I see many parallels and commonalities between this approach and the guided design approach. As I stated last week, I am a huge fan of guided design; so naturally I am a fan of this approach as well. However, I have to say that I am less-partial to this approach than the guided design approach. Unless I have misunderstood the model, this approach is not a simple project that students are allotted a week or two to work together on in groups, this is a long-term model. Essentially there is no formal lecture or instruction but the students teach themselves along the way of solving the problem which is presented. I believe this is a novel approach and is a great idea (given the proper situation) but I do feel there are times when formal instruction is necessary. Perhaps this is why I favor the guided design approach more-so than PBL.
In the case of guided design, the student is presented with content and then asked to apply it. In contrast, PBL says "you must determine the knowledge you need, learn it, then use it". This puts an enormous burden on the student, in my opinion. I believe this process is valuable in creating students who are self-directed and life-long learners but I think that we are overlooking that fact that students are....well, students. Though they are capable of teaching themselves under certain circumstances, it shouldn't be left to them to fully instruct themselves. I also agree that there is a barrier with sacrificing breadth for depth. It raises the question of which is better, depth or breadth. Perhaps a good balance would be to shoot for breadth in general and then go for depth on the most essential elements of the course. If I were to use this model, I would use formal lecture to cover the breadth of the subject and then give the students PBL activities to focus on the most important areas of the curriculum. I am sure are many who will disagree with me on that statement (because it defeats many of the purposes of PBL) but it is merely a suggestion or food for thought at least.
Zac,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you about lecturing first and then using PBL. I believe PBL is all about applying knowlege to real-world situations. How many people do you know who are "book smart" and know how to get all the right answers on a test, but have no idea how to deal with or relate to others?
I believe that's what my college field experiences were all about. You learn basic classroom management techniques in your lower level education classes. Then you
"practice" what you have learned by going out into the classroom. You meet once a week with other classmates to discuss what is happening and how to be more effective. The cooperating teacher that you work with also helps to guide you and give feedback.
Zac -
ReplyDeleteI have to say that I like your approach to PBL. I think you are right when say that students are students. Some might be capable of self-directed learning but others are not. I think this model may not meet the needs of those students whose learning will suffer as a result of being part of a group that is not willing to work as hard or able to really apply the material to what they are learning. I think mixing it up with lectures and more instructor input would go a long way to alleviate some of that.
Zac - I agree with your comments about PBL. Since I teach in high school, it is extremely hard to structure the lessons to incorporate PBL. Guided Design is a much more effective way for me to teach my curriculum. Your suggestion to give your students breadth, then allow them to develop/acquire the depth is a wonderful way to introduce this model to students.
ReplyDelete