Talk:Problem-based learning

Citation needed for McMaster University

Could somebody provide a citation for "...It was pioneered and used extensively at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.".

As far as I know PBL was pioneered and devoloped at Mastricht University in Netherlands. I might be wrong though.

Thank you.

"In the late 1960s, McMaster medical school in Ontario pioneered the first completely problem based medical curriculum, with Maastricht following in 1974 as the first in Europe."

Learner centred approaches in medical education.  Spencer and Jordan. BMJ 1999;318:1280-1283 ( 8 May )

History of PBL

I believe that PBL came out of cognitive science studies in the 1970s. It was adapted at many, but not all, medical schools around the US after the GPEP report of 1984. It represents part of the integrated curriculum now boasted by many american medical schools. --Bakerstmd 06:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Merrill and guidance

I added the bit about guidance and the Merrill graphic. While constructivism has become big in the past two decades, there's no debate about letting learners go "to do their own thing" without guidance. Fifty years of research show that strong guidance is far better than no guidance (Mayer, 2004). Read up and learn...

--Dlewis3 14:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

References

Bakerstmd 06:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

PBL not computational model of cognition.

Research of 10 years of data from the University of Missouri Medical School PBL curriculum supports PBL Koh GC-H, Khoo HE, Wong ML,

Koh D. The Effects of Problem-based learning during medical school on physician competency: a systematic review. CMAJ 2008;178(1):34-41.

Not coincidentally, MU is also he home of David Jonassen - a leading figure in PBL along with his Dutch colleagues, and I belive 10 years prior to 2009 he was at Penn State working on PBL.

I know, because I am currently one of Jonassen's students.

I believe this article is inaccurate in its characterization of PBL as being associated with cognitive load theory and worked examples.

PBL is the antithesis of the worked example.

PBL may incorporate worked examples, in as much as they are valuable when you need to solve a problem NOW, like the instructions for changing your car tire, but PBL did not come out of the Computational Model of cognition.

PBL is grounded in the socio-culturally situated activity of Vygotsky, Dewey, and others.

PBL designs incorporate metacognitively engaging activities - creating questions, story making, creating arguments, constructing analog models, creating causal relationship maps - because those kinds of activities build the skills we need to solve the real problems the will encounter in work and life.

In PBL we want to pile on cognitive load - the kind of learning that sticks the best is the kind where the cognitive and emotional loads are high - and scaffold early on.

All of the citations in the section on cognitive load come from Sweller et al., and are only about cognitive load theory - there are no PBL references.

Sweller is not an adherent of PBL (Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work- PA Kirschner, J Sweller, RE Clark - Educational Psychologist, 2006 - Routledge)

Find and read the response in Scaffolding and Achievement in Problem-Based and Inquiry Learning: A Response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) Cindy E. Hmelo-Silver, Ravit Golan Duncan, and Clark A. Chinn Department of Educational Psychology Rutgers University)

Respectfully —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatwalker (talk • contribs)

You're right that Sweller isn't an adherent of PBL, but that doesn't mean his views shouldn't be included in the article for balance. Contrary to your assertion though, the Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark 2006 article specifically does critique PBL; it's even mentioned in the article title. I do wonder if the criticisms are given undue weight though; it seems odd to have the support for PBL so far down in the article. What if we reorder the content, moving the support and examples immediately after the lead paragraph, then put the worked example & cognitive load sections below that? Also, the entire "Presenting problems to learners" section is based on Merrill's "Pebble in the Pond" instructional design model. Merrill himself says this isn't for problem-based learning: "The resulting instructional strategy is a guided task-centered approach as contrasted with more learner-centered problem-based approaches to instructional design." Do you see any issue with taking that entire section out? Then we'd have about equal amounts of content supporting and critiquing PBL, which is perhaps appropriate for neutral point of view. We can't just remove everything from Sweller, but he doesn't need to dominate the article either. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 04:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)