Problem-Based Learning: Technological Aids

 “One must learn by doing the thing; for though you think you know it, you have no certainty, until you try.”  - Sophocles

And so it is that several millennia later we discuss what many tout as a new(er) theory of the way we learn.  In modern education, this is known as constructionism, an extension of its cousin, constructivism.  Orey (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011) summarizes it well by calling it: “A theory of learning that state people learn best when they build an external artifact or something they can share with others.”  Both of my grandfathers were incredibly good at getting me to do this.  Instead of teaching me all of the steps to a job, with minute details and special orders, they would hand me a tool and a piece of wood and tell me to get to work.  Through those trials and tribulations, I learned skills with more understanding and depth than I ever would have by reading a book or even watching someone else do it. 

This constructionist lens of learning is how I would like to take a look at a teaching strategy that Pitler, Hubbel, Kuhn, and Malenoski (2007) call “generating and testing hypothesis.”  Though it may sound all shiny and new it is really just a collection of ideas and resources that teachers can use to teach by using problem-based learning (PBL) with their students.  According to Glazer (2001), problem-based learning: “Is an effort to challenge students to address real-world problems and resolve realistic dilemmas.”  In other words, a problem is either discovered by or presented to students, and the process of solving that problem is used to teach students content within the context of the solution.  

Today we are going to look at specific techniques involving problem-based learning.  More specifically, we will how technology can aid students learning this way by allowing them: “To spend more time interpreting the data rather than gathering the data” (Pitler et al., 2007, p 203).  As a science teacher, I am well aware of this pit fall, having spent extra days, and even weeks, trying to sort out data from a lab to make it accessible for students.  Pitler et al. (2007) offer up three general categories of technologies to aid constructionist learning which I will follow in this analysis: 1) Spreadsheet software, 2) Data collection tools, and 3) Web resources.

Spreadsheet Software:

There are many spreadsheet programs out there; however, the king of them all seems to be Microsoft Excel.  I will mention that there are a few benefits to using Google Spreadsheets in terms of accessibility online and a few other features, but almost every computer I have touched in schools has Excel loaded on.  Despite your brand choice, there are huge advantages for teachers to use this software in class. 

The obvious advantage is data analysis whether it is lab results or test scores.  Numbers can be easily compiled, crunched, and plotted with only basic knowledge of the program.  However, today we are not discussing a spreadsheets ability to count; rather we are looking at its use in helping students learn in a manner consistent with constructionist theory.  

The examples shown by Pitler et al. (2007) do not involve number crunching.  Rather, the teacher sets up a spreadsheet that allows students to test a hypothesis.  Students are told that they inherit ten thousand dollars and must decide how to invest it to maximize their yield.  To bring this back to the learning theories, students are given a realistic scenario for which they must figure out the best solution.  As a science teacher, I can see many advantages to spreadsheet software in testing hypotheses.  For example, students could use the software to determine how large of a sample size they would need to get an accurate picture of population.  Alternatively, they could devise a plan to decrease pollution levels for families by calculating current levels.  Of course, I am spouting out examples without having done them, but I see some potential for uses of spreadsheets in problem-based learning especially.

Data Collection Tools:

A hypothesis is not a hypothesis unless it can be tested.  Pitler et al. (2007) are spot on when they discuss the importance of data collection in testing a hypothesis when they describe how: “Students research problems, form a hypothesis, and collect data to confirm, deny, or revise their last hypothesis” (p 210).  However, they way they apply data collection tools, from Probeware to the internet, it is not a teaching strategy, rather a teaching aid. 

Almost all of the problem-based learning I have directed in my classroom requires the collecting of data.  This data is often used to help solve a problem, though occasionally, and perhaps more effectively, it has been used to determine the problem itself.  For example, while working in Montana with the Watershed Education Network (WEN), middle school students first pointed out rapid decline in the health of a local river through their monitoring of the river itself.  Data collection tools can greatly speed up this process.  In the case of these middle school students, these Probeware devices made monitoring streams feasible during a normal school day. 

I have a great example of internet-based data collection tools used by students tracking the migration of certain species across the continent.  Students from across the country input dates and counts of sightings.  This data was collected into charts that show where different species are in their migration.

Web Resources:

This category is really the dumping ground for anything found online that has not fit into the other two categories.  However, Pitler et al. (2007) discuss their importance in allowing: “Students to use background knowledge, make decisions, and see the outcome of their hypotheses, often in virtual situations that would be impossible or financially unfeasible in real life” (pp 212-213).  In science, I know of many simulators that allow students to test the hypotheses they have derived from other parts of the class.  There is an added benefit to these in terms of student buy-in and engagement, which helps with learning and motivation (2007).

It is easy to fall into the pitfall of thinking every simulation online fits into constructionist learning theory.  However, we must make sure that students are actually able to create stuff and not just fill in preset boxes.  As the line is fuzzy between these two, I would encourage teachers to aim hard towards the side of design, rather than just manipulation.  On that note, I believe Pitler et al. (2007) gave us many great resources to aid students in implementing Problem-based learning.  We just have to understand the importance of making learning relevant to students.  This means leaving things open ended enough for students create things on their own.  Though technology can be an incredible aid in constructionist learning, it is also very easy for teachers to design something that is really just a digital worksheet.

Resources:

Glazer, E. (2001). Problem Based Instruction. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved March 21, 2012 from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011). Constructionist and constructivist learning theories [DVD]. Bridging Learning Theory Instruction and Technology. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.