Sparking Students Through
Problem-Based Learning
by Mary Brakke and Kevin Smith
Are genetically modified foods safe? Do you know what's
actually in those cheese doodles you're eating? What
are we doing in Minnesota that's creating the "dead
zone" in the Gulf of Mexico? These are some of the questions
we've learned to ask our students in Agronomy 1101. But
it wasn't always this way.
When you're teaching a course that fulfills a liberal education requirement,
some of the students choose to attend simply to "check off a box." Student
engagement can be low. The quality of work can be marginal. Attendance may be
problematic. And who really wants to teach that course?
In 2002, we were experiencing all of these problems, and we made the decision
to adopt a problem-based learning (PBL) approach for teaching "Biology
of Plant Food Systems and the Environment," a course that emphasizes food
production, plant biology, and the environment. This large-enrollment class is
one of several that fulfills the University of Minnesota's liberal education
requirement for a life-science course with a laboratory component. It is taken
by students throughout the University, and, as such, student interest in the
subject and preference for learning format vary widely. Students represent a
cross-section of the University and come to the course with a wide range of background
knowledge and interests. Prior to implementing PBL in the course, a traditional
lecture format was used to provide an overview of fundamental biological concepts. Learning
expectations were narrowly defined and the application of concepts focused almost
exclusively on exam performance.
We felt that the underlying problems with student performance were primarily
attitudinal and specifically related to a lack of interest and motivation to
learn. To address this problem, we decided to enhance the relevance of the material
and to increase the amount of active learning within the classroom. Most importantly,
we chose to adopt PBL as a means to achieve our learning objectives because the
problem-solving framework creates opportunities to emphasize the personal relevance
of material and to engage students in an active process that inspires interest
and motivates learning.
In this article, we examine how we implemented PBL in Agronomy 1101, the opportunities
it provided to engage students in a range of cognitive activities, and the impact
that it had on students' motivation to learn. We were particularly interested
in finding out whether or not the PBL approach would motivate our students to
learn. Would students feel they learned more with the PBL approach than with
a traditional lecture approach?
Problem-Based Learning
Problem-based learning seeks to create an environment in which
learners engage material in a manner that is relevant to their
lives. It allows students to identify and pursue avenues of personally
relevant inquiry, and it provides opportunities for self-directed
learning. Emphasis on the acquisition of knowledge and skills
that are perceived by students as relevant to personal or professional
goals by addressing real-world problems also enhances the learner's
perception that the material has value related to personal or
professional goals (Savery and Duffy, 1996). For example, in
a medical science course PBL problems are designed to engage
students in analyzing complex problems related to diagnosis of
an illness and recommendation of treatment (Barrows, 1985). The
PBL model has also been used to engage students in learning content
and discipline-specific skills in business (Milter and Stinson,
1993), education (Bridges and Hallinger, 1992), social work (Boud
and Feletti, 1991), and general communication and group work
skills (Amador and Gorres, 2004).
Although the problem-solving process looks somewhat different
in each class in which it is implemented, learning is characterized
by being inquiry-driven, active, collaborative, self-directed,
and self-evaluated (Woods, 1996). The diverse cognitive
tasks involved in this collaborative, problem-solving process
have been linked to multiple, desirable cognitive and attitudinal
developments. It has been shown that actively solving a problem
results in better conceptual understanding, retention of content,
and improved problem-solving skills (Resnick and Klopfer, 1989;
Coles, 1991; Dochy et al, 2003; Beers and Bowden, 2005). Working
to resolve authentic, complex problems also contributes to the
development of thinking processes and skills needed to solve
problems encountered in particular professions (Carter, 1988).
Self-directed learning and self-assessment activities within
the context of PBL also lead to greater awareness of, and motivation
for, learning. In addition, collaborative work contributes to
the ability to appreciate diverse perspectives and multiple solutions
to problems (Slavin, 1991).
Converting to Problem-Based Learning
In the spring semester of 2002, we converted the lecture portion
of Agro 1101 to a PBL format, using three to four major problems
in each semester. Much of what we think of as PBL takes place
in small groups of three to four students. We established these
during the second or third week of the semester, and unless conflicts
among group members arose, students worked with the same group
throughout the semester. Students met in their small groups to
discuss problems, complete tasks related to the problem, and
participate in activities designed to promote discussion of concepts
pertaining to the problem presented during lecture. Thirty percent
of students' total course grade was derived from individual
and group activities associated with the problems. Another thirty
percent was derived from mid-term and final exams, and forty
percent was derived from work associated with the laboratory
component of the course.
According to Weiss (2003), PBL problems that promote higher-order
thinking should:
1) be appropriate for students' knowledge base yet require
knowledge extension,
2) be ill-structured,
3) involve collaboration among students,
4) involve application of knowledge in ways students would be
expected to use it in the future, and
5) reinforce attitudes and habits of lifelong learning.
Because the course revolves around biological concepts, we designed
problems around controversial issues related
to food production and health, and the environmental impacts
of agricultural practices.
"Are genetically modified organisms (GMOs) safe?" is a typical
example of a question we might pose to students. We might present the
problem to them in the following way: "Currently about 80% of the soybeans
and 60% of the corn produced in the U.S. are genetically engineered. What does ‘genetically
modified organism' mean? Are these crops different from others? Do they
pose risks to human health or the environment? If so, what measures should
be taken? What unique benefits do these crops offer?"
Over the three- to four-week period, student groups are asked
to research a genetically engineered crop, identify the risks
and benefits to human and environmental health, and make recommendations
for research that will lead to further information on an associated
risk. Typically we follow a five-step learning process.
1. Engagement: Students are introduced to the
issue through an activity that highlights its contemporary, and
often controversial, nature. Short video clips (10-15 min.) shown
in class or brief articles that students read in class
have been effective.
2. Identifying the problem and understanding the task: Working
in small groups or as a class, students discuss the issue
and articulate the central problem revealed by the engagement
activity. Students consider the issue-related problem
they are asked to resolve and generate questions and ideas
based on their background knowledge. Students identify personally
relevant questions that will provide information needed to
address the problem. Before meeting in class again, students
conduct research on personally relevant questions.
3. Understanding the problem and generating a solution: Working
in small groups, students share the results of their research
and use this information to refine their ideas concerning a
possible solution. Conceptual information is provided in class
through mini-lectures and other activities such as deconstruction
and discussion of a related scientific article, simulation
of a biological process, concept mapping, or a guest speaker.
During class, students are given time to meet in groups, discuss
ideas about solutions, and work on the assigned task.
4. Presenting the solution: All groups are
asked to prepare a presentation and discussion of their proposed
solution. Due to time constraints, less than half of the groups
actually present, but everyone can participate in the
discussion. Class discussion of the proposed solutions provides
opportunities to further elucidate concepts and to clarify
any misconceptions that are revealed.
5. Debriefing the problem: During this time,
the class takes a retrospective look at the problem-solving
process, identifies the concepts learned, answers remaining
questions, and reviews and evaluates the problem and the group
learning process.
Student Responses
To assess students' response to using PBL in our course,
we conducted an online survey at the end of each unit of the
course from 2003-2005. (For survey methodology, see The Dilemma
of Measuring Motivation and Study Habits (p. 8).) One of
the primary reasons for implementing a PBL approach to biology
for non-science majors was to increase student motivation to
learn. Averaged across the course topics for the years 2003-2005,
72% of the students agreed that the PBL approach helped to motivate
their learning. Since this course enrolls a wide spectrum of
students from the University, we were interested in seeing if
motivation by PBL differed among several demographic groups.
When we compared the responses of freshmen versus non-freshmen,
we found no significant differences, with the exception of one
topic in 2004. In this case, non-freshmen scored higher indicating
they were less likely than freshmen to be motivated by the PBL
approach. Since the topics in this course deal with food and
agriculture issues, we compared responses from students enrolled
in the College of Agricultural Food and Natural Resources Sciences
(CFANS) to those of students enrolled in other colleges at the
University. There was a consistent trend, and significant differences
in three of the seven instances, suggesting that CFANS students
were more motivated by PBL than non-CFANS students.
Since PBL requires more active learning than a traditional lecture-based
course, we asked students to identify all of the ways they prefer
to learn (from a list of eleven classroom activities). Student
responses varied, with some students preferring lectures and
others non-lecture activities. Students' perceptions of
the effectiveness of PBL in motivating their learning did not
differ significantly between those who indicated a preference
for lectures and those who indicated a preference for activities
other than lecture, with one exception. To assess the relevance
of course material to students' lives, we asked students
whether they agreed that the PBL topic "affected them personally." The
responses ranged from 65% to 93% in agreement.
In 2005, we added a question to the survey that asked students
to indicate the degree to which specific activities helped them
to learn. The possible responses were very helpful, moderately
helpful, slightly helpful, or not at all helpful. The percent
that indicated that the following activities (ranked in descending
order) were very or moderately helpful are as follows: video
clips (81.0%), laboratory activities (78.7%), independent research
(76.6%), in-class selection simulation active-learning activity
(68.1%), discussing class presentations (63.8%), mini-lectures
(55.3%), discussion in small groups (53.2%), writing the paper
(51.1%), and peer review of group outlines (36.2%).
To assess students perception of the course prior to and after
implementation of PBL, we examined data from one of the questions
from the University of Minnesota's required Student Evaluation
of Teaching forms. Because implementing PBL or active learning
approaches in general is perceived to require the trade-off of
reducing content, we looked at the question: "How much
would you say you learned in this course?" The response
to the question was a 1-7 rating scale from Very poor/Almost
nothing to Exceptional/An exceptional amount. The difference
was significant (P<0.05) between the score for sections offered
prior to PBL (3.74, n = 5 ) versus after implementation of PBL
(4.44, n = 3). At the very least, this suggests that the focus
on PBL did not result in students perceiving the PBL method came
at the expense of reduced content delivery by the instructor.
Conclusions
Advocates of liberal education understand the benefit of a distributed
education that engages students in a range of intellectual activities.
We should recognize, though, that the lasting impact of liberal
education requirements will depend, in large part, on the goals
that students set for themselves; the benefit to themselves at
some distant moment in time is a vague reality, and the benefit
to society, sad to say, may seem irrelevant. It is incumbent,
then, upon educators to design environments in which the benefits
of learning to students and to society are clear and convincing,
and then to create experiences in which those benefits can truly
be realized. Because motivation is a strong determinant of what
students learn, it is important to consider how interest and
motivation can be enhanced. Our experience suggests that for
a majority of students in a course that fulfilled a biology requirement
for non-science majors, problem-based learning was effective
in motivating learning. This effect on motivation was similar
for freshman versus non-freshman and for students who indicated
a preference for learning in a lecture-format versus those who
indicated some other learning format preference. A majority of
all students reported that the problems used were personally
relevant to their lives and suggested that this is an important
aspect of the PBL format which contributed to a motivation to
learn.
The PBL format also provides for diverse experiences and hence
is more likely to engage all students, at one point or another,
during the course of the semester. Students regarded a number
of the activities involved in the PBL process – viewing
video clips during engagement in the problem, researching personally
relevant information individually, and sharing information in
small groups – as especially helpful to their learning.
While these activities are not precluded from courses that do
not involve the PBL format, they are an integral part of PBL,
particularly when implemented in a process that builds toward
a purpose and has personal meaning.
Our experience using a PBL format enabled us to realize our learning
objectives and provide a framework for engaging students. This
structure encouraged students to ask critical questions, locate
and evaluate information, state an informed opinion, and work
collaboratively to synthesize diverse opinions. Although
it is a challenge to effectively implement a PBL structure in
a large course, the benefits of connecting students with real
world problems and forcing them to think through these scenarios
in a structured manner go a long way to creating scientifically
literate graduates and truly engaged learners.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Archibald Bush Foundation
for their support and funding through the Innovative Teaching
and Technology Strategies grant.
References
Amador, J. A. & Gorres, J. H. (2004). A problem-based learning
approach to teaching introductory soil science. Journal of Natural
Resources and Life Sciences Education, 33, 21-27.
Barrows, H. (1985). How to design a problem-based curriculum
for the preclinical years.
New York: Springer.
Beers, G. W. & Bowden, S. (2005). The effect of teaching
method on long-term knowledge retention. Journal of Nursing
Education, 44, 511-513.
Boud, D. & Feletti, G. (1991). The challenge of problem based
learning. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Bridges, E. & Hallinger, P. (1992). Problem based learning
for administrators. ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management,
University of Oregon.
Carter, M. (1988). Problem solving reconsidered: A pluralistic
theory of problems. College English, 50,
551-565.
Coles, C. (1991 ). Is problem-based learning the only way? In
D. Boud & G. Feletti (Eds.), The challenge of problem based
learning. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P. & Gijbels, D.
(2003). Effects of problem-based learning: A
meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 13, 533-568.
Milter, R. G. & Stinson, J. E. (1993). Educating leaders
for the new competitive environment. In G. Gijselaers, S. Tempelaar, & S.
Keizer (Eds.), Educational innovation in economics and business
administration: The case of problem-based learning. London: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Resnick, L. B. & Klopfer, L. E. (1989). Toward the thinking
curriculum. In L.B. Resnick & L.E. Klopfer (Eds.), Toward
the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research. Yearbook
(Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development).
Savery J. R. & Duffy, T. M. (1996). Problem based learning:
An instructional model and its constructivist framework. In G.
Brent Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case
studies in instructional design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational
Technology Publications (online at http://www3.uakron.edu/edfound/people/savery/papers/sav-duff.html).
Slavin, R. (1991). Synthesis of research of cooperative learning.
Educational Leadership, 48(5), 71-82.
Weiss, R. E. (2003). Designing problems to promote higher-order
thinking. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 95, 25-31.
Woods, D. R. (1996). Problem-based learning for large classes
in chemical engineering. In L. Wilderson & W. H. Gijselaers
(Eds.), Bringing problem-based learning to higher education:
Theory and practice. New Directions for Teaching and Learning,
Number 68. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mary Brakke is an education specialist in the Department of Agronomy
and Plant Genetics. Kevin Smith is associate professor in the
Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics.
|
Return
to: U of M Home : Office
of the Provost : Academy of Distinguished Teachers : Office of Human
Resources : CTL
