|
| |
Problem Based (Apprenticeship Learning):
A Primer on PBL/Craft Mastery
Joseph S. DiPietro, Ph.D., RRT
Director, Cardiopulmonary and Neurodiagnostic Sciences
Southwest Virginia Community College
30 March 2004
Historical Roots of Problem Based Learning (PBL)
1. Code of Hammurabi, 4000BCE; and the Talmud, 4250BCE---also the roots of
apprenticeship (DiPietro, 1999)
2. Predicated upon real world scenarios, i.e., “learning begins with a
problem…”(Woods, 1985)
3. The driving force in teaching the sciences, that (1) lecture/lab formats do
not promote real world learning, and (2) that learners in most disciplines were
not effective at problem solving, critical thinking, or connectional learning
was fostered by a call from the American Association for the Advancement of
Science (1990), “science should be taught as science is practiced at it’s best.”
Apprenticeship and Craft Mastery Learning & PBL
First, let’s look at the apprenticeship design---a trinity or triad of learning,
that we often think only applies to the traditional crafts, such as machinists;
jointers (furniture makers); cabinetmakers (finish carpenters); wheelwrights,
wainwrights (coach builders); shipwrights; ships jointers; plumbers;
electricians; stone and brick masons, etc. Fact of the matter is: medicine and
law started their education in this way, and so did our health technologies
professions. The Apprentice Trinity is based upon connectional learning that is
progressive.
Figure 1, is a graphic representation of the apprenticeship trinity.
The Entered Apprentice---critical features and characteristics (DiPietro, 1999,
2003, 2004)
1. a ‘rookie’ craftsman/professional
2. has three salient characteristics---focus, commitment, desire
3. will learn the foundation skills required of the chosen
craft/profession/discipline
4. learns to seek the Master, rather than the other way around
5. Perfect repetition of skills learned
6. foundation problem solving
7. works with fellow apprentices, group problem solving
The Journeyman of the Fellowcraft
1. has mastered the foundation skills
2. now journeys toward the destination of craft mastery through restoration and
renewal of foundation skills and
3. adds on new skills connected to the foundations
4. Perfect repetition
5. is assigned a master (mentor) to continue the honing of skills
6. will technically, always be a journeyman, in a sense, even when the
destination of craft master occurs
The Craft Master
1. can now stand on one’s own
2. has completed the work on the master piece or masterpiece
3. is now recognized as a Master by his/her Master
4. critical to this phase, is the learned ability to evaluate, then create anew
Interestingly, the author believes this was the pattern for Bloom’s Taxonomy.
Note the following…
Table I. A Comparison of Apprenticeship/Bloom’s Taxonomy and DiPietro’s Trinity
Learning
Learner Status Apprenticeship/Craft Mastery Bloom’s Taxonomy DiPietro’s
Trinity Learning
Entered Apprentice 1. Foundation skills
2. Definitions
3. Beginning Repetition
4. Tasks parallel to foundation 1. Knowledge
2. Comprehension
3. Analysis
4. Application 1. Recall
2. Association
3. Analysis
4. Left and right brain evalution
5. Repetition of learned skills at foundation
6. Group problem solving (early)
Journeyman 1. Foundation skill mastery
2. Add on new skills connected to foundation
3. Repetition continues 1. Application
2. Early Evaluation 1. Application
2. Right or left brain strengthening
3. Perfection repetition
4. Connectional learning activity development
Craft Master 1. Master of Journeyman skills
2. Perfection repetition
3. Evaluation
4. Masterpiece creation 1. Late evaluation
2. Synthesis 1. Evaluation
2. Creative problem solving
3. Connectional Mastery repetition w/a Master
4. The Masterpiece
5. Right and left brain simultaneity
Problem based learning actually taps all of these venues noted in Table I.
Bloom’s Taxonomy seems to be the ‘white collar” version of Craft Mastery (‘blue
collar’), while the Trinity is a combination of the two blanketing the
professional, discipline, craftsmanship cores of learning, fostering restoration
and renewal.
Features of Problem Based Learning (See also Table I)
1. Practical learning via problem or scenario displays. (Wood, 1985)
2. Problems are solved with progressive disclosure as students begin with
assignments to each other for gathering information, which leads to further
connections required needing further clarification. (Barrows & Tamblyn, 1980;
Engle, 1998). This may be argued, is the basis for scholarly enquiry. (Allen, et
al, 1998)
3. Featured thinking is solution based, rather than problem based. (Allen, et
al, 1996)
4. In Bauer, et al in 2002, these were the noted results of PBL
a. Improved quality of student/faculty interactions
b. Increased level of student comfort in the learning environment
c. Increased level of learning due to increased collaboration, an increased
ability to consider, evaluate and respect other points of view
d. Improved communication and interpersonal skills
5. PBL empowers the learner by accepting the responsibility for the learning
accomplished. (DiPietro, 2004)
6. The teacher becomes a true Master, by setting the pace (problem scenario),
and the learners truly learn, since their solution must be planned, produced and
controlled. (DiPietro, 2004)
Why Move toward PBL/Craft Mastery
The key features already noted should provide a reasonable presentation of how
important this venue provides in the teaching/learning environment. The goals
are indeed evident, that this is a learner-centered venue…in Cardiopulmonary
Sciences adoption of this craft mastery venue, it only seemed appropriate (we
were doing much of it anyway, and still have a way to go) direction to move as a
diagnostic/therapeutic health technologies profession. But it will function for
the diagnostic or therapeutic professions, mathematics, biology, humanities,
etc. as well.
If PBL/Craft Mastery fascinates you because of the potentials they provide, then
you are probably a good candidate for training and preparations to accomplish
it. Warning: if these venues do not fascinate you, or you feel you do not have
enough time for preparation of yourself or learners, then these venues are
probably not for you.
So Let’s Say You Buy PBL/Craft Mastery…What Now?
Things that need to be done…
1. You need training and a mentor
2. You need to evaluate your classroom situation(s) to determine if the
classroom itself is conducive to PBL/Craft Mastery---REMEMBER: AS A FACULTY
MEMBER, YOU WILL BE RELINQUISHING THE POWER OF THE PODIUM
3. You need to evaluate your learners as to learning styles and whether your
learners are left, right or ‘combi’ brain predominants
4. This venue is to be used daily, not sporadically. Since perfect repetition is
one of those critical keys to PBL/Craft mastery presentation for positive
learner outcomes, the real benefits of these venues will not come to fruition
with sporadic presentation.
5. While PBL thrives with group learning dynamics, Craft Mastery does as well,
but is better suited to individualized learning---using both captures multiple
learning dynamics. This means faculty truly must be prepared as the Master…not
as a lecturer!! You will be facing multiple dynamics simultaneously.
6. Preparation is everything. This will become the motto of faculty and learners
alike.
7. Time management, in the classroom as well as outside is critical---this
fosters responsibility and being able to handle time-to-resolution completion.
8. While faculty will have predetermined goals for a particular classroom
session, please remember, there are probably more. Be ready for questions, and
alternative outcomes that may well be a solution you might not have considered.
9. Faculty observation of learners in groups and as individuals will give clues
to: (a) evolution of leaders; (b) evolution of team and non-team “players”; (c)
learner communication skills; (d) learner acceptance or rejection, or degree of
comfort/discomfort; and (e) learner thinking processes
10. Problems/scenarios presented to the learners are to be open-ended. If
scenarios are closed ended, like leading a witness to a particular conclusion,
it defeats the purpose of PBL/Craft Mastery…you might as well give the learners
the solution.
11. Baby steps---baby steps. PBL/Craft mastery is progressive learning. Present
realistic expectations of learners, and these expectations of performance
ideally should match the learners’ status of educational level of preparation,
i.e., entered apprentice, journeyman, or craft master.
12. Your methods of testing will change with PBL and Craft Mastery---while
mutiple choice designs may still be used, a bulk of evaluation of learner
performance will be based upon the ability of your learners to develop
solution(s) to the scenarios which are tied to specific outcome.
Caveats, Concerns & Difficulties
This is not an all inclusive list, but will give you some idea of the potential
struggles in these learning venues.
1. Most of your learners will not have been exposed to these venues prior to
your PBL/Craft mastery classroom. Learners like this will wonder why you are not
lecturing. Prep the learners about these new venues.
2. Fostering learner responsibility is not easy. As the Master, you are not to
follow learners around to make sure they are responsible---the second motto for
an entered apprentice and for you: The apprentice seeks the Master---not vice
versa.
3. Faculty preparation actually increases, at least initially. You have to
practice in developing your scenarios to match course or programmatic outcomes.
4. Alert your division dean that you are using these venues, and the possibility
with this new implementation, you may well increase your classroom attrition.
This doesn’t always occur, but often does initially. All learners just will not
buy these venues of learning. And it should be no surprise, that all faculty
will not buy the venues either. (Note #5)
5. Commitment, focus, and desire of implementing faculty and division deans is
critical to preparation and implementation of PBL and Craft Mastery. The same is
true of learners engaging in the venues.
6. This is not a magic teaching/learning venue. PBL and Craft Mastery have been
used for at least 4.25 millenia, so they are time-tested. The real magic is
within you and your learners.
7. This is best-case scenario learning. If you happen to be a pessimist, these
venues will probably not work, either for you or your learners.
8. Make sure that your learners understand the goals and outcomes of your
course/program. This is not just about the vision, or mission or course
syllabus. It is however, about learner growth and development, toward a higher
level of understanding; learners being able to think on their feet; learners
being able to troubleshoot life-based situations; and learner ability to find
answers when they may not have them.
9. Think about your move toward PBL/Craft Mastery seriously. You will be
investing an incredible amount of time to develop, implement, and evaluate.
Cardiopulmonary Sciences has been engaging in this venue for seven years, so
this is not a quick investment, or just something to do.
10. Finally, you will meet with resistance and non-compliance from faculty and
learners alike. Be prepared for this! These venues foster progression and
long-term connectional learning. Interestingly, this can be a blessing for the
learner who may well be struggling with a content area, because multiple support
resources unfold.
11. Non-achievement is critical to mastery skills.
12. Understanding takes more time and effort than just knowing.
Summary
PBL and Craft Mastery are time-consuming venues requiring preparation, changes
in how faculty function, and changes in how learners can learn. But improved
communication, support, and strengthened learner engagement and performance
outcome is worth the effort---provided the faculty, and administrators support
and endorse the venues, as well as the learners.
Once it really flies, however, its incredible fun for faculty and learners.
Bibliography
References
Albanese, M. A. and S. Mitchell (1993). Problem-based learning: A review of
literature on its outcomes and implementation issues. Academic Medicine 68,
52-81.
Allen, D. E. (2002). Who owns the Geritol solution? University of Delaware PBL
Clearinghouse. Retrieved July 31, 2002 from https://www.mis4.udel.edu/Pbl/index.jsp
Allen, D.E. and B. J. Duch, Eds. (1998). Thinking towards solutions:
Problem-based learning activities for general biology. Philadelphia: Saunders
College Publishing.
Allen, D.E., Duch, B. J., and Groh, S. E. (1996). The power of problem-based
learning in teaching introductory science courses. In L.A. Wilkerson, and
W.Gisjalaers (Eds), Bringing problem-based learning to higher education: Theory
and practice. (New Directions in Teaching and Learning 68) (pp. 43-52). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Allen, D. E., and White, H. B. III. (2001). Peer facilitators of in-class
groups: adapting problem-based learning to the undergraduate setting. In J. E.
Miller, J. E. Groccia, and M. S. Miller (Eds), Student-assisted teaching: A
guide to faculty-student teamwork. (pp. 134-139). Bolton, MA: Anker.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (1990). The liberal art of
science: agenda for action. In Report of the project on liberal education and
the sciences. Washington, D. C.: American Association for the Advancement of
Science.
Barrows, H. S., and Tamblyn R. N. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to
medical education. New York: Springer.
Bauer, K., Bauer, G., Revelt, J. and Kight, K. (2002). A framework for assessing
problem-based learning at the University of Delaware. Presented at PBL 2002: A
Pathway to Better Learning conference, June 20, Baltimore, MD.
Boud, D., and Feletti, G. (1998). Changing problem-based learning: Introduction
to the second edition. In D. Boud, and G. Feletti. (Eds.), The challenge of
problem-based learning (pp. 1-14). London: Kogan Page.
Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University. (1998).
Reinventing undergraduate education: A blueprint for America's research
universities (pp. 21 of pdf version). Stony Brook, NY: State University of New
York at Stony Brook: Retrieved September 9, 2001 from http://naples.cc.sunysb.edu/Pres/boyer.nsf/
Coles, C. (1998). Is problem-based learning the only way? In D. Boud, and G.
Feletti (Eds.), The challenge of problem-based learning (pp. 313-325). London:
Kogan Page.
Dinan, F. J., and Bieron, J. F. (2001). To spray or not to spray: A debate over
DDT. J. College Science Teaching 31(1), 32-36.
DiPietro, J.S. (1999). A primer for health care, health education and all
disciplines amidst change. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press.
DiPietro, J.S. (2003). White paper #6: craft mastery and learner performance in
cardiopulmonary sciences. For HEA TITLE III “Strengthening Institutions,”
Activity 2 Summary, Health Technologies, Southwest Virginia Community College.
Richlands, VA.
DiPietro, J.S. (2004). Pre-apprenticeship pilot nets rt students for southwest
Virginia community college.
AARCTimes 28(1), 30-34.
DiPietro, J.S. (2004). Work keys, craft mastery and cardiopulmonary science:
relationships of learner performance. Unpublished Work. Southwest Virginia
Community College. Cardiopulmonary Sciences Programs. Richlands, VA. A
presentation for October 2004, VCCA Annual Conference.
Donham, R. S., Schmieg, F. I., and Allen, D. E. (2001). The large and the small
of it: A case study of introductory biology courses. In, Duch, B. J., S. E.
Groh, and D. E. Allen (Eds.), The power of problem-based learning: A practical
'how to' for teaching courses in any discipline (pp. 179-192). Sterling: Stylus.
Duch, B. J. (1996). Problems: A key factor in PBL. About Teaching 50 (Spring),
7-8.
Duch, B. J. (2000). A bad day for Sandy Dayton: The physics of accident
reconstruction. J. College Science Teaching 30(1), 17-21.
Dunkbase, J.A., and Penick, E. (1990). Problem-solving in the real world. J.
College Science Teaching 19, 367-370.
Groh, S. E. (2001). Riverside's Dilemma. University of Delaware PBL
Clearinghouse. Retrieved August 2, 2002 from https://www.mis4.udel.edu/Pbl/index.jsp
Groh, S. E., Williams, B. A., Allen, D. E., Duch, B. J., Mierson, S., and White,
H. B. III. (1997). Institutional change in science education: A case study. In
C. D'Avanzo, and
A.P. McNeal (Eds.), Student-active science: Models of innovation in college
science teaching (pp. 83-94). Philadelphia: Saunders College Publishing.
Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six
thousand student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics course.
Amer. J. Phys. 66, 64-74.
Hans, V. P. (2001). Integrating active learning and the use of technology in
legal studies courses. In, Duch, B. J., S. E. Groh, and D. E. Allen (Eds), The
power of problem-based learning: A practical 'how to' for teaching courses in
any discipline (pp. 141-148). Sterling: Stylus.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R. T., and Smith, K. A. (1991). Cooperative learning:
Increasing college faculty instructional productivity. ERIC-ASHE Higher
Education Report No. 4. Washington, D.C.:George Washington University.
Kaufman, A., Mennin, S., Waterman, R., Duban, S., Hansbarger, C., Silverblatt,
H., Obenshain, S. S., Kantrowitz, M. Becker, T., Samet, J, and Wiese, W. (1989).
The New Mexico experiment: educational innovation and institutional change.
Academic Medicine 64, 285-294.
Mayo, W.P., Donnelly, M. B., and Schwartz, R.W. (1995). Characteristics of the
ideal problem-based learning tutor in clinical medicine. Evaluation and the
Health Professions 18(2), 124-136.
Petersen, A. C. (1996). Women in science: Beyond the false summit. ASM News 62,
120-121.
Project Kaleidoscope (1991). What works: building natural science communities.
Volume One. Washington, D.C.: Stamats Communications.
Shipman, H. L., and B. J. Duch (2001). Problem-based learning in large and very
large classes. In, Duch, B. J., S. E. Groh, and D. E. Allen (Eds), The power of
problem-based learning: A practical 'how to' for teaching courses in any
discipline (pp. 149-163). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Springer, L., Stanne, M. E. and Donovan, S. (1999). Effects of small-group
learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology:
A meta-analysis. Review of Education Research 69, 21-52.
Tobias, S. (1990). They're not dumb, they're different: Stalking the second
tier. Tuscon, AZ: Research Corporation.
Uno, G. E. (1997). Learning about learning through teaching about inquiry. In C.
D'Avanzo and A.P. McNeal (Eds.), Student-active science: models of innovation in
college science teaching (pp. 189-200). Philadelphia: Saunders College
Publishing.
Watson, G. B. (2001). Rice-a-roni: A San Francisco treat. Newark, DE: University
of Delaware Problem-Based Learning Clearinghouse. Retrieved July 27, 2001 from:
https://www.mis4.udel.edu/Pbl/index.jsp
Watson, G.H., and Groh, S. E. (2001). Faculty mentoring faculty: The Institute
for Transforming Undergraduate Education. In, Duch, B. J., S. E. Groh, and D. E.
Allen (Eds), The power of problem-based learning: A practical 'how to' for
teaching courses in any discipline (pp. 13-25). Sterling: Stylus.
White, H. B., III (1995). Dating Eve. University of Delaware Problem-Based
Learning. Retrieved August 2, 2002 from: http://www.udel.edu/pbl/curric/chem647prob.html
White, H. B., III (2001). Why does my cruorine change color? Using classic
research articles to teach biochemistry topics. J. College Sci. Teaching 31,
106-111.
Williams, B. A. (2001). Introductory physics: A problem-based model. In, Duch,
B. J., S. E. Groh, and D. E. Allen, Eds, The power of problem-based learning: A
practical 'how to' for teaching courses in any discipline (pp. 265). Sterling,
VA: Stylus.
Woods, D. (1985). Problem-based learning and problem solving. In D. Boud (Ed.),
Problem-based learning for the professions (pp. 19-42). Sydney: HERDSA.
Sources of PBL Problems or Cases
Allen, D.E. and B. J. Duch, Eds. (1998). Thinking towards solutions:
Problem-based learning activities for general biology. Philadelphia: Saunders
College Publishing. (25 problems with teachings notes available in instructors'
edition)
Center for Case Studies in Engineering, Carleton University, Rose-Hulman
Institute of Technology (1997). The engineering case library. Retrieved August
2, 2002 at http://www.civeng.carleton.ca/ECL/cat-f93.html (A collection of
several hundred engineering cases, some of which can be downloaded from the
Internet)
J. College Science Teaching (2000 and 2001). Volumes 30(no.1) and 31 (no. 1).
(These issues are dedicated to case study teaching in the sciences, and provide
sample cases and teaching notes.)
National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science. (2002). Case study
collection. Retrieved August 1, 2002 from http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/projects/cases/case
Newton, L. H. (2001). Watersheds 3: Ten cases in environmental ethics. Belmont,
CA:Wadsworth Publishing.
Ommundsen, P. (2001). PBL in biology. Retrieved July 28, 2002 from http://www.saltspring.com/capewest/pbl.htm
(Short problem scenarios targeted for introductory level biology).
Rangachari, P. K. (2002). Problem writing: A personal casebook. P. K. Rangachari,
Department of Pharmacology, McMaster University. http://www.fhs.mcmaster.ca/pbls/writing/contents.htm
(From PBL courses in pharmacology and an arts and sciences inquiry course,
written by an expert practitioner.)
Rosen, F. S., and R. S. Geha. (2001). Case studies in immunology: A clinical
companion Garland Science. New York: Garland Publishing.
Simmons, S. University of Minnesota. The clearinghouse for decision case
education. (1999). Retrieved August 1, 2002 from http://www.decisioncase.edu/catalog.htm
(A catalog of decision cases in agriculture, food, natural resources and the
environment)
Southeastern Missouri State University and BioQUEST Curriculum Consortium
(2002). Life lines online. Retrieved July 26, 2002 from http://www.bioquest.org/lifelines/
(Investigative cases used in a variant of PBL. Although targeted for 2-year
colleges, suitable for use in introductory life sciences courses in all other
higher education settings)
Underwood, L., S. (2000). Case studies in environmental science. Pacific Grove,
CA: Brooks Cole.
University of Delaware (2002). PBL clearinghouse. Retrieved July 15, 2002 from
https://www.mis4.udel.edu/Pbl/index.jsp (Problems plus teaching notes for the
humanities, basic and applied sciences, and the social sciences, protected from
student access).
Copyright © 2004
|
