBL participate in
tasks that are multi-faceted, challenging, complex, and extended
to projects over longer periods of time. Students are
encouraged to do their own problem-solving and critical
inquiry. They are put in charge of their own time and task
management as individuals and as group members. They are
responsible for evaluating their work throughout the project and
are accountable for determining ways of demonstrating their own
competence. Reflection time is essential to the process and
“ensures that students integrate their new knowledge and skills
(Teine, 2000).” PBL stimulates students to participate in
developing and stretching their own real-world competencies.
This is an authentic learning approach that is compelling and
engaging.
Implications of
Project-Based Learning on Educational Practices
There are many positive aspects of PBL for educational
practices. Since it is student-centered PBL content is
compelling and personally relevant for students. PBL allows
time for more focused and in depth investigation and processing
of information in the area of interest to the student. It also
allows for a greater diversity in learning modalities and
greater transfer and retention of information (Thomas, 1998).
Students are put in charge of their own learning experience.
Thus the content becomes more meaningful and applicable to real
world situations. As opposed to the isolated approach of direct
instruction, PBL provides a more holistic approach to curricular
delivery.
Problem-based learning encourages
collaborative, self-directed learning. The learning is more
internalized and transferable to other areas of the learners’
lives. It often provides a situation where students are called
upon to explain or defend their position. This is a shared
experience closer to the work environment they will face outside
of the school setting.
Students are also encouraged and empowered to use and expand
their technological skills. They must use their research
skills, write their findings and use graphic arts tools to
display their work. Students are able to see tangible and
productive products for their efforts. Going beyond the paper
and pencil worksheets and tests, students are able to produce a
final product that demonstrates their efforts and growth. The
seamless integration of technological skills is most effective
through this learning environment. It encourages “just-in-time
learning” and mastery.
In addition, the outcomes are more
productive and personal. PBL activities help imbed lifelong
learning skills into the students’ skill sets. It promotes
“higher-order cognitive skills and problem-solving strategies
(Thomas, 1998).” Through a meta-cognitive approach students
develop initiative, persistence and autonomy. Students learn to
plan, carry out, monitor and evaluate their own work.
An interesting aspect of PBL is the way
it can change the relationship between teachers and students.
It moves the teacher from lecturer and director of instruction
to a resource provider and participant in the overall learning
activities. The teacher does not have to always be the expert
but can be an advisor and even colleague in the quest for
knowledge and understanding. Students are asked to work
collaboratively and individually as they carry out self-directed
learning activities rather than rote instructions. They are
asked to communicate, show affect, produce and take
responsibility rather than listen, behave and speak only when
spoken to. They become independent learners and producers. They
learn time and task management skills. Through encouragement and
guidance from their teacher, students are put in charge of their
own learning experience. This allows them to engage in
“sustained, autonomous, lifelong learning” with deeper mastery
of complex ideas and processes (Thomas, 1998).
The assessment process is based on
performance and gains over time rather than in direct
comparisons with other students. Students are required to
demonstrate through projects their own learning rather than to
reproduce data. It moves beyond tests to tangible
accomplishments. The teaching strategies focus more on the
process than the actual outcome.
However a single learning model is not the answer to all
educational practice needs. If used as the only educational
modality PBL could consume so much time on a limited number of
concepts that big chunks of important curricular material would
be sacrificed. Traditional direct instruction techniques help
students cover more material in a shorter period of time. This
allows them to address more of the curriculum standards and
“cover a relatively large amount of information (facts,
concepts, events, issues) in just a few weeks (Thomas, 1998).”
The inclusion of traditional tests and worksheets provides
direct and measurable feedback to teachers, students and
parents. All of this can be viewed as a positive aspect of this
methodology. Unfortunately, although the inclusion of
curriculum standards can be well addressed by direct
instruction, it can be too focused on specific skill-sets and
neglect others.
At the same time, through direct
instruction students may not be internalizing the materials and
may not be grasping full concepts. With less time for cognitive
processing of information it can often be simple memorization
for the test with little or no lasting effect on student
comprehension. Without an opportunity to apply learning,
students often fail to capture and make it their own or to make
cognitive leaps to apply the knowledge beyond the immediate
situation.
PBL moves the focus of the curriculum
away from content coverage and building-block skills in isolated
chunks, and moves beyond facts to an understanding of concepts
and principles. PBL encourages a deeper understanding of the
concepts and principles and the development of complex
problem-solving skills. The scope and sequence of the learning
process is less fixed and is based more on student interest and
learning styles. It moves students into broad interdisciplinary
inquiry rather than a narrow, discipline-based focus that
proceeds in carefully controlled blocks of learning that evolve
into larger units of complex problems and issues. The PBL
approach is believed to be a much more stimulating and engaging
approach to authentic learning. Thus including PBL activities
that “encourage active inquiry” (Thompson, 1998) and stimulate
students to process and incorporate life-long learning skills is
an important educational practice.
It is worth revisiting McKensie’s
question, “How do we provide sufficient structure to keep
students productive without confining them to strait jackets
that destroy initiative, motivation, and resourcefulness
(1999)?” In response, project-based learning offers a solution
to his question. The United States Department of Education
defines PBL as a teaching methodology that “shifts away form the
classroom practices of short isolated, teacher-centered lessons
and instead emphasizes learning activities that are long-term,
interdisciplinary, student-centered, and integrated with real
word issues and practices…(USDE, 2000).” The USDE paper,
e-Learning: Putting a world–class education at the fingertips of
all children, also states that PBL “…is one way in which
technology can support teachers in helping students to engage in
learning (USDE, 2000).”
Based on the original research
concerns, the authors of this paper came to these conclusions
concerning the benefits of direct instruction and Problem-based
learning:
1. Direct instruction is a sound educational practice that helps
impart essential information for foundational concepts and skill
development.
2. PBL is an educational practice that encourages students to
think creatively, analytically, and critically.
3. PBL facilitates learners’ independence from the traditional
educational institution to encourage authentic, lifelong
learners.
4. PBL advances students’ preparation for the workforce through
its social and collaborative techniques.
It is through a balance between the direct instruction and the
constructivist educational environments that teachers can
develop the most productive learning environment for their
students. There are many ways to teachers to achieve such
balance; however the goal of this research paper is to discover
the most effective curriculum strategy for fostering such
balance. The conclusion of this paper looks at the Web Quest as
an educational strategy that develops a balance between these
two practices.
Conclusion
It is essential to consider the pros and cons of both
project-based learning and direct instruction models when
developing curriculum units. Each has benefits as well as
shortcomings. Neither approach is the panacea for all learning
environments. The wisest approach is to balance the integration
of a workable number of productive project-base learning
activities with more traditional teaching strategies. The Web
Quest is the PBL model this action research project found to be
the most effective in its approach to student inquiry because of
its balance between direct instruction and constructivism.
First, a description of the Web Quest (WQ),
a PBL strategy, is appropriate. A Web Quest is a web-based
strategy for curricular delivery characterized by the following
elements:
1) An introduction that sets the stage and provides some
background information.
2) A task that is doable and interesting.
3) A set of information sources, materials, and links needed to
complete the task.
4) A process that is broken out into clearly described steps.
5) Guidance on how to sort, sift, and organize the information
and evaluate progress and product.
6) A conclusion that provides closure to the web quest and
reflects learning. (Dodge, 1995)
Web Quests are extremely flexible in their design, adapting to
undertaking either short-term or long-term inquiries for single
or interdisciplinary content that is centered mostly on
collaborative but occasionally individual settings (Yoder,
1999).
A Web Quest designed lesson or unit
requires students to use information literacy skills in pursuit
of answers to inquiry.
The 21ST Century Workforce Commission concluded that nothing
less that the future of America’s 21st century economy depends
directly how broadly and deeply Americans reach a new level of
literacy that includes not only strong basic academic skills but
also thinking, reasoning and teamwork skills, as well as
proficiency in using technology (USDE, 2000).
In its paper, e-Learning: Putting a world–class education at
the fingertips of all children, the USDE defines necessary
information literacy skills as: task definition, information
seeking strategies, information location and access, and the
use, synthesis, and evaluation of that information (USDE, 2000).
Information literacy is an important concern for educators in an
information-based society. A Web Quest is “one way in which
technology can support teachers in helping student to engage in
learning (USDE, 2000).”
As stated above, the Web Quest is good
blend between direct instruction and constructivism. The task,
process and evaluation components of the Web Quest satisfy the
need for direct instruction. They are clearly defined by
behaviorists and cognitive scientists as essential prerequisites
to learning. The structure progresses from small and familiar
tasks to those that are new and more complex (Yoder, 2000). The
Web Quest’s open and flexible structure also stratifies the need
for student inquiry and social learning. John Dewey wrote, “Not
only is social life identical with communication, but all
communication (and hence all genuine social life) is educative
(1916).” This social aspect of learning is evidenced in the
collaborative nature of the Web Quest. Within their inquiry
groups, students tap into prior knowledge and share it with
other group members. There is greater “buy-in” as students work
toward common interests and group results. Since students choose
their own approach to a topic, they find their educational
experience more relevant.
The Web Quest also includes
scaffolding techniques that bridge both practices. The
scaffolding approach of early intensive support then dissipates
a students gain skill and confidence encourages the learners’
independence. The scaffolding support that is integrated into
the Web Quest makes it a natural fit for both direct instruction
and PBL.
The Web Quest process also deals with
the efficacy issue. Constructivists also view scaffolding as
important to the learning process. “…Scaffolding requires
continuous sorting and sifting as part of a “puzzling” process –
the combining of new information with previous understanding to
construct new ones (McKenzie, 1999).” Reconstructing the jigsaw
puzzle, as it were, the support and guidance built into the
quest help students access difficult material. Pre-selected
investigative resources from the Internet along with
supplemental materials help sift through the myriad of
information available. Once literacy and technology skills are
taught, accessibility to content is equal for all students.
Because of its flexible and open design, the Web Quest
accommodates for students’ ZoPD (zone of proximal development),
thus allowing students with differing learning styles to access
content at multiple levels.
“Some educators assert that today’s
television-oriented students are increasingly likely to demand
more motivational qualities in their instruction than students
in previous generations (Roblyer, 2000).” Television, video and
computer-generated games continually impact the social
interaction of our students. The legacy of social learning
stressed by many educational theorists (Thornburg’s campfires
and Dewey’s social learning) has undergone significant changes
for our new generation of students. Educational practices must
adapt to those changes. The traditional “stand and deliver”
model of the “sage on the stage” no longer captures students’
attention: many are active learners who demand personalized and
relevant learning experiences.
Through the investigation the relevant literature, the Web
Quest emerged as an extremely effective curriculum delivery
strategy, especially when combined and balanced with traditional
methods. Using technology as the delivery tool, the Web Quest
provides the engagement, flexibility, and motivation that
21st-century students crave. Using the PBL Web Quest model,
educational practices can now meet the students “where they
live,” rather than where educators used to live.
References
Brooks, J. G. & Brooks, M.G. (1993).
The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA.
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Dewey, John. (1916). Democracy and Education. New York: Free
Press.
Dodge, B. (1995). Some thoughts about WebQuests. San Diego
State University. Available: http://edweb.sdsu.edu/courses/edtec.596/about_webquests.html.
[2001].
Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces, probing the depths of
educational reform. Bristol, PA: The Falmer Press.
Gagnon, G. W. & Collay, M. (1996). Constructivist learning
design.
Available: http://www.prainbow.com/cld/cldp.html [July, 2001].
Gardner, H. (1995). Reflections on multiple intelligences myths
and messages. Phi Delta Kappan. v77.
Graumann, Peter. (1993). Project-based learning: five
teacher-tested ideas. Technology & Learning, v14.
Joyce, B., & Weil, M. (2000). Models of Teaching. Boston: Allyn
and Bacon.
Marks, Jon. (2001). An introduction to problem-based learning.
Center for Problem-Based Learning. Illinois Mathematics and
Science Academy. Available :
http://www.imsa.edu/team/cpbl/what is/slide1.html. [July, 2001].
McKensie, J. (1999).Scaffolding for success. The Education
Technology Journal, FNO, V9, No4. [July, 2001].
Roblyer, M.D. and Edwards, Jack. (2000). Integrating
educational technology into teaching. New Jersey. Prentice-Hall
Inc.
Russell, Tom. (1999). Untitled, Queen’s University. Kingston,
Ontario, Canada. Available:
http://educ.queensu.ca/~russellt/how teach/action.htm. [July,
2001].
Sandholtz J. H., Ringstaff, C. & Dwyer, D. (1997). Teaching
with technology; creating student-centered classrooms. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Tiene, Drew and Ingram, Albert. (2000). Exploring current
issues in educational technology, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Thornburg, D. (1995). Scissors, Stone, and Paper. Thornburg
Center. Available: www.tcpd.org/thronburg/handouts.html [July,
2001].
Thornburg, D. (1995). Campfires in Cyberspace: promordial
metaphors for learning in the 21st Century. Thornburg Center.
Available: www.tcpd.org/thronburg/handouts.html [July, 2001].
Thomas, John. (1998). Project-based learning. Novato.Buck
Institute for Education.
U.S. Department of Education, O. o. E. T. (2000). e-Learning:
putting a world-class education at the fingertips of all
children. Washington, D.C.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
WestEd. (1997). High Stakes: key challenges for California
schools and the role of technology. California Education
Symposium. WestEd.
Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. ((1998) Understanding By Design.
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Available: http://www.udel.edu/pbl/
Wolk, Steven. (1994). Project-based learning: pursuits with a
purpose.(Strategies for Success). Educational Leadership, v52 n3
p42.
Yoder, M. B. (2000). The student web quest. ISTE. Available:
http://www.iste.org/L&L/archive/vol26/no7/features/yoder/index.html
|
back to top