Problem-based Learning and Creativity

OTHER PBL SERIES Problem-based Learning Innovation: Using problems to power learning in the 21st century (by Oon-Seng T...

Author: Oon-Seng Tan

170 downloads 2202 Views 4MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

OTHER PBL SERIES Problem-based Learning Innovation: Using problems to power learning in the 21st century (by Oon-Seng Tan)

Enhancing Thinking through Problem-based Learning Approaches: International Perspectives (edited by Oon-Seng Tan)

Problem-based Learning in eLearning Breakthroughs (edited by Oon-Seng Tan)

Australia • Brazil • Japan • Korea • Mexico • Singapore • Spain • United Kingdom • United States

Problem-based Learning and Creativity Oon-Seng Tan Publishing Director: Paul Tan Assistant Publishing Manager: Pauline Lim Senior Product Director: Janet Lim Senior Product Manager: Charles Ho

© 2009 Cengage Learning Asia Pte Ltd ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this work covered by the copyright herein may be reproduced, transmitted, stored or used in any form or by any means graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including but not limited to photocopying, recording, scanning, digitalizing, taping, Web distribution, information networks, or information storage and retrieval systems, without the prior written permission of the publisher. For permission to use material from this text or product, email to [email protected]

Copy Editor: Lee Ming Ang

ISBN-13: 978-981-4253-14-7 ISBN-10: 981-4253-14-6

Cover Designer: Meng Hui Lee

Cengage Learning Asia Pte Ltd 5 Shenton Way #01-01 UIC Building Singapore 068808

Cover Image: iStockphoto Compositor: International Typesetters

Cengage Learning is a leading provider of customized learning solutions with office locations around the globe, including Singapore, the United Kingdom, Australia, Mexico, Brazil and Japan. Locate your local office at: www.cengage.com/global Cengage Learning products are represented in Canada by Nelson Education, Ltd. For product information, visit www.cengageasia.com

Printed in Singapore 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11 10 09 08

CONTENTS Foreword vii Preface ix Contributors xv 1. Problems and Creativity 1 Oon-Seng Tan, Chua-Tee Teo, and Stefanie Chye 2. Problem-based Learning and Creativity: A Review of the Literature 15 Oon-Seng Tan, Stefanie Chye, and Chua-Tee Teo 3. Facilitating Problem-solving Processes for Adaptors and Innovators 39 Jessie Ee and Oon-Seng Tan 4. Problem-based Learning Communities: Using the Social Environment to Support Creativity 51 Marion Porath and Elizabeth Jordan 5. Developing Creative Learning Environments in Problem-based Learning 67 Sari Poikela, Pirjo Vuoskoski, and Maija Kärnä 6. Inspiring Creativity through Embodied Aesthetic Pedagogic Design 87 Pauline Sameshima 7. Creativity and Group Dynamics in a Problem-based Learning Context 109 Clara E. Gerhardt and Claire Michelle Gerhardt

vi

Contents

8. The Problem-based Learning Model for Teaching Entrepreneurship 127 Shipra Vaidya 9. Internet-enhanced Seven-Jump Problem-based Learning: Promoting Creativity, Economic Literacy, and Argumentation Skills 145 Jonggyu Bae 10. Using Problem-based Learning Activities to Identify Creatively Gifted Mathematics Students 155 Scott Chamberlin 11. Group Collaboration in an Online Problem-based University Course 173 Donna Russell 12. Assessment of Creative Knowledge Building in Online Problem-based Learning 193 Tjaart Imbos and Frans Ronteltap 13. E-Portfolios for Problem-based Learning: Scaffolding Thinking and Learning in Preservice Teacher Education 205 Woon Chia Liu, Albert K. Liau, and Oon-Seng Tan 14. Transgenerational Problem-based Web Development Learning Experience 225 William E. J. Doane and Joette Stefl-Mabry

FOREWORD Educational innovation and transformation are taking place worldwide. In the United States, research on ways to improve curricula and pedagogy has been conducted at various levels, from elementary school to undergraduate education. In the Middle East, governments have been investing heavily on initiatives to improve education and jump-start innovation. Rapidly rising economies such as China and India are not only improving their mass education but also focusing on establishing best practices for both niche areas and scalable solutions. In Singapore, education has gone beyond the basics and fundamentals of literacy and mathematical and scientific competence to diversification of learning methods to promote smart learning as well as effective and creative thinking. In recent years, several educational agencies from countries such as Abu Dhabi and Bahrain have sought the expertise and experience of our National Institute of Education (NIE) in developing their education reform programs to achieve similar goals. As Director of NIE, I am privileged to have the opportunity to work with some of the most forward-looking academics and practitioners. This volume is just one example of the contributions of NIE academics, who are helping to change educational ideas and practices in Singapore and internationally with their expertise. Dr. Oon-Seng Tan, the editor of this volume, NIE’s Dean of Foundation Programmes and Head of Psychological Studies as well as immediate past president of the Educational Research Association of Singapore, has written or edited several publications on problem-based learning (PBL) and its role in educational innovation, enhancing thinking, and e-learning. These publications have generated much interest among researchers working on undergraduate education reform and development in the learning sciences. An advocate of PBL, Oon-Seng has helped revamp the educational studies curriculum, one outcome of which is the educational psychology module, where

viii

Foreword Contents

student teachers learn educational psychology by working on realworld problems using a combination of self-directed, peer, and collegial learning approaches that are designed to meet the demands of the discipline and the profession. Oon-Seng is an internationally recognized scholar in PBL. In 2007, he was invited to address a presidential session on PBL and e-learning at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting in Chicago. That same year, he delivered an Education and Human Resource Distinguished Lecture at the National Science Foundation in Washington, D.C., an event where experts are invited to share the latest developments of interest to the community of researchers, policy makers, academics, and educators. This book on PBL and creativity represents Oon-Seng’s attempt to further ideas and research in PBL, and the interface of PBL with creativity is certainly timely as schools and colleges work on infusing creativity as an important capability in learning. I congratulate Oon-Seng and his international collaborators for their contributions to advancing this area. LEE SING KONG Professor and Director National Institute of Education

PREFACE Problem-based learning (PBL) can be considered as both an idea as well as a model for approaching learning. PBL is supported in many ways by theories in the learning sciences ranging from constructivism and cognition to problem solving. As an interventionist model, it has also been substantiated by research that demonstrates its effectiveness in promoting higher-order thinking, knowledge construction, collaborative learning, and independent learning. PBL has now permeated every level, from higher and professional education down to secondary and primary education, and found application in sustainable educational practices. In the more than one decade that I have been involved in work and research on the application of PBL, I have not stopped being amazed by how a simple model like PBL can generate so much interest and gain so much momentum internationally. I salute the efforts of the hundreds of educators, academics, and practitioners who continue to keep PBL alive and use it to transform lessons and curricula. It has been a privilege to interact with practitioners and researchers worldwide when I survey the interest in PBL across the world. We have moved from interfacing PBL across disciplines and contexts to linking ideas of PBL with technology and creativity. I had the honor of being invited by the National Science Foundation (NSF) in 2007 to deliver an Education and Human Resource Distinguished Lecture about my work on PBL. This presented me an invaluable opportunity to interact with scientists working on a variety of interdisciplinary problems, which enriched my ideas on the interconnectivity of PBL with fields such as cognitive science and future technologies. In a teleconference with Professor Daniel E. Atkins, Director of the NSF Office of Cyberinfrastructure, we concurred on the importance of understanding the interface between human learning and future technologies in problemsolving situations. Prior to the NSF visit, I also had several video- and

x

Contents Preface

teleconferences with researchers across the United States during which we shared how PBL work may interface with research pertaining to future technologies, development of reflective tools in education, fostering problem-solving acumen, understanding the misconceptions about learning, new ways of engaging learning, and the importance of ethics and socio-emotional learning. With the call for innovation and the quest for novelty not only in learning but also in dealing with real-world challenges becoming more urgent, it is timely to gather together ideas and thoughts on PBL and creativity. No doubt creativity is a very broad subject and its scope defies definition. This collection therefore focuses on the creative use of PBL as well as its potential for fostering creativity. Many ideas shared here are preliminary and so serve to lay the ground for further development. Problems require solutions, and effective solutions necessitate innovation. Thus, problems and creativity are closely linked. Furthermore, PBL provides ample opportunities for creativity in the learning approaches and in the use of technology. I am thankful to our international team of contributors from Canada, Finland, India, Korea, the Netherlands, Singapore, and the United States for sharing their many ideas, conceptualizations, and research. The volume begins with a chapter on problems and creativity, in which Oon-Seng Tan, Chua-Tee Teo, and Stefanie Chye argue that problems provide opportunities for innovation by acting as a catalyst for creative thought. They draw on real-life examples of innovations and anecdotes from the lives of prominent creators to illustrate how problems can engage curiosity, inquiry, and thinking in meaningful and powerful ways. Real-world challenges increasingly require creative solutions that are both evolutionary and revolutionary. To be compatible with these demands, curricula must change such that problems are used as the spark to trigger learning and the seed to germinate creativity. This is the heart of PBL, an instructional method that through active engagement stimulates creative thinking and creative problem solving. Tan, Chye, and Teo then review relevant literature in Chapter 2 in an attempt to determine the potential of PBL for fostering creativity. The contention that PBL is an effective means of cultivating creativity may be promising in theory but lacks systematic empirical support.

Contents Preface

xi

Results of the review seem to indicate that, while a corpus of studies documenting the positive effects of PBL exists, their academic rigor and quality are in question. Further studies would benefit by understanding the limitations of previous research and should exercise discretion by qualifying any proclamations of PBL as a panacea for our students’ lack of creative thinking. In Chapter 3, Jessie Ee and Oon-Seng Tan discuss adaption and innovation in relation to problem solving. Adaptors and innovators are two creative styles defined in the well-established Kirton’s adaption– innovation continuum, according to which adaptors choose to do things better while innovators choose to do things differently. The writers deliberate on how adaptors and innovators are likely to perform in problem-solving tasks with implications for teachers and employers on their roles in facilitating problem solving for the two creative styles. In Chapter 4, Marion Porath and Elizabeth Jordan share their experience of the challenges and benefits in building educational environments that support risk taking and creativity and discuss ways to support learning communities in which creativity flourishes. They also consider the social aspects of meaning making that contribute to creativity and how these aspects are fostered in PBL communities. Sari Poikela, Pirjo Vuoskoski, and Maija Kärnä explore in Chapter 5 the development of creative learning environments in PBL. The challenges of PBL are examined through two empirical case studies that investigated computer-supported supervision of physiotherapy students undergoing practical training and the construction of individual and group knowledge bases among business students using an asynchronous discussion forum and Wiki. In Chapter 6, Pauline Sameshima shares her experience in inspiring creativity through embodied aesthetic pedagogic design and an artsbased research and learning methodology called performative inquiry. She explains in depth how teachers can transform curriculum goals into a PBL framework and develop a creative learning environment that allows access to a multiplicity of possible answers for solving the problem at hand while deeply engaging the learner. In Chapter 7, Clara E. Gerhardt and Claire Michelle Gerhardt address the issue of creativity and group dynamics in a PBL context. They point

xii

Contents Preface

out that the team context provided by PBL affords opportunities to enhance creative output by harnessing the power of group processes. The combined input of a multi-professional team allows high creativity and sophisticated end products. Knowledge of group dynamics can elevate the creative process to a higher level and minimize elements that are destructive to group functioning. Chapter 8 describes a PBL model for teaching entrepreneurship. Shipra Vaidya reports the results of a pilot course designed to introduce the concept of entrepreneurship to elementary students using the unique model. The objective of the course is to broaden the scope of general education and build students’ entrepreneurial knowledge and skills so as to ensure their well-rounded development and to lay the foundation for future employability by arming them with general core skills. In Chapter 9, Jonggyu Bae presents an Internet-enhanced PBL model designed to promote creativity, economic literacy, and argumentation skills by harnessing the power of the Internet to scaffold students’ metacognitive processes, knowledge construction, and argumentation. The author compares the model with the decision-making model and explains how the former allows students themselves to uncover their knowledge deficiency and thereby prompts them to take steps to address the gaps. Scott Chamberlin discusses PBL as a vehicle for assessing the creativity of gifted mathematics students in Chapter 10. In addition to the analysis of creative and typical responses to a problem, he considers the implications for using PBL tasks to assess creativity. The results indicate that PBL tasks can lend themselves to the identification of creatively gifted mathematicians. In Chapter 11, Donna Russell applies sociocultural learning theories to evaluate online collaborative learning in a problem-based graduate course designed to build advanced problem-solving abilities and knowledge in students. Students’ online dialogues are evaluated and related to their effectiveness in generating the problem solutions. Based on the findings, the author suggests ways to design online PBL courses that would engage students in productive group work. In Chapter 12, Tjaart Imbos and Frans Ronteltap discuss the principles behind the design of computerized assessment of creative knowledge

Contents Preface

xiii

building in an online PBL environment. The proposed methods are based on the mathematical models of latent semantic analysis and Bayesian networks. The aim is to devise a means of automatically interpreting students’ written work to assess their proficiency in the topics that they are learning. The use of e-portfolios is an emergent practice in preservice teacher education. In Chapter 13, Woon Chia Liu, Albert K. Liau, and OonSeng Tan describe the development of an e-portfolio that was piloted in a problem-based educational psychology module. The e-portfolio is presented as an efficient and creative way to scaffold knowledge construction, document students’ learning, and facilitate idea sharing. Preliminary evidence and feedback indicate that the tool provides the anticipated benefits. In Chapter 14, William E. J. Doane and Joette Stefl-Mabry present a transgenerational PBL experience involving undergraduate and graduate students working with K–12 students and in-service teachers in collaborative Web design projects that culminated in the development of Web sites tailored to the learning needs of the K–12 students. The researchers consider the processes and products that evolved from the experience in the light of Mauritz Johnson’s model of intentional education, which delineates and defines the elements of a comprehensive educational endeavor. We hope that readers will see in these chapters how PBL can promote the development of real-world competencies and bring about valued outcomes through new ways of engagement for smart learning, the use of future technologies, and the application of the learning sciences and creative ideas to develop engaging learning environments.

CONTRIBUTORS Oon-Seng Tan is Associate Professor, Dean of Foundation Programmes, and Head of Psychological Studies at the National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. He is President-elect of the Asia-Pacific Educational Research Association (APERA) and Vice-President (Asia and Pacific Rim) of the International Association for Cognitive Education and Psychology. He received an Innovator Award from the Enterprise Challenge Unit of the Prime Minister’s Office of Singapore while he was the Director of the Temasek Centre for Problem-based Learning. Oon Seng’s current research focuses on cognitive psychology, problem solving, and mediated learning. [email protected]

Jonggyu Bae is a social studies teacher at Sinseo High School in Seoul, Korea. He researched into Internet-enhanced problem-based learning for his Ph.D. degree at Seoul National University. His general research interests include powerful learning environments, Web-based learning, and issue-centered curricula. [email protected]

Scott A. Chamberlin is Assistant Professor in elementary and early childhood education at the University of Wyoming, U.S.A., where he teaches undergraduate and graduate mathematics education classes as well as assessment classes. Scott holds a Ph.D. in educational psychology from Purdue University. His research interests include the intersection of mathematical problem solving, affect, and gifted education. Specifically, he has worked closely with modeleliciting activities and problem-based learning tasks. [email protected]

Stefanie Chye completed her bachelor and master’s degrees at the University of Sydney and received her Ph.D. from the National Institute of Education, Singapore. She is a member of several professional organizations including the International Society for the Learning Sciences (ISLS), the European Association for Research in Learning and Instruction (EARLI), and the American

xvi

Contributors

Educational Research Association (AERA). Her research interests include selfregulated learning, sociocultural–historical theory, classroom discourse processes, and problem-based learning. [email protected]

William E. J. Doane holds a Ph.D. in information science from the University at Albany, State University of New York, where he teaches computing courses, and a master’s degree in information and computer science from the University of Hawaii. He participated in a National Science Foundation–funded initiative in Hawaii to develop Web-based tools supporting K–12 teacher collaboration and professional development. Doane is a founding member of ACASE, a professional organization of educators and scientists working to improve education. [email protected]

Jessie Ee is Associate Professor with the Psychological Studies Academic Group, National Institute of Education, Singapore. She obtained her Ph.D. from the University of Newcastle, Australia, specializing in educational psychology and a master’s degree from the National University of Singapore in the area of special education in mathematics, while she majored in English and psychology for her B.A. and special education for her B.Ed. Jessie is the main co-author of Thinking about Thinking: What Educators Need to Know. Her research interests include creative learning styles, motivation, strategy instruction of teachers, and selfregulation. [email protected]

Claire Michelle Gerhardt graduated with a B.F.A. in industrial design from the Rhode Island School of Design and an M.S. in strategic industrial design from the Art Center College of Design, Pasadena, U.S.A., and studied in Singapore in collaboration with the French graduate business school INSEAD. She has worked as a lighting designer and freelance product designer. Claire enjoys projects that acknowledge cross-cultural dimensions, having lived on different continents and being multilingual. She is interested in the dynamics of creative work teams, designing new experiences, and teaching design methodology. [email protected]

Clara E. Gerhardt is Professor and Chair of the Department of Family Studies, Samford University, U.S.A., and previously worked at the South African distance learning university, UNISA. She is the product of three continents: born in

Contributors

xvii

Europe, raised in Southern Africa, and now working and living in North America. Possessing an M.B.A. and a Ph.D., Clara is a clinical psychologist as well as a marriage and family therapist with special interests in family therapy, multicultural issues, education, and problem-based learning. She has presented her work on five continents and has published extensively. [email protected]

Tjaart Imbos is Associate Professor and Senior Lecturer at the University of Maastricht, the Netherlands, specializing in statistics education and related research. He has a special interest in e-learning environments, effective feedback, and using statistical technology, such as latent semantic analysis, text mining, and Bayesian networks, to optimize learning environments. [email protected]

Elizabeth Jordan is Senior Tenured Instructor in the Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia, Canada, where she earned her Ed.D. Her research interests in learning and pedagogy are specifically the enhancement of learning by understanding the developmental aspects of an individual’s way of knowledge acquisition, matching instruction and adapting the environment to support learning, and problem-based learning and its relationship to individual problem-solving capabilities. [email protected]

Albert K. Liau is Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology, HELP University College, Malaysia, and previously Assistant Professor with the Psychological Studies Academic Group, National Institute of Education, Singapore. He is trained as a developmental psychologist and is a registered counselor. His research interests include resilience, the role of social–emotional development in children, and the social impact of Internet use on children. [email protected]

Woon Chia Liu is Assistant Professor with the Psychological Studies Academic Group, National Institute of Education, Singapore. She holds a B.Sc. from the National University of Singapore, Dip.Ed. from the National Institute of Education, and M.Ed. and Ph.D. from the University of Nottingham. Her research interests include motivation and self-concept, as well as innovative teaching strategies such as project work and problem-based learning. [email protected]

xviii

Contributors

Sari Poikela is Professor of Adult Education and heads the “Context-based Knowledge and Competence” research program at OUNAS Research Centre, Faculty of Education, University of Lapland, Finland. She has been involved in curriculum development work in many higher education organizations around Finland and has published several texts on problem-based learning. Her research and teaching areas include problem-based learning, assessment, university pedagogy, learning in adulthood, and qualitative research. sapoikel@ulapland.fi

Marion Porath is Professor in the Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia, Canada. She holds a Ph.D. from the University of Toronto. Her general research interests are different forms of giftedness, young children’s social development, instructional applications of developmental theory, and problem-based learning. Specifically, she is interested in children’s views of themselves as learners and their understanding of teaching, learning, and the social aspects of education; social giftedness; and instruction that supports social understanding. [email protected]

Frans Ronteltap is Associate Professor in educational research and development at the University of Maastricht’s Educational Resources Centre, the Netherlands, involving for the most part in innovation projects focused on the implementation of new technologies in problem-based learning. In his career, he has specialized in instructional design, knowledge development, and knowledge management and has performed many evaluation studies as part of design research. [email protected]

Donna Russell is Assistant Professor in the Curriculum and Instructional Leadership Department, School of Education, University of Missouri-Kansas City, U.S.A. The focus of her Ph.D. studies was educational psychology with an emphasis on cognition and technology. Donna’s research interests include the design and evaluation of three-dimensional collaborative virtual learning environments using cultural historical activity theory. She is implementing a Kauffman Foundation grant project to design three-dimensional virtual worlds for developing problem-based learning processes and geoscience content knowledge in urban high-school students. [email protected]

Contributors

xix

Pauline Sameshima is Assistant Professor in the College of Education, Washington State University, as well as an exhibiting multimedia artist, lyricist, and designer. She researches issues in cultural studies, teacher education, technological learning environment design, and system organization. Pauline is interested in artful scholastic inquiry and alternate forms of knowledge production and acknowledgment. Her dissertation, Seeing Red, has been published as an epistolary novel. [email protected]

Joette Stefl-Mabry is Associate Professor in the Department of Information Studies, College of Computing and Information, and Associate Research Professor in the Department of Educational Theory and Practice, School of Education, University at Albany, State University of New York. She is involved in teacher training for future teacher librarians, and believes that deep change in educational practices must begin during preservice training in order to have a lasting effect. jstefl@albany.edu

Chua-Tee Teo is Assistant Professor with the Psychological Studies Academic Group, National Institute of Education, Singapore. She has received two scholarships for postgraduate studies and has been invited to give talks and train teachers around Asia. Her areas of study include creative talent development, self-knowledge and volitional development, virtues and character development, teacher training in pedagogical knowledge, and differentiation of instruction. Her current research focuses on gifted leadership and ego studies. [email protected]

Shipra Vaidya is Associate Professor at the National Council of Educational Research and Training, India. She specializes in human resource management and entrepreneurship development and has a strong interest in school education programs. Presently, she is working on a project assessing entrepreneurial spirit among elementary students. Shipra publishes regularly on the entrepreneurial needs of the young. Her paper “Developing Entrepreneurial Life Skills” was awarded the Best Newcomer’s Paper Award at the 2007 Institute of Small Business and Entrepreneurship Conference held in Glasgow, Scotland. [email protected]

CHAPTER 1

Problems and Creativity Oon-Seng Tan, Chua-Tee Teo, and Stefanie Chye National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

Abstract In a world filled with challenges where evolutionary and revolutionary innovations are increasingly valued, the capacity for creativity and innovation has emerged as all-important. This chapter argues that problems provide opportunities for innovation by acting as a catalyst for creative thought. It draws upon real-world examples of innovations and anecdotes from the lives of prominent creators to illustrate how problems can engage curiosity, inquiry, and thinking in meaningful and powerful ways. To be compatible with the demands exerted on individuals today, education must change such that problems are used as a means of fueling learning and as a vehicle for cultivating creativity. This need provides the basis for problem-based learning, an instructional method that encourages the development of creative thinking and creative problem solving. Recommendations for an education that is future-ready are considered, with emphasis placed on the salient role that must be granted to creativity and problem-based learning if this goal is to be achieved.

Introduction In September 2007, the first author was invited by the National Science Foundation (NSF) to give an Education and Human Resource Distinguished Lecture in Washington, D.C. Despite being the presenter, he discovered that he was learning a great deal from the questions posed by members of the distinguished audience. The presence of leading scientists, researchers, educators, and human resources experts turned an hour’s presentation into a meeting of minds. Fresh insights arise and

2

Oon-Seng Tan, Chua-Tee Teo, and Stefanie Chye

intuitive learning happens in interesting ways when multiple perspectives are woven and new synergies are sought. Although problems and challenges have always existed, they are coming with increasing frequency, complexity, and diversity. We face not only more and tougher problems but also newer problems and shorter time frames for problem resolution, as well as more global (larger scale) problems requiring integrated solutions. As such, the search for solutions, and how to do it effectively and expediently, becomes increasingly important. From issues as diverse as dealing with global environmental hazards, finding alternative energy sources, and arresting destructive trends in society to developing new drugs, raising agricultural yields, or simply improving a process, we need to look at problems anew. The purpose of research at NSF is to use scientia for the betterment of humanity, and billions of dollars is poured into research every year in the United States. In many other countries, including Singapore, more and more resources are also being directed at research and education, in the quest to solve the neverending problems of humanity. Scientia is the Latin word for “knowledge.” The knowledge that both basic and applied research feeds on today is multidisciplinary in nature. In this new millennium, knowledge is increasingly characterized by the creative integration of information and learning from diverse disciplines. Life science research would not be what it is today without the new connections made between chemistry, biology, physics, and computer technology. The advent of supercomputers has catalyzed research in life sciences and accelerated breakthroughs in biotechnology. The miniaturization of digital devices has been made possible by nanotechnology, a branch of material science, which combines engineering with the basic sciences of chemistry and physics. In industry and business, innovations are made often without the benefit of traditional learning paradigms and models. The real world, in fact, thrives on both evolutionary and revolutionary innovations. Incidentally, that September in 2007, Todd Siler of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology was having his works displayed at the gallery of NSF. Siler’s “artscience” of neurocosmology in many ways epitomizes the way to understand knowledge advancement today. The universe as Siler (1990) sees it imparts its creative processes to us. The creative God of this

Problems and Creativity

3

universe has given us an environment where creativity can be seen everywhere in the universe and in nature all around us. No wonder the observation of nature itself often yields ideas for replication and innovation. For example, by studying the dragonfly, scientists discovered the secret of a water sac that protects the insect’s delicate body, which led to a fighter pilot suit designed to prevent life-threatening tunnel vision and blackout during high-speed flights. Siler’s artscience brings home the power of connectivity. Like the power of neurons firing and connecting to produce a “mechanism of meaning” (a term Siler borrowed from the artist Arakawa and writer Madeline Gins), we need to appreciate the power of different perspectives and of different ways of observing and learning. Indeed, as Bronowski (1956) put it succinctly decades ago, “The scientist or the artist takes two facts or experiences which are separate; he finds in them a likeness which had not been seen before; and he creates a unity by showing the likeness” (p. 27).

Problems as Sources of Creativity Breakthroughs in science and technology are often the result of a fascination with problems. Great learning often begins with preoccupation with a problem, followed by taking ownership of the problem and harnessing multiple dimensions of thinking. The history of science reveals to us that necessity is often the mother of invention. During World War II, research in nuclear technology was accelerated in a desperate search for a powerful weapon that could defeat the invaders and end the atrocities they committed in Europe and Asia. Similarly, the mathematics of operations research was advanced as a result of looking for ways to optimize the combat effectiveness of warships in different locations in the ocean. Other than high technology, there are countless simple innovations that are designed to make our lives better or easier. After World War II, many parts of the world were threatened by food shortage. A Japanese entrepreneur by the name of Momofuku Ando wanted to lend a hand to help the thousands of starving people in different parts of the globe. But keeping food fresh, hygienic, and safe for consumption over long distances

4


was problematic. Noodle was a common staple, and Ando sought an economical way to bring it to people sometimes living in remote places. The problem led him to the idea of instant noodles that can be easily and quickly cooked. Ando invented the world’s first bag-packed “chicken ramen” and in 1948 founded Nissin Food Products. In 1971, he took it one step further and the “cup noodle” was born. Today, Nissin registers annual sales of some 300 billion yen. Problems can take various forms, such as failure to perform, situations in need of immediate attention or improvement, a need to find better or new ways to do things, unexplained phenomena or observations, gaps in information and knowledge, decision-making situations, or a need for new designs or innovations. If we adopt a mindset of learning from problems, there will be real improvement and advancement. The Defence Science Organisation in Singapore is known for its military innovations, such as lighter helmets, rifles, and field equipment designed for greater dexterity and effectiveness. Problems, big or small, can be opportunities for innovation. In Sri Lanka, villages used to rely on kerosene lamps that easily toppled over and rolled on the floor. Dr. Wijaya Godakumbura, a surgeon, found that 40 percent of accidental burn injuries were due to such lamps. But poverty did not permit villagers to switch to other, safer types of lighting. Dr. Godakumbura came up with a simple solution: a short and heavy lamp with two flat sides and a screw-on metal lid. This way the lamp would not topple easily and, even if it did, it would not roll and spill kerosene. Today, more than half a million lamps of this design are in use in Sri Lanka, and the International Red Cross has taken the design elsewhere, such as Banda Aceh in Indonesia. A problem triggers engagement in terms of emotional motivation and deep thinking. When we are solving a problem, we engage in an active search for meaningful information, a proactive immersion in the task, a conscious and subconscious investment of time on the task, and a search for meaning and explanation, along with the adoption of goal and future orientations. In real-world problem solving, the context always appears unstructured in the first instance, and it takes big picture thinking (i.e., a broad overview or a helicopter view of things), analytical thinking, as well as generative and divergent thinking to produce effective solutions.


5

Education and Creativity Education today in many ways needs a new science of dealing with knowledge and information, together with a new art of observation and learning. Even in the past, Aristotle, Euclid, Galileo, Copernicus, Descartes, Boyle, Newton, da Vinci, and Pascal made use of the ways of knowing from both the humanities and the sciences. Contrary to Snow’s (1998) “two cultures” viewpoint, the sciences and the humanities as we know them today are complementary ways of knowing: acknowledging the reality of chaos and uncertainty yet employing the power of evidence and objectivity. A future-ready education must change and use “problems” for learning and infuse creative ways of observation to construct, derive, and create knowledge in students. Kline (1991) articulates most aptly that “the intelligent person is far more easily spotted from his response to new problems not his knowledge of old solutions” (p. 31). Since time immemorial, the intelligence of individuals has been gauged from the questions they ask and the problems they are able to solve. If only schools are able to nurture students who are curious and capable of solving new problems, we would have cultivated more intelligent and creative adults for the future society. The thrust of education is to help students construct their own knowledge about the world rather than passively receiving information. Educational programs with creative problem-solving orientations appear to also stimulate other creative processes in students (VanTassel-Baska & Stambaugh, 2006). The ability of problem-based learning to enhance creative thinking in students has been reported in various countries across disciplines. To solve real-world problems, we need not only logical thinking but also “ana-logical” thinking, the ability to creatively and laterally transfer a whole set of ideas across to another situation. In effective problem solving, not only do we need to be able to draw on and integrate knowledge from multiple disciplines, but we also have to be highly dexterous and flexible in employing diverse modes of thinking, such as seeing the big picture, generating new and alien ideas and viewpoints, as well as having a good sense of reality in terms of the constraints of circumstances, resources, the human perception, and so on. We must learn to be open to new ideas and approaches, and never box

6


ourselves in with preexisting assumptions and fixed ways of doing things. Problems can trigger curiosity, inquiry, and thinking in meaningful and powerful ways. Education needs a new perspective of searching for problems and looking at problems that will achieve the aim of helping students construct their own knowledge. In designing educational programs, we can learn much from the legacy of scientific discoveries. The ability to see a problem amidst a mass of information, to make observations and connections, and to take ownership of problems is necessary to problem solving. Sometimes, immersion in a problem leads to accidental discoveries. At a Stanford alumni gathering in Singapore, Professor Douglas Osheroff revealed how his work led to a Nobel Prize discovery. Osheroff was a graduate student of David Lee and Robert Richardson at Cornell University. At that time, they were looking for “a phase transition to a kind of magnetic order in frozen helium-3 ice,” but Osheroff ’s immersion in the problem led him to observe a different phenomenon: the superfluidity of helium-3. The breakthrough in lowtemperature physics won the team the 1996 Nobel Prize in Physics. Figure 1.1 illustrates how problems lead to cognition and learning. A problem triggers the context for engagement, curiosity, inquiry, and a quest to address a real-world concern. These psychological events, in turn, set in motion certain mental processes (cognition) and behavioral changes (learning).

Psychological events Problem

• Context for

engagement • Curiosity • Inquiry • Quest to address a real-world concern

Cognition and learning • Confronting unstructuredness,

ill-structuredness, and novelty • Active search for information • Proactive immersion in task • Conscious and subconscious

investment of time on task • Motivation to solve the problem:

need for meaning and explanation • Goal orientation • Generative thinking, analytical

thinking, divergent thinking, and synthesis

FIGURE 1.1 Problems lead to cognition and learning


7

The Creative Process The creative ability may be understood as a form of cognitive fluidity underpinning the capacity to operate on familiar symbolic representations that allows novel ones to be generated (Gregory, 2004). Piirto (2004), after examining creativity from the psychological, psychoanalytic, philosophic, business, and technological perspectives, defines the creative process in terms of the seven I’s: inspiration, imagery, imagination, intuition, insight, incubation, and improvisation. Here, the creative process is viewed as a change in perception, or seeing new idea combinations, new relationships, new meanings, or new applications that have not been perceived before. The creative act may be regarded either as a mental or intellectual phenomenon, known as creative thinking or divergent thinking, or as a process that generates social and cultural products, such as music as well as works of art, science, and technology, a concept known as divergent production (Guilford, 1950). Treffinger describes the creative process as a sequence of stages through which a problem is solved systematically (Treffinger, 1996; Treffinger et al., 1994). The term creative problem solving was coined by Osborn (1963) and defined as comprising just three stages: (1) fact finding, including identifying a problem and gathering facts; (2) idea finding; and (3) solution finding, including evaluating and implementing ideas. Martindale (1999) notes the existence of distinct cognitive phases typical in problem solving, discovery, and creative and imagination-rich thinking. The first of these states of mind, the initial phase, is characterized by conscious logical and reality-oriented reasoning, or “secondary process thinking.” The next phase is incubation, a “fallow period” in which no apparent progress on the task or problem at hand is made, and a strong sense of frustration and block may be felt. Then, when the mind has not been consciously focused on the problem for a time, there is illumination or solution. Both the incubation and illumination phases are thought to be characterized by free-associative, nonlogical thinking, also called “primary process thinking.” In addition, the illumination phase is often noted to be accompanied by emotional euphoria, as epitomized by Archimedes’ “Eureka!” as he allegedly jumped from the bath upon

8


realizing the principle of displacement of a liquid by a solid. Many great composers and artists are reported to be most prolific when they are in a sustained form of euphoria. Better known are the stages of the creative process suggested by Graham Wallas in 1926 in The Art of Thought (cited in Davis & Rimm, 2004). These are preparation, incubation, illumination, and verification. The preparation stage involves the clarification and definition of the problem, review of relevant material, examination of the requirements for problem solution, collection of data, and understanding of implications, other innuendos, and previous unsuccessful solutions. The incubation stage is a period of “off-conscious” reflection when the person goes about his or her daily routine and is not actively seeking the solution. The third stage of illumination is when the solution suddenly appears to the person, as in the “Eureka!” or “Aha!” experience. This may come only after many hours of hard work or it may not come at all. The last stage is the verification of the solution, during which the feasibility, workability, or acceptability of the proposed solution is checked. These stages are not necessarily sequential; some may be skipped or the person may backtrack to an earlier stage (Davis & Rimm, 2004). Another way of looking at the creative process is to apply a two-stage model devised by Davis (1998) that involves a “big idea” stage and an “elaboration” stage. The big idea stage is a time of fantasy when one looks for a new, exciting idea or the solution to the problem. Upon stumbling on the “big idea,” one then proceeds to develop it such that it can be elaborated, extended, and implemented. For instance, the artist will first sketch preliminary drawings and then make refinements. The novelist must first draft the story and then revise and re-revise it. The researcher or the entrepreneur needs to organize the details of the big idea before carrying out the work required for its implementation. In whatever way a person understands the creative process or the production of creative outputs, one would invariably look for attributes of fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration, as described by Torrance (1966, 1995) and Guilford (1967). And as teachers, we are all too aware of the positive effects of teaching for creativity in the classroom and cultivating creative traits in students. So how do we go about nurturing creativity?


9

Problem-based Learning and Creative Problem Solving The problem-based learning (PBL) process essentially consists of the following stages: (1) meeting the problem; (2) problem analysis and generation of learning issues; (3) discovery and reporting; (4) solution presentation and reflection; and (5) overview, integration, and evaluation, with self-directed learning bridging one stage and the next (Tan, 2003). In PBL, the problem is cast in a realistic context that the student might encounter in future. Although creative individuals tend to work alone, students in PBL classes work in groups brainstorming issues pertaining to the understanding of the problem and defining it by group consensus. They then work independently on their own to search for more information related to the problem before generating hypotheses and possible explanations to the problem. While this stage may be similar to some of the stages involved in creative problem solving (CPS), PBL in addition calls for the formulation of learning objectives and the assignment of selfdirected learning and peer teaching. The discovery stage in PBL is limited to researching existing information found in books and on the Internet. It is not intuitive like the “Eureka!” experience at the illumination stage of the creative process. Although the discovery process in PBL may be speedy and time-saving, originality may be compromised. On the other hand, by sharing research work and findings, learning is augmented for students in PBL, as the sum of learning by the group is greater than the learning by the individual students or the teaching given by a single teacher in the routine classroom. However, students must be taught to be critical and not blindly accept and follow the ideas put forth by peers. Otherwise, they may lose their ability to think independently or to discriminate between good and poor ideas. Blind imitation also stifles creativity. The articulation of the learning and knowledge acquired in the attempt to solve the given problem helps students clarify their thinking and formulate conceptions accurately and contextually. This stage of PBL encourages students to reflect consciously on their learning, although reflection in the creative process occurs at the incubation stage and is not fully conscious. Finally, the review, evaluation, and integration

10


of learning across disciplines at the last stage of PBL enables the learner to make sense of the new knowledge constructed as a result of problem solving. In all instances of learning, students need to be involved in active thinking, both creative and critical. Thinking cannot occur in a vacuum; it has to take place within a system (Elder & Paul, 2007), like in the context of a problem. Thinkers mentally create provisional small-scale logical models for figuring out the system to be understood, which may or may not match reality. Whether it is PBL or CPS, students are urged to collect evidence, test hypotheses, draw inferences on possible solutions to the problem, and then evaluate the outcomes. When thinking something through for the first time, one generates new ideas, new assumptions, and new concepts by asking new questions, making new inferences, and allowing views to form in new directions. This is basically a creative act. Reasoning or critical thinking is inherently creative, and we need to recognize that critical and creative thinking are inseparable and integrated (Elder & Paul, 2007). In both PBL and CPS, students usually remember some parts of what was figured out previously and then work out the rest anew as they strive to connect new understandings and discoveries to their prior knowledge. However, novel solutions alone are not enough for resolving a problem. Worthless novelty is easy to produce, but whatever synthesized as the solution must meet the intellectual criteria or intrinsic standards known for the intended product or outcome. Creative methods like brainstorming and insight development may be helpful in generating useful ideas or workable solutions and in understanding the problem for both PBL and CPS. While PBL and CPS are similar in their goals and the use of critical and creative thinking in problem solving, they differ in thrust or emphasis, their practical applications, and the degree of divergence and complexity. The thrust of PBL is to nurture self-directed learners (Tan, 2003), and here the aim of promoting creativity is to inculcate an independent attitude to problem identification and solution. The understanding built from self-directed learning is augmented through the sharing of learning experiences with one’s group. PBL is designed to provide a realistic and practical setting for collaborative learning, with all members of the group


11

contributing to problem solving. It is thus more efficient as work is shared. PBL naturally finds its applications more in group-based learning, while CPS applies more to individual settings. Consequently, the pool of ideas generated by the different group members tends to exhibit a higher degree of divergence and complexity compared with the ideas generated by the individual in CPS.

Recommendations We recommend that schools begin with PBL and at the same time encourage the development of creativity and the creative attributes of risk taking and divergent and convergent thinking in students. The rationale for employing PBL in developing creativity is that students feel more confident when working in groups. Creativity is more readily developed in disciplinary areas where the content and process of learning are susceptible to “creative treatment.” Students may be exposed to different artistic media and ways of expressing themselves orally, visually, or kinesthetically, in words, dance, or other creative modes. Teachers may ask students open-ended questions and deploy problem-based scenarios to illicit unusual responses. Reflecting on ideas and considering alternatives constantly is a way to ensure that fresh ideas surface. It appears that creativity evolves from students’ deep knowledge of a domain and self-knowledge (VanTasselBaska & Stambaugh, 2006). Providing students with opportunities to plan, monitor, and assess their own work is crucial to becoming more creative. Giving alternative forms of assignments and allowing choice encourage students to become flexible and creative as well. Another way of helping students understand the development of creativity is to read to them biographies or autobiographies of individuals who have achieved creative breakthroughs in various fields, so that students may appreciate the obstacles that creative personalities need to overcome, the many failures that they have gone through, and the immense amount of effort that they have put in. This will create in students a cognitive and affective awareness of the hardship associated with the development of creative abilities (VanTassel-Baska & Stambaugh, 2006).

12


The above recommendations form a two-pronged approach in fostering problem-solving abilities and nurturing creativity. With PBL implemented in schools, students will become proficient in the methodology of guided discovery learning. At the same time, as teachers strive to provide the pedagogy and environment to nurture creativity in various subject areas, including incorporating PBL as part of the curriculum, students will gradually integrate creative attributes into their lives. With the passage of time and with maturity, highly creative students will surpass their peers and may go on to produce original and true scientific discoveries or great artistic innovations. The progress of humankind is obviously dependent on our ability to create and be creative, not only in problem solving but also in understanding uncharted territories yet to be conquered by the all-powerful human mind or intellect. With PBL as a solid foundation in the training of young students to solve real-life problems through inquiry and independent learning and thinking, we are one step nearer to the goal of education, namely, to bring civilization to greater heights, joyfully.

References Bronowski, J. (1956). Science and human values. New York: Julian Messner. Davis, G. A. (1998). Creativity is forever (4th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (2004). Education of the gifted and talented (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon. Elder, L., & Paul, R. (2007). Critical thinking: The nature of critical and creative thought, Part II. Journal of Developmental Education, 30(3), 36–37. Gregory, R. L. (Ed.) (2004). The Oxford companion to the mind (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444–454. Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill. Kline, P. (1991). Intelligence: The psychometric view. London: Routledge. Martindale, C. (1999). Biological bases of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Osborn, A. F. (1963). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative problem-solving (3rd ed.). New York: Scribner. Piirto, J. (2004). Understanding creativity. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press. Siler, T. (1990). Breaking the mind barrier: The artscience of neurocosmology. New York: Simon & Schuster.


13

Snow, C. P. (1998). The two cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tan, O. S. (2003). Problem-based learning innovation: Using problems to power learning in the 21st century. Singapore: Thomson Learning. Torrance, E. P. (1966). Torrance tests of creative thinking. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service. Torrance, E. P. (1995). Why fly? A philosophy of creativity. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing. Treffinger, D. J. (1996). Dimensions of creativity. Sarasota, FL: Center for Creative Learning. Treffinger, D. J., Isaksen, S. G., & Dorval, K. B. (1994). Creative problem solving: An introduction (rev. ed.). Sarasota, FL: Center for Creative Learning. VanTassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2006). Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.

CHAPTER 2

Problem-based Learning and Creativity: A Review of the Literature Oon-Seng Tan, Stefanie Chye, and Chua-Tee Teo National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

Abstract Problem-based learning (PBL) has been widely touted to be an effective instructional method for the present climate of change and innovation. Supporters vehemently contend that it is an effective means of cultivating creativity. These claims, while promising in theory, seem to lack systematic empirical support. Consequently, it is prudent to scrutinize existing evidence to determine if the increased resources required for PBL are indeed balanced by its educational benefits. This chapter reviews the literature from 2000–2008 in an attempt to determine the efficacy of PBL in fostering creativity. Results of the exploratory review seem to indicate that, although there exists a corpus of studies documenting the positive effects of PBL, their academic rigor and quality are in question. Caution should thus be exercised in proclaiming PBL as a panacea for our education system’s deficiencies in nurturing creativity. In conclusion, areas for future research and the steps that need to be taken to advance knowledge in this sphere are considered.

Introduction: Creativity and Education Creativity is increasingly valued as an essential capability in this age of information. As such, the role of education in fostering creative competencies has received greater emphasis. At the same time, traditional methods of instruction have been criticized for their inadequacies in preparing students for the present climate of change and innovation.

16

Oon-Seng Tan, Stefanie Chye, and Chua-Tee Teo

The need for flexible thinking, an issue that has pervaded discussions of classroom reform, has sparked interest in the potential of the problembased learning instructional method for meeting today’s educational needs. Education has tended to be preoccupied with the traditional form of assessment (i.e., examinations), which often creates mental defaults that generally lead to students focusing on seeking a single “best” answer. In shifting the emphasis to problem solving, we take a cognitive approach that focuses on thinking abilities as the basis of creative work. The term creative is used in a broad sense to mean having the capacity to come up with “original, inventive and novel ideas” (Cropley, 1992, p. 6). Despite its widespread application, the concept of creativity has nevertheless defied a single agreed definition. Creativity is the basis for discovery and innovation. It is considered to be chiefly characterized by two qualities: novelty and usefulness (Sternberg & Lubart, 1996). Definitions have varied depending on whether the researchers define creativity in terms of the creative person, the creative process, the creative product, or the creative environment (Amabile, 1983) and on the researchers’ theoretical perspectives (Ng, 2001). However, product definitions are widely regarded as most useful for creativity research, even among those whose research interests lie in other aspects of creativity (Amabile, 1983). The study of the impact of creative abilities involves understanding creativity in relation to (1) the intrapersonal system and attributes, (2) affective–motivational processes, (3) mediated learning processes, (4) specific cognitive functions related to creativity, (5) creative-thinking and problem-solving tools, and (6) outcomes in the form of real innovations. Interventions in developing creativity assume that deficiencies in creative thinking and skills are attributable to a lack of cognitive intervention and a conducive environment. Creativity is often the result of optimizing various ways of thinking and building on elements of (1) the affective–motivational domain, (2) systematic–strategic thinking, (3) analytical–inferential thinking, and (4) divergent thinking. The affective–motivational domain sets the philosophy and spirit of participation in and commitment to problem-based activities. Systematic and strategic thinking encompasses reflective practice, systematic problem solving, systems thinking, and strategic thinking. Analytical–inferential

Problem-based Learning and Creativity: A Review

17

thinking refers to cognitive functions such as comparison, classification, analytic perception and analysis, logical and inferential thinking, and problem-solving heuristics. Divergent thinking is thinking that radiates or flows outward from an idea or concept, in contrast to convergent thinking, which refers to a collection of information or ideas that focus on a single idea or possibility. Divergent thinking leads to contact with many other ideas, which may include ideas or possibilities that one might not ordinarily consider, and as such it has been argued that it can result in the discovery of remote associations and insights, such as the unusual uses of a common object (Finke, 1995). There have been many studies on divergent thinking and creativity (e.g., Cropley, 1992; Csikszentmihalyi, 1988; Guilford, 1950, 1956, 1970, 1988; Lubart, 1994; Osborn, 1953; Runco, 1991; Sternberg & Davidson, 1995; Torrance, 1986; Treffinger, 1994). However, Piirto (1992) questions whether divergent thinking abilities alone lead to creativity. The many debatable issues pertaining to conceptions of divergent thinking, creativity, and intelligence are beyond the scope of this chapter. Our purpose here is to highlight those aspects of problem-based learning which support the development of cognitive functions that facilitate creativity. While abilities such as generating novel and interesting ideas are often described as creative, Torrance (1986) and Sternberg (1996) point out that creativity also involves the analytical aspects of analysis, evaluation, problem solving, and decision making. How does creativity come about? Lubart (1994) cites the following approaches to the conception of creativity: (1) mystical, (2) psychodynamic, (3) cognitive, (4) social–psychological, and (5) confluence. The mystical approach subscribes to the notion of a supernatural source of creativity (see, e.g., Ghiselin, 1985). The individual is seen as an empty vessel and creative works as the result of inspiration from a divine or mystical source. The psychodynamic approach suggests that creativity arises from the tension between conscious reality and unconscious drives. Freud (1959) contends that writers and artists produce creative work as a way to express their unconscious wishes in a publicly acceptable fashion, citing eminent creators such as Leonardo da Vinci to support his theory.

18


The cognitive approach focuses on thinking abilities and knowledge as the basis of creative work (see, e.g., Guilford, 1950, 1988; Torrance, 1974, 1986). It emphasizes various facets of mental abilities that are linked to creativity. These include divergent thinking, perceptual processes, problem-definition and problem-solving skills, insight skills, induction skills, and the ability to form associations and analogies. More recently, cognitive approaches have also brought in biological bases of creativity, such as the hemispheric roles of the brain. The social–psychological approach focuses on personality variables, motivational variables, and the sociocultural environment as sources of creativity (see, e.g., Barron, 1968). For example, it is argued that creativity in diverse cultures has been linked to environmental variables such as the availability of role models, availability of resources, and how people judge creativity. The confluence approach adopts partial synthesis of approaches such as those above and hypothesizes that multiple components must converge for creativity to occur. Thus, Csikszentmihalyi (1988), for example, has taken a “systems” approach that emphasizes the role of the individual (via cognitive processes, personality traits, and motivation), the field (consisting of people who influence a domain and evaluate new ideas), and the domain (the culturally defined symbol system that transmits creative products to others and to future generations). Sternberg and Lubart (1995) also adopt a confluence approach that relates specific aspects of intelligence, knowledge, thinking styles, personality, motivation, and the environment to creativity. Among these approaches, Lubart (1994) notes that since Guilford’s presentation of creativity in 1950 “the cognitive approach has dominated ideas about the source of creativity” (p. 296). Apart from theorizing about what creativity is exactly, researchers have also been interested in articulating the specific components involved. In the componential theory of creativity, Amabile (1983, 1996) proposes that creativity involves three major components that are sets of elements which control, determine, and enter into creative processes. The three components are, specifically, domain-relevant skills, creativity-relevant skills, and task motivation, and they are regarded as factors essential to the production of creative responses and works. Although these three main components constitute a complete


19

set of generic factors necessary for creativity, the listing and elaboration of the elements within each component awaits further research.

Problem-based Learning for Nurturing Creativity? Problem-based learning (PBL) has been advocated as an alternative, more progressive approach to instruction and one that is premised on offering opportunities for exercising creativity and for its development (Barak, 2006; Tan, 2000b). The embrace of this teaching methodology has, however, been met with some trepidation. This is due in part to the major curricular overhaul that accompanies it and to the multitude of resources that are associated with its implementation (Koh et al., 2008). And while it appears to be promising in theory, systematic empirical evidence is still lacking. Before PBL is advocated as an effective means of cultivating creativity, it would be prudent to scrutinize the evidence and determine if the increased resources required are balanced by the educational benefits. As such, a review of PBL is timely. The purpose of this chapter is to examine the research in the specific area of PBL and creativity in the hope that it would shed light on the efficacy of this instructional method in fostering creative thinking.

Framing the Review PBL has been widely heralded as a methodology that prepares individuals for an ever-changing and evolving knowledge-based society. Supporters contend that, by shifting the focus from content acquisition to achieving broader educational goals, PBL can help individuals be content experts, problem solvers, team players, and lifelong learners, all of which are desired outcomes of education (see, e.g., Dunlap, 2005b; Tan, 2003). Among the outcomes that PBL can potentially produce is the capability for creative thought, which has recently drawn much attention from educators (Barak, 2006; Kwon et al., 2006; Semerci, 2006; Tan, 2000b). It is theorized that by having authentic problems rather than content as the focal point, and with students assuming the role of active problem

20


solvers and teachers as facilitators or guides, higher-level thinking skills are likely to be attained (Semerci, 2006; Tan, 2000a). PBL encourages students to look for new solutions to the problems presented using available knowledge and resources. This process is believed to enhance their creative capabilities (Kwon et al., 2006; Ward & Lee, 2002). In facilitation or coaching, teachers do not steer students to a single, “correct” way of thinking; instead, they indicate that there may not be clear-cut right and wrong answers but different degrees of “right” answers (Gallagher & Stepien, 1995). In the process, creative thinking is stimulated. Despite the strong interest garnered for PBL as a possible means of cultivating creative competencies, and despite its sound theoretical rationale, systematic evidence for a positive relationship between PBL and creativity is scarce. It is dissatisfying to assume on the basis of theorizing alone that establishing good conditions for creative thinking by applying instructional methods such as PBL would necessarily promote creativity. Therefore, in this review, we will compile the findings of studies that have been conducted to assess the impact of PBL on creativity, in order to construct a more coherent picture of this body of research. In an endeavor to cover the most recent research, we have focused on studies conducted in the period 2000–2008.

The Search Process and Terms Conducting a literature review of the effectiveness of PBL in cultivating creativity is a process of construction and selection. It is important, therefore, to be reflexive and to make explicit the motives that initiated the review, the selection criteria employed, and the conclusions drawn (Foster & Hammersley, 1998). To ensure consistency and reduce bias, it is advantageous to follow a systematic approach in which a specific protocol is used to guide the review process (Stevens, 2007). In cases where the field is broad and vague or where the available resources are limited, a more flexible approach can be considered, as it will provide room for informed change in the proposed protocol (Badger et al., 2000). Specific but flexible protocols were used to guide and focus the process of this literature review, owing to the small number of studies investigating PBL and creativity specifically but the relatively large literature base focusing on PBL.


21

The following criteria were established initially to guide the selection of studies for review: 1. The studies should be empirical and data-based. 2. They should be published in peer-reviewed journals from 2000 to 2008. 3. Studies on all educational levels and across all domains would be included to broaden the scope. Although these criteria guided the review process, there were studies that did not fulfill one of the criteria but were included because they were perceived as important or landmark studies. Bibliographic databases such as ERIC, Education Research Complete, PsycARTICLES, PsycCRITIQUES, PsycINFO, and ProQuest Education as well as psychology journals were searched for relevant peer-refereed journal articles using specific search queries. The key search terms included “problem-based learning,” “creativity,” and “creative thinking.” A search was also made of major journals on education and psychology as well as other journals in which research on PBL is likely to be published. This process uncovered a particular journal on PBL called the Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning. Cross-references to other potentially interesting articles were also followed up on. The search produced a miniscule number of relevant studies focused specifically on PBL and creativity. As such, the search was broadened to examine PBL and its impact on specific components of creativity, such as knowledge, self-directed learning, self-regulated learning, critical thinking skills, problem-solving skills, and motivation. This unearthed a corpus of about 3,930 articles. For the literature review to be completed in the allotted space and time, the vast number of articles were sorted by relevance and then their titles scanned quickly. This effort guided decisions on which articles to include and was followed by a scan of the abstracts, which reduced the number of articles to 235. Of these studies, selection for inclusion in this review was made on the basis of whether they were deemed to be important, salient, or interesting, to offer contrasting perspectives, or to be good studies. This review process follows the model of literature review that has been called a “trawl of literature” (Badger et al., 2000), which is commonly employed and serves the purpose of

22


acknowledging sources and sharing writings and research that are interesting and valuable. The same process was employed for the remaining 64 indirect but related studies of PBL and creativity.

Evaluating the Impact of PBL on Creativity: A Review of the Literature Although not many studies have been conducted to directly investigate the relationship between PBL and creativity, there is a corpus of studies that could shed light on how PBL impacts upon the different creativity components. These investigations primarily take the form of experimental and quasi-experimental studies in naturalistic settings as well as large-scale meta-analyses, albeit mostly in the area of medical education. Most of the studies also focus on comparing PBL with traditional modes of instruction. In the rest of this chapter, an analysis of the literature on PBL and creativity is presented.

PBL and Creativity In one of the few noteworthy efforts to directly investigate the link between PBL and creativity, Tan (2000b) examined the impact of a PBL intervention program on students’ creativity. Participants comprised experimental and control groups of first-year polytechnic students studying engineering or the applied sciences. Comparing posttest with pretest results, PBL students in both engineering and the applied sciences demonstrated significant gains in creative abilities. Encouraging results have similarly been reported with students in middle grades that showed PBL curricula had the potential to develop mathematical creativity (Kwon et al., 2006; Chamberlin & Moon, 2005). Although studies that directly investigate the link between PBL and creative capacities have been scarce, there is indirect evidence that may provide some insights. These studies have separately examined the impact of PBL on various components of creative production that may be under-


23

stood in terms of the three components of creativity defined by Amabile: domain-relevant skills, creativity-relevant skills, and task motivation.

PBL and Domain-relevant Skills Domain-relevant skills provide the fundamental basis for any creative performance to occur. They include factual knowledge or domain knowledge, technical skills, and special talents in the domain in question. To date, this is the aspect of creativity with which formal education has been most concerned (Ruscio & Amabile, 1996), and it is also the component of creativity on which PBL research has mostly focused. There is some evidence that has a bearing on understanding the effectiveness of PBL in fostering this dimension of creativity. Although the findings are equivocal, the majority of studies reviewed indicate that PBL can make positive contributions to the development of domain knowledge. Specifically, it can help students construct an extensive and flexible knowledge base that constitutes an important part of the domain-relevant skills necessary for creativity to occur. Pioneering work using meta-analysis to examine research conducted in the area of medical education found that medical students on PBL curricula scored slightly lower than their conventional counterparts on measures of basic science knowledge but slightly better in tests assessing clinical problem solving and on ratings and tests of clinical performance (see, e.g., Albanese & Mitchell, 1993; Vernon & Blake, 1993). In a more recent landmark meta-analysis that endeavored to examine studies outside medical education, PBL was found to have a nonrobust effect on the knowledge of students but a significant moderate positive effect on their knowledge application abilities. In addition, PBL students gained slightly less knowledge but retained more of the acquired knowledge compared with their conventional counterparts (Dochy et al., 2003). In a study comparing the effectiveness of PBL with traditional teaching in an undergraduate psychiatry program, PBL students performed significantly better in examinations both in multiple-choice questions and the viva (McParland et al., 2004). A similar investigation reported better examination performance from PBL students of physical therapy than

24


from the lecture-based group, although the difference was not significant (Kasai et al., 2006). Outside medical education, comparisons of PBL with traditional modes of instruction have similarly yielded encouraging results. As a departure from studies that looked at outcome variables, Hmelo-Silver (2000) examined the artifacts that preservice teachers produced in a problem-based educational psychology course. She reported that although the preservice teachers’ initial understanding of course concepts was weak, as the course progressed they were able to identify appropriate concepts and apply them with more sophistication across multiple problems. Utilizing pre- and post-test research designs, Derry and colleagues similarly found that, after employing PBL, undergraduate students studying statistical reasoning showed improvement in some of the course content (Derry et al., 2000), while another sample of preservice teachers applied more relevant concepts and produced more sophisticated explanations in an assessment task involving the analysis of a video (Derry et al., 2002). Beyond undergraduate and professional education contexts, much less work has been done on younger students. Nonetheless, steps have been taken to advance this line of investigation. In a PBL unit on designing artificial lungs, sixth-grade students demonstrated greater gains on a drawing task and in a true-or-false test than control students that suggested they had a better conceptual understanding and a more systematic view of the respiratory system. Although their understandings may be rudimentary and fragmented in areas, they showed clear advancement (Hmelo et al., 2000). PBL was also found to be more effective than the traditional lecture–discussion approach in developing high-school students’ macroeconomics knowledge, although the improvement was modest (Maxwell et al., 2005; Mergendoller et al., 2006). While such studies have provided insights into the effectiveness of PBL in developing the domain-relevant skills necessary for creativity to occur, they were not adequately controlled for potentially confounding variables (Colliver, 2000). To address this concern, Capon and Kuhn (2004) conducted a controlled systematic experimental study in naturalistic instructional settings on adult students enrolled in an executive MBA program with the aim of documenting specific learning outcomes occurring in a specified time frame that were clearly attributable to the


25

PBL method. They observed that students who experienced PBL not only demonstrated improved understanding but were better able to make sense of things in that they were more competent at integrating newly introduced concepts with existing knowledge and showed enhanced conceptual coherence as well as the ability to restructure conceptual understanding. Taken together, there is a substantial body of research that, to some extent, points to the effectiveness of PBL in supporting the development of domain-relevant skills. The findings in this area of research, however, have not been consistently encouraging. A review of controlled evaluation studies conducted from 1974 to 2000 in continuing medical education, for instance, found limited evidence that PBL increased participants’ knowledge and performance (Smits et al., 2002). More recently, Burris (2005), using a quasi-experimental design to compare secondary agriculture students on PBL with students on supervised study, an instructional technique where students are given basic reference materials to help them find information on their own, reported that PBL students obtained lower scores on content knowledge than students on supervised study. Similar findings have been produced by other researchers that showed no difference in the knowledge acquired between PBL medical students and students attending conventional lecture-based classes (e.g., Beers, 2005; Lycke et al., 2006). On the whole, results are not consistent nor conclusive (see, e.g., the meta-analysis by Gijbels et al., 2005). This is in spite of evidence indicating that PBL can foster, across different domains, the development of domain-relevant knowledge and skills in undergraduate and professional educational contexts (Hmelo-Silver, 2004).

PBL and Creativity-relevant Skills The second component of creative processes is creativity-relevant skills, which include knowledge of heuristics for generating novel ideas as well as appropriate cognitive styles and working styles. A creative working style is characterized by an ability to concentrate for long periods of time and a sense of when to put the problem aside. It is also related to self-discipline, the ability to delay gratification, perseverance in the face of frustration,

26


independence, and nondependence on social approval (Amabile, 1983, 1996; Ruscio & Amabile, 1996). The ability for self-regulation or selfdirection is part of this working style. It should be noted that, while there is a greater tendency to use the term self-directed learning (SDL) in the PBL literature, some researchers also employ the similar term selfregulated learning (SRL) (Lycke et al., 2006). The two terms are used interchangeably in this chapter. At the descriptive level, self-regulated, self-directed individuals are confident, diligent, resourceful, purposeful, strategic-minded, and persistent (Purdie et al., 1996; Zimmerman, 1990). These individuals take the initiative in identifying their learning needs, formulating their learning goals, and choosing their learning resources (Knowles, 1975). They are able to effectively monitor, regulate, and sustain the learning process as well as to apply a variety of appropriate and efficient strategies to the learning problems encountered. They are further capable of maintaining a sense of competence, motivation, and personal agency, accurately diagnosing the character and demands of particular learning challenges, and effectively utilizing and controlling environmental factors that have a bearing on learning outcomes (Lindner & Harris, 1993). One of the claims of PBL is that it emphasizes the development of SDL or SRL (see, e.g., Hmelo-Silver, 2004). Indeed, there is evidence to support this, such as PBL students’ exhibition of more SDL behaviors (Hmelo & Lin, 2000) and significantly better SDL skills (Kasai et al., 2006) than students on a traditional curriculum. These findings have been corroborated with medical students (Lycke et al., 2006; Schmidt et al., 2006), undergraduate computer science students (Dunlap, 2005b), as well as undergraduate physiotherapy students (Yeung et al., 2003). PBL has been reported to produce positive effects on important aspects of SRL in high-school students (Sungur & Tekkaya, 2006), as well as students’ selfdirectedness, although this was dependent on the size of the PBL group (Lohman & Finkelstein, 2000). Blumberg (2000) concluded from a review of the literature on SDL in PBL students that PBL fosters SDL behaviors by encouraging learners to actively seek out information and compelling them to use deep-level processing strategies. Self-direction is promoted as students engage in activities that encourage and enable them to assume more responsibility for their own learning, that urge them to make their


27

cognitive processes overt so that they can monitor and assess the effectiveness of their thinking, and that enculturate them into self-regulation by engaging them in relevant, authentic, and discipline-focused activities (Dunlap, 2005a). Nonetheless, reviews have established that research on this aspect of PBL has not been extensive (Colliver, 2000; Hmelo-Silver, 2004; Kelson, 2000). Work has largely been confined to students in professional training; as such, there is scope for extension to other populations, including younger students, such as those at K–12 levels (Hmelo-Silver, 2004). Further, Kelson (2000) has raised the criticism that, paradoxically, SDL or SRL has been stipulated simultaneously as both a prerequisite and an outcome of PBL. Coupled with the paucity of research in this area, the assumption of PBL’s contribution may well be erroneous. As a result, some researchers have hypothesized that, while PBL may provide students with the opportunity to develop SDL skills, it may be the case that PBL in itself does not develop the skills (Norman & Schmidt, 1992). As Evensen aptly concludes, “PBL curricula, although requiring self-regulation, do not necessarily develop positive forms of self-regulation” (Evensen et al., 2001, p. 661). Apart from the ability for self-regulation or self-direction, creativityrelevant skills can also include critical-thinking and problem-solving capabilities. Creativity cannot be divorced from the ability for critical thought, and the two of them are “inseparable, integrated, and unitary” (Elder & Paul, 2007, p. 36). Similarly, problem-solving abilities are regarded by many researchers as one of the most important parts of creativity (Lee & Cho, 2007). Studies focusing on the effectiveness of PBL in promoting the development of critical-thinking and problem-solving skills have produced equivocal results. Moore (2007), in evaluating the use of PBL in a baccalaureate dental hygiene program, found positive outcomes in both the target skills of critical thinking and problem solving. Semerci (2006) observed that PBL improved the critical thinking skills of education students in their second year of study. Graduate psychology students in Hays and Vincent’s (2004) study felt that PBL promoted critical thinking compared with traditional instructional methods. Undergraduate nursing students on PBL were also reported to register significantly higher scores in critical thinking disposition than those receiving lecture-based instruction, and

28


they continued to show higher scores for two years afterwards, although to a lesser degree (Tiwari et al., 2006). Compared with those from a conventional medical school, graduates of a medical school adopting the PBL approach rated themselves as having better problem-solving competencies (Schmidt et al., 2006). In contrast to the above findings, other investigations have yielded less favorable results. Secondary agriculture students on PBL produced lower scores on critical thinking abilities when matched against the comparison group put on supervised study (Burris, 2005). PBL was also found not to have substantial effects on the critical-thinking and problemsolving abilities of pharmacy students (Cheng et al., 2003). Lohman and Finkelstein (2000), studying the impact of PBL on students enrolled in a dental education program, observed no significant differences between pre- and post-test measures on any of the problem-solving tasks assigned. However, the authors suggest on the basis of prior literature (Joyce & Weil, 1996; Lohman & Finkelstein, 1999; Newbert & Binko, 1992) that the continual use of PBL over an extended period of time may have a greater probability of promoting this skill. While the findings on critical thinking skills have been generally positive, the mixed results obtained for problem-solving skills have led to conflicting conclusions among researchers with some concluding that PBL has no obvious effect on learners’ problem-solving skills (e.g., Lam, 2004) and others concluding that it does (e.g., Gijbels et al., 2005; Hmelo-Silver, 2004).

PBL and Task Motivation The third component of creativity—task motivation—accounts for motivational variables that determine an individual’s approach to a given task, including one’s attitude toward the task and self-perceived motivation for undertaking the task (Amabile, 1983, 1996). PBL possesses the potential to enhance creativity given the contention that it enhances intrinsic motivation. Thus, it is unfortunate that there is a paucity of research that bears directly on this component, with much of the work focusing on student attitudes or satisfaction instead (Hmelo-Silver, 2004).


29

Brinkerhoff and Glazewski (2000), in examining the attitudes of sixth-grade gifted students as well as their teachers toward a hypermedia PBL instructional unit, found evidence that PBL had positive effects on student enjoyment, engagement, and effort, although this was to a large extent determined by their teachers’ experience with student-centered teaching methods. Major and Palmer (2001) noted from their review of the literature on medical school research a positive change in student attitudes toward learning when PBL was used, with these students tending to report greater satisfaction and to have more positive attitudes toward their course experiences than those in non-PBL courses. Specifically, these students found their courses to be more engaging and useful. Other reviews of research conducted, not necessarily with medical students, have come to similar conclusions on the effects of PBL on students’ attitudes and course opinions (e.g., Albanese & Mitchell, 1993; Chung & Chow, 2004; Lam, 2004; Vernon & Blake, 1993). Dunlap (2005b) extended this body of research beyond student attitudes to students’ self-efficacy, that is, the judgment they make about their own ability to perform a specific task. She observed that self-efficacy of the computer science undergraduates in her study rose by the end of the semester and suggested that the PBL environment could have helped build the students’ confidence so that they saw themselves as competent software development professionals who were ready for the workplace. Dunlap’s findings are substantiated by other investigations. Middle-school students’ self-efficacy in learning science increased after their engagement with a computer-enhanced PBL environment (Liu et al., 2006). Nursing students’ perception of empowerment was significantly augmented with PBL, and this perception in turn would likely determine work behavior and attitude (Siu et al., 2005). Such perception was also found to be a significant determinant of health sciences students’ intrinsic interest in the subject matter, although this was dependent on how well the tutorial group functioned and on the quality of the problems employed (Van Berkel & Schmidt, 2000). In contrast to the above results on PBL and student motivation, research yielding mixed findings has been cited by Hmelo-Silver (2004). A study conducted with students attending a PBL course in statistical reasoning found that while some students really enjoyed the class, others

30


resisted making changes to the way they learned and still others disliked various aspects of PBL such as collaborative work (Derry et al., 2000). Although evidence of enhanced motivation has been reported with veterinary students (Ertmer et al., 1996), Hmelo-Silver cautions on the basis of Abrandt Dahlgren and Dahlgren’s work (2002) with students from different disciplines that PBL’s effect on student motivation may depend on the academic or professional discipline. Despite the generally encouraging findings, it is important to note that most of the studies have been conducted in the medical school environment. There has been insufficient work examining motivation among other populations, which makes it difficult to draw conclusions about PBL’s impact on this aspect in other contexts with other groups of participants (Hmelo-Silver, 2004).

Effectiveness of PBL in Cultivating Creativity: Overall Conclusion This chapter has examined the findings of studies conducted between 2000 and 2008 in an effort to chart the landscape of research on PBL and creativity so as to get a clearer picture of their relationship. Despite the strong interest generated in PBL as a means to cultivate creativity and its sound theoretical rationale, it appears that systematic evidence is scarce and a conclusive answer elusive. There is very little solid empirical evidence supported by a diverse range of high-quality studies that points to the effectiveness of PBL in fostering creativity. Thus, questions about PBL’s effectiveness in this aspect are likely to remain. Overall, there seems to be a lack of conclusive evidence for the efficacy of PBL in developing creativity, although there is indirect evidence pointing to its potential in some specific areas. Research designed to directly investigate the relationship between PBL and creativity is scant, while a plethora of studies investigating the link between PBL and specific components of creativity has produced equivocal or insufficiently supported evidence to be deemed conclusive. Furthermore, past research when subjected to scrutiny has been found wanting. The current body of research has primarily been conducted with


31

medical students, thus limiting its generalizability. Many studies have also been criticized for their lack of academic rigor and quality, and often the study samples were nonrandomized (Colliver, 2000; Norman & Schmidt, 2000). Several investigations have relied on the subjective feedback and perceptions of students and teachers and therefore do not provide objective evidence (Lam, 2004). It is unclear whether the size of the effects obtained by the body of research is large enough to be of significance, and this affects the credibility of claims (Colliver & Markwell, 2007). In view of these limitations, it is clear that the “jury is still out.” Far more research is required before we can decide if PBL can be advocated as an effective means of promoting creative thought.

Toward a More Comprehensive and Productive Research Agenda There is a dearth of studies that have been conducted to directly investigate the impact of PBL on creativity. To advance the existing knowledge base in this area, gaps in research need to be filled and limitations addressed. Critical to a productive research agenda is a greater devotion to and more rigor in the examination of this link. More specifically, there is a need to make more controlled investigations of PBL in its different forms and to assess its impact on creative thought with different populations and across different domains. Researchers need to deliberate upon how they are to assess the effectiveness of PBL and how they are to assess creativity (using actual measures rather than subjective self-ratings), as this is likely to have a bearing on the conclusions drawn. Additional investigations to shed light on the impact of PBL on the various components of creativity as well as on the mediating factors that might affect creativity as an outcome of PBL could also be beneficial. It would be profitable if future reviews of literature improve on the present one with a more systematic search and selection process. Time and space constraints did not permit a systematic review but primarily a “trawl of the literature.” This could limit the conclusions made. Some authors have expressed weariness with the avalanche of criticism continually being leveled at PBL research methods and findings, terming it

32


a “hyper-reflection,” of which the costs and benefits are not clear (see, e.g., Jolly, 2006). Yet others have felt this to be necessary in order to complete the “1000-piece research jigsaw” on PBL effectiveness (see, e.g., Colliver & Markwell, 2007). It seems that the latter view is more befitting in the area of PBL and creativity, where there needs to be more fine-grained analyses of the effects of PBL as well as more concrete evidence to demonstrate its efficacy. As Colliver and Markwell (2007) put it bluntly, “Researchers, reviewers and editors should channel their enthusiasm into getting the methods and findings of research right, rather than letting it directly drive their decisions and conclusions” (p. 533). This research agenda may seem like a demanding one, but it is certainly worth the effort required.

References Abrandt Dahlgren, M., & Dahlgren, L. O. (2002). Portraits of PBL: Students’ experiences of the characteristics of problem-based learning in physiotherapy, computer engineering, and psychology. Instructional Science, 30, 111–127. Albanese, M. A., & Mitchell, S. (1993). Problem-based learning: A review of literature on its outcomes and implementation issues. Academic Medicine, 68, 52–81. Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualisation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357– 376. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Badger, D., Nursten, J., & Woodward, M. (2000). Should all literature reviews be systematic? Evaluation and Research in Education, 14(3–4), 220–230. Barak, M. (2006). Teaching methods for systematic inventive problem-solving: Evaluation of a course for teachers. Research in Science and Technological Education, 24(2), 237–254. Barron, F. (1968). Creativity and personal freedom. New York: Van Nostrand. Beers, G. W. (2005). The effect of teaching method on objective test scores: Problem-based learning versus lecture. Journal of Nursing Education, 44(7), 305–309. Blumberg, P. (2000). Evaluating the evidence that problem-based learners are self-directed learners: A review of the literature. In D. H. Evensen & C. E. Hmelo (Eds.), Problem-based learning: A research perspective on learning interactions (pp. 199–226). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.


33

Brinkerhoff, J. D., & Glazewski, K. (2000, October 25–28). Hypermedia-based problem-based learning in the upper elementary grades: A developmental study. Paper presented at the 23rd National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Denver, CO. Burris, S. (2005). Effect of problem-based learning on critical thinking ability and content knowledge of secondary agriculture students. Ph.D. thesis, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO. Capon, N., & Kuhn, D. (2004). What’s so good about problem-based learning? Cognition and Instruction, 22(1), 61–79. Chamberlin, S. A., & Moon, S. M. (2005). Model-eliciting activities as a tool to develop and identify creatively gifted mathematicians. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17(1), 37–47. Cheng, J. W. M., Alafris, A., Kirschenbaum, H. L., Kalis, M. M., & Brown, M. E. (2003). Problem-based learning versus traditional lecturing in pharmacy students’ short-term examination performance. Pharmacy Education, 3(2), 117. Chung, J. C. C., & Chow, S. M. K. (2004). Promoting student learning through a student-centred problem-based learning subject curriculum. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41(2), 157–168. Colliver, J. (2000). Effectiveness of problem-based learning curricula: Research and theory. Academic Medicine, 75, 259–266. Colliver, J. A., & Markwell, S. J. (2007). Research on problem-based learning: The need for critical analysis of methods and findings. Medical Education, 41, 533–535. Cropley, A. J. (1992). More ways than one: Fostering creativity. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and person: A systems view of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 325–329). New York: Cambridge University Press. Derry, S. J., Levin, J. R., Osana, H. P., Jones, M. S., & Peterson, M. (2000). Fostering students’ statistical and scientific thinking: Lessons learned from an innovative college course. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 747–773. Derry, S. J., & the STEP team (2002). The STEP system for collaborative casebased teacher education: Design, evaluation, and future directions. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Proceedings of CSCL 2002 (pp. 209–216). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P., & Gijbels, D. (2003). Effects of problembased learning: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 13, 533–568. Dunlap, J. C. (2005a). Changes in students’ use of lifelong learning skills during a problem-based learning project. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 18(1), 5–33.

34


Dunlap, J. C. (2005b). Problem-based learning and self-efficacy: How a capstone course prepares students for a profession. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 53(1), 65–85. Elder, L., & Paul, R. (2007). Critical thinking: The nature of critical and creative thought, Part II. Journal of Developmental Education, 30(3), 36–37. Ertmer, P., Newby, T. J., & MacDougall, M. (1996). Students’ responses and approaches to case-based instruction: The role of reflective self-regulation. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 719–752. Evensen, D. H., Salisbury-Glennon, J. D., & Glenn, J. (2001). A qualitative study of six medical students in a problem-based curriculum: Toward a situated model of self-regulation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(4), 659–676. Finke, R. A. (1995). Creative insight and preinventive forms. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 255–280). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Foster, P., & Hammersley, M. (1998). A review of reviews: Structure and function in reviews of educational research. British Educational Research Journal, 24(5), 609–628. Freud, S. (1959). Creative writers and day-dreaming (Vol. 9). London: Hogarth Press. Gallagher, S. A., & Stepien, W. A. (1995). Implementing problem-based learning in science classrooms. School Science and Mathematics, 95, 136–146. Ghiselin, B. (1985). The creative process: A symposium. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Gijbels, D., Dochy, F., Van den Bossche, P., & Segers, M. (2005). Effects of problembased learning: A meta-analysis from the angle of assessment. Review of Educational Research, 75(1), 27–61. Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444–454. Guilford, J. P. (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53, 267– 293. Guilford, J. P. (1970). Traits of creativity. In P. E. Vernon (Ed.), Creativity. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Guilford, J. P. (1988). Some changes in the structure-of-intellect model. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68, 1–6. Hays, J. R., & Vincent, J. P. (2004). Students’ evaluation of problem-based learning in graduate psychology courses. Teaching of Psychology, 31(2), 124–126. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2000). Knowledge recycling: Crisscrossing the landscape of educational psychology in a problem-based learning course for preservice teachers. Journal of Excellence in College Teaching, 11, 41–56. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.


35

Hmelo, C. E., & Lin, X. (2000). The development of self-directed learning strategies in problem-based learning. In D. H. Evensen & C. E. Hmelo (Eds.), Problem-based learning: A research perspective on learning interactions (pp. 227–250). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Hmelo, C. E., Holton, D., & Kolodner, J. L. (2000). Designing to learn about complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 247–298. Jolly, B. (2006). Problem-based learning. Medical Education, 40, 494–495. Joyce, B., & Weil, M. (1996). Models of teaching (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kasai, R., Sugimoto, K., & Uchiyama, Y. (2006). The effect of problem-basedlearning on physical therapy education: A comparison of the short-term educational effect between PBL and lecture-based educational approaches. Rigakuryoho Kagaku, 21(2), 143–150. Kelson, A. C. M. (2000). Assessment of students for proactive lifelong learning. In D. H. Evensen & C. E. Hmelo (Eds.), Problem-based learning: A research perspective on learning interactions (pp. 315–346). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Knowles, M. (1975). Self-directed learning as a guide for learners and teachers. Cambridge, MA: Adult Education Company. Koh, G. C. H., Khoo, H. E., Wong, M. L., & Koh, D. (2008). The effects of problembased learning during medical school on physician competency: A systematic review. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 178(1), 34–41. Kwon, O. N., Park, J. S., & Park, J. H. (2006). Cultivating divergent thinking in mathematics through an open-ended approach. Asia Pacific Education Review, 7(1), 51–61. Lam, D. (2004). Problem-based learning: An integration of theory and field. Journal of Social Work Education, 40(3), 371–389. Lee, H. J., & Cho, Y. S. (2007). Factors affecting problem finding depending on degree of structure of problem situation. Journal of Educational Research, 101(2), 113–124. Lindner, R. W., & Harris, B. (1993). Self-regulated learning: Its assessment and instructional implications. Educational Research Quarterly, 16(2), 29–37. Liu, M., Hsieh, P. P. H., Cho, Y. J., & Schallert, D. L. (2006). Middle school students’ self-efficacy, attitudes, and achievement in a computer-enhanced problembased learning environment. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 17(3), 225–242. Lohman, M. C., & Finkelstein, M. (1999). Segmenting information in PBL cases to foster the development of problem-solving skill, self-directedness, and technical knowledge. Unpublished manuscript, Florida State University and University of Iowa.

36


Lohman, M. C., & Finkelstein, M. (2000). Designing groups in problem-based learning to promote problem-solving skill and self-directedness. Instructional Science, 28, 291–307. Lubart, T. I. (1994). Creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Thinking and problemsolving (pp. 290–323). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Lycke, K. H., Grøttum, P., & Strømsø, H. I. (2006). Student learning strategies, mental models and learning outcomes in problem-based and traditional curricula in medicine. Medical Teacher, 28(8), 717–722. Major, C. H., & Palmer, B. (2001). Assessing the effectiveness of problem-based learning in higher education: Lessons from the literature. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 5(1), 4–9. Maxwell, N. L., Mergendoller, J. R., & Bellisimo, Y. (2005). Problem-based learning and high school macroeconomics: A comparative study of instructional methods. Journal of Economic Education, 36(4), 315–331. McParland, M., Noble, L. M., & Livingston, G. (2004). The effectiveness of problem-based learning compared with traditional teaching in undergraduate psychiatry. Medical Education, 38, 859–867. Mergendoller, J. R., Maxwell, N. L., & Bellisimo, Y. (2006). The effectiveness of problem-based instruction: A comparative study of instructional methods and student characteristics. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(2), 49–69. Moore, T. S. (2007). Implementation of problem-based learning in a baccalaureate dental hygiene program. Journal of Dental Education, 71(8), 1058–1069. Newbert, G. A., & Binko, J. B. (1992). Inductive reasoning in the secondary classroom. Washington, DC: National Education Association. Ng, A. K. (2001). Why Asians are less creative than Westerners? Singapore: Pearson/ Prentice Hall. Norman, G. R., & Schmidt, H. G. (1992). The psychology basis of problem-based learning: A review of evidence. Academic Medicine, 67, 557–565. Norman, G. R., & Schmidt, H. G. (2000). Effectiveness of problem-based learning curricula: Theory, practice and paper darts. Medical Education, 34, 721–728. Osborn, A. F. (1953). Applied imagination. New York: Scribners. Piirto, J. (1992). Understanding those who create. Dayton, OH: Ohio Psychology Press. Purdie, N., Hattie, J., & Douglas, G. (1996). Student conceptions of learning and their use of self-regulated learning strategies: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 87–100. Runco, M. A. (1991). Divergent thinking. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing. Ruscio, J., & Amabile, T. M. (1996). How does creativity happen? Retrieved January 28, 2008, from http://www.geniusdenied.com/articles/Record.aspx? NavID=13_27&rid=10592.


37

Schmidt, H. G., Vermeulen, L., & van derMolen, H. T. (2006). Longterm effects of problem-based learning: A comparison of competencies acquired by graduates of a problem-based and a conventional medical school. Medical Education, 40(6), 562–567. Semerci, N. (2006). The effect of problem-based learning on the critical thinking of students in the Intellectual and Ethical Development Unit. Social Behaviour and Personality. Retrieved December 15, 2007, from http://findarticles.com/ p/articles/mi_qa3852/is_200601/ai_n17187271/print. Siu, H. M., Laschinger, H. K. S., & Vingilis, E. (2005). The effect of problembased learning on nursing students’ perceptions of empowerment. Journal of Nursing Education, 44(10), 459–469. Smits, P. B. A., Verbeek, J. H. A. M., & de Buisonjé, C. D. (2002). Problem based learning in continuing medical education: A review of controlled evaluation studies. BMJ, 324, 153–156. Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Successful intelligence: How practical and creative intelligence determine success in life. New York: Simon & Schuster. Sternberg, R. J., & Davidson, J. E. (1995). The nature of insight. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. New York: Free Press. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. (1996). Investing in creativity. American Psychologist, 51(7), 677–688. Stevens, P. A. J. (2007). Researching race/ethnicity and educational inequality in English secondary schools: A critical review of the research literature between 1980 and 2005. Review of Educational Research, 77(2), 147–185. Sungur, S., & Tekkaya, C. (2006). Effects of problem-based learning and traditional instruction on self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Research, 99(5), 307–317. Tan, O. S. (2000a). Intelligence enhancement and cognitive coaching in problembased learning. Paper presented at the Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Symposium, Singapore. Tan, O. S. (2000b). Thinking skills, creativity and problem-based learning. In O. S. Tan, P. Little, S. Y. Hee & J. Conway (Eds.), Problem-based learning: Educational innovation across disciplines. Singapore: Temasek Centre for Problem-based Learning. Tan, O. S. (2003). Problem-based learning innovation: Using problems to power learning in the 21st century. Singapore: Thomson Learning. Tiwari, A., Lai, P., So, M., & Yuen, K. (2006). A comparison of the effects of problem-based learning and lecturing on the development of students’ critical thinking. Medical Education, 40, 547–554.

38


Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance tests of creative thinking: Technical norms and technical manual. Lexington, MA: Personnel Press. Torrance, E. P. (1986). Torrance tests of creative thinking. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service. Treffinger, D. J. (1994). Creative problem solver’s guidebook. Sarasota, FL: Center for Creative Learning. Van Berkel, H. J. M., & Schmidt, H. G. (2000). Motivation to commit oneself as a determinant of achievement in problem-based learning. Higher Education, 40, 231–242. Vernon, D. T., & Blake, R. L. (1993). Does problem-based learning work? A meta-analysis of evaluative research. Academic Medicine, 68, 550–563. Ward, J. D., & Lee, C. L. (2002). A review of problem-based learning. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education, 20(1), 16–26. Yeung, E., Au-Yeung, S., Chiu, T., Mok, N., & Lai, P. (2003). Problem design in problem-based learning: Evaluating students’ learning and self-directed learning practice. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 40(3), 237–244. Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3–17.

CHAPTER 3

Facilitating Problem-solving Processes for Adaptors and Innovators Jessie Ee and Oon-Seng Tan National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

Abstract Adaptors and innovators are two creative styles defined in Kirton’s adaption– innovation continuum. Adaptors choose to do things better, while innovators choose to do things differently. In this chapter, how adaptors and innovators are likely to perform in problem-solving tasks is discussed with implications for teachers and employers on their roles in facilitating problem solving for the two creative styles.

Introduction We often observe individual differences among problem solvers yet fail to understand the reason why some individuals have more difficulty relating to others, whether it is at home, in school, at the workplace, or even in the community. It is not merely a matter of individual personality traits but also differences in problem-solving styles. It is hoped that this chapter will shed some light on the behavioral characteristics of two creative styles—adaptors and innovators as defined by Kirton (1976)—in problem solving that will provide relevant implications for teachers and employers.

40

Jessie Ee and Oon-Seng Tan

Who Are Adaptors and Innovators? The adaption–innovation inventory was developed by Kirton for gauging whether a person’s creative style is toward the adaptive or innovative end (Kirton, 1994). Kirton lists three facets that correspond to three factor traits: sufficiency of originality refers to a preference for producing a few implementable solutions to problems; rule governance concerns a social tendency to maintain workgroup cohesion by doing things in accepted ways; and efficiency refers to a bureaucratic concern with being exact, systematic, and disciplined. Bagozzi and Foxall (1995) found that adaptors tend to produce fewer implementable solutions to problems and are more compliant and bureaucratic within the workgroup. In contrast, innovators tend to be brimming with ideas, flout rules, and display little regard for bureaucratic details. Their study supports the results found by McHale and Flegg (1986) on the different working styles adopted by innovators and adaptors. Taken together, these findings indicate that innovators and adaptors operate on two ends of a continuum and, as a result, will tend to have difficulty working together. Adaptors do not like to behave like innovators, as it is against their nature to solve problems by bending rules, while innovators do not like to behave like adaptors, as it is against their nature to solve problems by following rules. Both adaptors and innovators are equally creative, but they choose to express their creativity in different ways. Adaptors choose to do things better, while innovators choose to do things differently. Adaptors operate within a structured system associated with sufficiency of originality, efficiency, and rule–group conformity, whereas innovators break away from such existing structured system and show great interest in originality of ideas and less concern with efficiency and rule–group conformity. Furthermore, according to Kirton (1994), adaptors are likely to improve on the existing structure and favor staying in groups, maintaining cohesion by following the accepted ways, and solving problems in a disciplined, methodical, and predictable manner. They are unlike the innovators, who are risk takers and are likely to generate innovative yet practical ideas, thus altering the existing paradigm. Table 3.1 lists the differences between the two creative styles.

Facilitating Problem-solving Processes for Adaptors and Innovators

TABLE 3.1

41

Behavior descriptions of adaptors and innovators Adaptor

Innovator

Characterized by precision, reliability, efficiency; seen as methodical and disciplined.

Seen as thinking tangentially, approaching tasks from unsuspected angles; undisciplined, unpredictable.

Concerned with resolving problems rather than finding them.

Tends to discover problems as well as less expected avenues of solution.

Seeks solutions to problems in tried and understood ways.

Tends to question a problem’s concomitant assumptions; manipulates problems.

Lessens problems through improvement and greater efficiency with maximum of continuity and stability.

Is catalyst to settled groups, irreverent of their consensual views; seen as abrasive, creating dissonance.

Disciplined in solving problems with minimum of risk.

In solving problems, seeks to explore untested areas that may be risky and jeopardize the situation.

More loyal to policy of consensus.

Shows less respect for others’ views, more abrasive in presenting solutions.

Seen as conforming and dependable.

Seen as ingenious, unsound, impractical.

Does things better.

Does things differently.

Liable to make goals of means.

In pursuit of goals, liable to challenge accepted means.

Seems impervious to boredom and able to maintain high accuracy in long spells of detailed work.

Usually unable to stay on detailed routine (system maintenance) work for longer than short bursts, quick to delegate routine tasks.

Is an authority within given structure.

Tends to take control in unstructured situations.

Challenges rules rarely, cautiously, when assured of strong support and problem solving within consensus.

Often challenges rules; may have little respect for past customs.

Has high self-doubt when system is challenged, reacts to criticism by closer outward conformity; vulnerable to social pressure and authority; compliant.

Appears to have low self-doubt when generating ideas, not needing consensus to remain steadfast in face of opposition; less certain when placed in core of system.

42


TABLE 3.1 (Continued) Adaptor

Innovator

Essential to the functioning of the institution all the time, but occasionally needs to be “dug out” of the current systems.

Ideal for tackling unscheduled crises in the institution, or for helping to avoid them, if can be trusted by adaptors.

When collaborating with innovators, provides stability, order, and continuity to the partnership.

When working with adaptors, provides task orientations and the break with past and accepted theory.

Sensitive to people, maintains group cohesion and cooperation; can be slow to overhaul a rule.

Appears insensitive to people when in pursuit of solutions, hence often threatening group cohesion and cooperation.

Provides a safe base for the innovator’s riskier operations.

Provides the dynamics to bring about periodic radical change, without which institutions tend to become rigid.

Has a conscientious personality trait.

Has an extroverted personality trait.

Tends to adopt ego avoidance orientation.

Tends to adopt mastery goal orientation.

SOURCE: Adapted from Kirton (1984).

Difference in personality traits can affect creativity style. Research has shown that creative style is correlated with more than 30 different personality traits. Gelade (2002) demonstrated that many of these correlations could be understood within the framework of the five-factor model of personality. This model asserts that there are five basic personality traits, as follows. Neuroticism refers to individuals who are primarily characterized by a tendency to experience the states of negative affect. Extroversion refers to individuals who are assertive, active, cheerful, and high-spirited and who are happiest in the company of others. Openness to experience refers to individuals who are inquisitive and ready to contemplate radical ideas, new experiences, and unconventional values. Agreeableness refers to individuals who are friendly and sympathetic toward others and generally adopt an optimistic outlook in interpersonal matters. Finally, conscientiousness refers to individuals who are purposeful, disciplined, strong-willed, and reliable. It has been reported


43

that the predominant correlates of creative style are personality indicators in the domains of openness to experience and extroversion for innovators and conscientiousness for adaptors (Gelade, 2002; Ee et al., 2007). The NEO Personality Inventory–Revised (NEO PI-R) (Costa & McCrae, 1992) is a 240-statement questionnaire measure that is widely regarded as the standard representation of the five-factor model of personality. Gelade (1997), in examining the relationship between the five-factor model of personality and creativity, found that creative people break away from conformity and social norms and take pride in their work. In addition, they are independent and complex persons. He also noted that commercial creative studies reported considerably higher levels of neuroticism and openness to experience than professionals of a similar age working in occupations that are not evidently creative. The willingness to take risk can also account for creative achievement. Dunbar (1997) noted the importance of risk taking in scientific discovery in the field of molecular biology. While there was variability across laboratories in their ability to achieve creative insights, the cognitive processes involved did not vary. However, a difference was shown in the scientists’ willingness to take risk, their willingness to try a new procedure, examine an unexplained phenomenon, or propose a wild new theory to explain the data. He concluded that a higher willingness to take risk is related to creative achievement. In the school context, students are motivated by learning goals to work hard in their studies (Ee, 1998). There are many kinds of goals, and different students adopt different learning goals. Students with mastery goals are intrinsically motivated to master a certain topic, unconcerned with how they will appear to significant others like parents, teachers, and friends. On the other hand, students adopting ego-approach goals in the learning situation are preoccupied with demonstrating their competence to significant others, and powerful extraneous forces such as evaluation pressure and social comparison suppress their employment of more creative forms of problem solving. In contrast, when a person involved in tasks adopts a mastery goal, the person engages in the activity in a more flexible manner (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Isen et al., 1987). Finally, individuals with an ego avoidance goal have a tendency to avoid difficult tasks for fear of failure. Research has revealed that innovators are mastery

44


goal oriented, while adaptors are ego involved, especially ego avoidance (Ng, 2003; Ee et al., 2007). In a study examining the relationships between creativity, risk orientations, achievement goals, and personality traits of tertiary students in Singapore, innovators scored significantly higher than adaptors in creativity, risk taking, mastery goal orientation, extroversion, and openness to experience. On the other hand, adaptors scored significantly higher on risk avoidance, ego approach, and conscientiousness. Furthermore, mastery goal orientation, risk taking, extroversion, and openness to experience were found to be predictors of innovative behavior, while risk avoidance goal, ego avoidance goal, and conscientiousness were predictors of adaptive behavior (Ee et al., 2007). The preceding review suggests that these two creative styles of adaptor and innovator differ in many ways, including personality, risk-taking tendency, learning goals adopted, and even the manner they solve problems.

Processes Involved in Problem Solving When faced with a problem, an individual is likely to engage in the processes of clarifying, defining and reframing, analyzing, as well as summarizing and synthesizing the problem. Thus, effective problem solving in the real world involves the harnessing of cognitive processes that include the following: 1. “Planful” thinking. In attempting to understand the nature and demands of the problem, the problem solver has to take time to think and plan by listing the facts in the problem and what needs to be known and done. 2. Generative thinking. Then, in attempting to make inferences from the facts and considering what needs to be known and done, the problem solver has to adopt an open mind with flexible thinking and come up with ideas by looking at the problem from various angles. 3. Systematic thinking. After determining what needs to be done, the problem solver has to conduct research and collect data in an organized, thorough, and systematic manner.


45

4. Analogical thinking. Having obtained the data, the problem solver needs to analyze them by looking for similarities, patterns, and parallels through lateral thinking. 5. Systemic thinking. Finally, in addressing the problem, the problem solver needs to adopt holistic thinking while synthesizing the findings into coherent solutions to the problem.

Roles of Adaptors and Innovators in Problem-solving Processes Because of differences in working style, it is easy for conflict to develop between the adaptors and innovators in a group (Kirton, 2000). By nature, adaptors dislike bending rules innovatively in order to solve problems, while innovators loathe being adaptive and following rules in handling problems. To prevent such conflict from occurring, it is important to highlight to adaptors and innovators that a good blend of creative styles is needed to solve problems creatively. This is because the creative problemsolving process requires periods of divergent ideation/innovation alternating with convergent evaluation/adaption, as well as the ability to judge when each is appropriate (Brophy, 1998; Runco, 1994). In problem-based learning (PBL), ideally, innovators should be called upon to contribute during the early stages when generative thinking is involved, as they are able to approach tasks from new angles and to think divergently. However, when systematic thinking and data synthesis are called for, adaptors may be preferred, as they are concerned with resolving problems and are reliable, efficient, methodical, and disciplined, unlike innovators. Since creative styles are complementary, adaptors and innovators would do well to learn from each other. Adaptors can learn to set mastery goals like their innovative counterpart, so that they will be motivated to explore a variety of interesting alternatives in coming up with viable solutions. Similarly, innovators can learn to set ego or performance goals like their adaptive counterpart, so that they will stay focused on the task and keep the end goal in mind. Finally, in developing a good blend of creative styles, both adaptors and innovators should banish egoistic thought such as “My way is right/ better; your way is wrong/inferior.” What is important is not the method

46


per se but whether it solves the problem at hand. As the late Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping once said, it doesn’t matter whether the cat is black or white so long as it catches the mice.

Role of Teachers in Facilitating Problem-solving Processes In facilitating problem-solving processes, it is advisable for teachers to provide cognitive coaching (Figure 3.1) to help students refrain from making unplanned and impulsive responses, sweeping generalizations,

3

2

1

4

50

5

49

23

24 25

26

21

[Co O mm utp un ut ica tin g]

strategies Memory of rtoire ols repe to Wide verbal ion icat ssif Cla es ori teg ca st g ra in nt lop s co ve ie d De n rit a ila re a m i p m rs Co fo g in k o 22 Lo

Making connections

20

27

18

ev an tc ue of nti fic p s r ati ob 30 on Sim le m of ulta p n r ob ma eou lem s ny sou hand 29 Disce rce ling so rning of f and cons data e cons rving tancy 28 Prioritizing

17

re l

16

L o 1 o 9 k in Se g ep fo art an r a – t w t d ho fe ribu le at te r ela ur s es tio Se ein ns g hip “ big pic tur Use e” of s trate gies L o o ki n g from dif persp ferent ective s Search for sources of error

31

15

on

g Systematic zoomin

iti

14

on plorati atic ex System ning scan atic ry tem Sys age f im on eo Us ati z ali ld ie lf ta en

fin

13

fm

su Vi

De

12

so

Ide

11

es dn

Se le ct in g

oa

32

Br

10

33

9

FIGURE 3.1 Cognitive coaching in problem solving SOURCE: Tan (2000).

8

Re fr 7 ai n i ng tr fro ia m 6 O l C v a l a er nd err rify co in er atic m g ins in ro g tru bi r c Q as u est co tions ion ns i t and n r g a int ass s um ptio R ns e s tr aint of im pulsiv ity Planning behavior

eption Clear perc

Cognitive Functions

] ut Inp cting lle

34

[Co

36

on ducti g

g

37

t pro

as

ide

38

kin

ing

s ea id

Deductive thinking king ive thin Induct nce vide al e logic ing g ink Usin l th tica hip e h t ns po tio n Hy a l io re ut or ol gf rs n i o f ok Lo an pl a g 35 in ak M

thin

kin in

y an

m

th

Elaboration [Connecting and creating]

Analysis

39

rgen Dive

vel

in

g

40

ut

No

y ilit

in at

pr R em e at stra ur in e t of clo fro bo Ov x” su m erc re t hin om kin in g g blo cka ges Eva luat ion Synth esis “O

t ora

xib

41

b Ela

Fle

42

er en

43

G

44

Precision and accuracy

48 47 46 45


47

and unwarranted narrow perceptions. By repeatedly asking questions about the data obtained, teachers assist students to obtain a clear mental picture of the problem-solving process and guide them toward systematic and more thorough information gathering. PBL processes and cognitive coaching involve getting the mind to make connections through reflection, articulation, and learning to see different perspectives. In PBL, the generation of cognitive connections is promoted through the use of problem scenarios and scaffolding (e.g., using templates and questions to guide students). After gathering relevant data, students have to analyze them by applying analytical thinking skills such as comparing, classifying, logical reasoning, and making inferences. Good analytical thinking involves not only logical reasoning but also knowing when to interpolate and extrapolate. According to Manktelow (1999), human reasoning can be biased and flawed. A study has found that people have a tendency to give a “pseudodiagnostic” response based on their experience and belief, rather than a diagnostic response (Evans et al., 2002). Hence, there is a need to emphasize the learning of problem solving based on facts and reason. The PBL process and cognitive coaching can help students develop flexible, helicopter views by making connections with prior knowledge and experiences, real-world contexts, theories, others’ perceptions, and new facts and ideas. Connectivity is enhanced through data collection and information elaboration and communication. And problem-solving competencies are developed and internalized through raising students’ awareness of the different ways of thinking needed in resolving a problem.

Setting the Climate for Adaptors and Innovators The patterns of relationships between creativity, risk taking, personality, and learning goals have major implications for nurturing mastery goal– oriented learners who will not only enjoy learning for learning’s sake but are intrinsically self-regulated and creative individuals who adopt an extroverted and open-minded attitude toward their learning. The classroom climate must be one that inhibits the ego-approach or egoavoidance orientation in our students, or these students may also develop

48


neurotic personality traits and a risk-avoidance orientation, which may not be conducive to their learning. The findings presented here suggest that, to nurture creative, enthusiastic, and vivacious learners who enjoy learning, educators should build learning environments that facilitate task involvement while inhibiting ego involvement in students. Some of the current educational policies, such as national primary school streaming and national secondary school ranking, contribute to an extremely stressful learning environment in which incessant pressure is applied in a top-down fashion: Principals are pressured by the competitive system of education to raise the performance of their schools. They then pressure their teachers to deliver high grades in their classes. The teachers in turn pressure their students to do well in tests and examinations. In this, they are joined by the students’ parents, who push their children to work hard so that they will not end up in a slower stream or a lower-ranking school. Ryan and Guardia (1999) showed that an excessive focus on competitive evaluation would undermine the intrinsic value attached to learning, decrease interest in the topic being studied, as well as result in lower-quality learning and creativity. An experimental study by Reeve and Deci (1996) explored the possibility that winning a competition could be experienced either as controlling (if the interpersonal context emphasized the importance of beating one’s opponent) or as informational (if the interpersonal context did not pressure one to win). They found, as predicted, that both groups of winners—those in the nonpressured context and those pressured to win—felt highly competent relative to the losers. However, compared with the nonpressured winners, the pressured winners showed a marked reduction in perceived self-determination, which in turn undermined their intrinsic motivation in performing the task. The researchers note that “winning a competition may not undermine intrinsic motivation if the interpersonal context does not add undue pressure to win. Unfortunately, it seems that the unyielding focus of our society on winning— whether in athletic competition or school performance, for example— may be creating a pressuring context that can have quite negative effects on individuals’ experience and motivation” (p. 32). Thus, teachers who attempt to inculcate creativity in their students should bear in mind that creativity is a qualitative construct—each


49

creative style has its own strengths and weaknesses. As adaptors and innovators subscribe to different values, teachers may need to develop a good blend of creative styles in the classroom.

In Conclusion It would be ideal if every educator is committed to the mission of nurturing creative, passionate, and spirited learners who are infused with the joy of learning, rather than competitive, conforming, and wary learners who are emotionally numbed by their fear of learning. We will do well to remember these words of Albert Einstein, the creator par excellence, who saw the deleterious effects of a competitive system of education that pressured students to do well. In his autobiography, Einstein wrote, “It is in fact nothing short of a miracle that the modern methods of instruction have not yet entirely strangled the holy curiosity of inquiry, for this delicate little plant, aside from stimulation, stands mainly in need of freedom. Without this it goes to wreck and ruin without fail” (as quoted in Ng, 2001, p. 97). To conclude, our task as educators is to close the discernible gap that presently exists between our espoused theory (what we say we will do) and our theory-in-use (what we actually do). This can only occur when we muster the will to free our students to be creative.

References Bagozzi, R. P., & Foxall, G. R. (1995). Construct validity and generalisability of the Kirton Adaption–Innovation Inventory. European Journal of Personality, 9, 185–206. Brophy, D. R. (1998). Understanding, measuring and enhancing individual creative problem-solving efforts. Creativity Research Journal, 11(2), 123–150. Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, P. R. (1992). NEO-PI-R: Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper Perennial. Dunbar, K. (1997). How scientists think: On-line creativity and conceptual change in science. In T. B. Ward, S. M. Smith & J. Vaid (Eds.), Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes (pp. 461–493). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

50


Ee, J. (1998). Relationships among teachers’ classroom orientations, strategybased instruction, and students’ goal orientations, self-regulated learning and achievement. Ph.D. thesis, University of Newcastle, Australia. Ee, J., Tan, O. S., & Ng, A. K. (2007). Styles of creativity: Adaptors and innovators in a Singapore context. Asia Pacific Education Review, 8(2), 343–355. Evans, J. B. T., Venn, S., & Feeney, A. (2002). Implicit and explicit processes in a hypothesis testing task. British Journal of Psychology, 93, 31–46. Gelade, G. A. (1997). Creativity in conflict: The personality of the commercial creative. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 158, 67–79. Gelade, G. A. (2002). Creative style, personality and artistic endeavour. Genetic, Social and General Psychology Monographs, 128, 213–234. Isen, A., Daubman, K. A., & Nowicki, G. P. (1987). Positive affect facilitates creative problem-solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1122–1131. Kirton, M. J. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 622–629. Kirton, M. J. (1984). Adaptors and innovators: Why new initiatives get blocked. Retrieved January 15, 2008, from http://www.kaicentre.com/initiatives.htm. Kirton, M. J. (Ed.) (1994). A theory of cognitive style. In Adaptors and innovators: Styles of creativity and problem-solving (pp. 1–33). London: Routledge. Kirton, M. J. (2000). Adaption and innovation: Styles of creativity and problemsolving (rev. ed.). London: Routledge. Manktelow, K. I. (1999). Reasoning and thinking. Hove, East Sussex: Psychology Press. McHale, J., & Flegg, D. (1986, October). Innovators rule ok—or do they? Training and Development Journal, pp. 10–13. Ng, A. K. (2001). Why Asians are less creative than Westerners. Singapore: Pearson/ Prentice Hall. Ng, A. K. (2003). Learning goals, creativity and personality. Asia-Pacific Journal of Education, 23(2), 183–200. Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Elements of the competitive situation that affect intrinsic motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(1), 24–33. Runco, M. A. (Ed.) (1994). Conclusions concerning problem-finding, problemsolving and creativity. In Problem-finding, problem-solving, and creativity (pp. 271–290). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing. Ryan, M. R., & Guardia, J. G. L. (1999). Achievement motivation within a pressured society: Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to learn and the politics of school reform. Advances in Motivation and Achievement, 11, 45–85. Tan, O. S. (2000). Effects of a cognitive modifiability intervention on cognitive abilities, attitudes and academic performance of polytechnic students. Ph.D. thesis, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

CHAPTER 4

Problem-based Learning Communities: Using the Social Environment to Support Creativity Marion Porath and Elizabeth Jordan University of British Columbia, Canada

Abstract This chapter explores the educational environmental conditions that support risk taking and creativity, discusses the challenges and benefits in building such supportive environments, and offers tools to support learning communities in which creativity flourishes. It considers the social aspects of meaning making that contribute to creativity, and how these aspects are fostered in problembased learning communities. Full participation in one’s education begins with the building of teacher–student and student–student relationships based on mutual respect and understanding. People construct knowledge based on their personal understandings and shared experiences, and meaning is made in the comparative interface of our own understandings and new insights. While the intellectual and social aspects of meaning making are intertwined, it is the social aspects—cooperation, discourse, and debate—that foster interpersonal relationships and evoke excitement in classrooms. Problem-based learning contributes to the collaborative construction of knowledge and the development of supportive relationships.

Introduction Problem-based learning (PBL) provides an opportunity for teachers to become partners with students in a unique learning environment. This partnership builds supportive, risk-free relationships, in addition

52

Marion Porath and Elizabeth Jordan

to strong declarative, procedural, and conceptual knowledge bases. It provides an environment that fosters (1) collaborative knowledge building, a process that is so important to life in a learning society; (2) the development of relationships believed to be crucial to contemporary life in the global community (Bruner, 1996; Keating & Hertzman, 1999); and (3) learning contexts that support the building of “intellectual camaraderie” and communities of learners (Donovan et al., 1999). People construct knowledge based on their personal understandings and shared experiences, and meaning is made out of the similarities and differences between our own understandings and new insights (Fosnot, 1996). While the intellectual and social aspects of meaning making are intertwined, it is the social aspects that foster interpersonal relationships, ignite excitement in classrooms, and nourish respect for novel ideas. This social and intellectual interaction forms the basis for what Csikszentmihalyi (1988) calls the “social support factors” that are vital to creativity, such as openness to novel ideas, positive attitude toward novelty, acceptance of diversity, and rewarding divergent thinking. This “congenial” environment, as Csikszentmihalyi (1996) describes it, allows students to think beyond socially acceptable conventions and provides a safe haven for breaking rules. We explore in this chapter the concept of the educational environment as a community, emphasizing the conditions necessary for developing the vibrant intellectual atmosphere for increased risk taking and creativity. The social support of a safe environment is vital for building the courage to think beyond socially acceptable responses. We will consider the social aspects of meaning making, with an emphasis on those that influence creativity; a working definition of the community environment; the challenges to building community; the conditions for building relationships; and PBL case structures that foster group support. We are currently experiencing a paradigm shift in education that challenges existing models of teaching and systems of education (Barr & Tagg, 1995; Dodge, 2006). It is a time when we must carefully consider the roles of educators in relation to the needs of students and the nature of optimal learning environments, with the aim of creating what Barab and Plucker (2002) term “smart contexts” in our schools and universities. It is also necessary to think creatively about how we support learning so

Problem-based Learning Communities

53

as to bring artistry in teaching to bear on our repertoires of pedagogical strategies, blending rules with art. Joseph J. Schwab captures this blend of rule and art well: Every art, whether it be teaching, stone carving or judicial control of a court of law . . . has rules, but knowledge of the rules does not make one an artist. Art arises as the knower of the rules learns to apply them appropriately to the particular case. Application, in turn, requires acute awareness of the particularities of that case and ways in which the rule can be modified to fit the case without complete abrogation of the rule. In art, the form must be adapted to the matter. (As cited in Shulman, 1986, p. 31)

PBL provides a framework for thinking about creative adaptations of form. It fosters not only intellectual engagement but also congenial learning environments. Much goes into teaching conducted in a way that truly supports learning and creativity (Torrance, 2004). Teachers’ knowledge of the curriculum and instructional strategies and their ability to craft learning environments that are responsive to students are critical to all pedagogical approaches, but central to PBL are those aspects related to the social educational environment. Table 4.1 summarizes six important aspects of expertise in teaching as defined by researchers of practice and highlights features that are central to PBL. The integration of these aspects of teaching underpins the creation of responsive and congenial learning environments.

The Social Aspects of Meaning Making We learn not only from the inside out but also from the outside in. Students bring their own understandings and questions to learning situations; these, together with their feelings, desires, and intentions related to learning, must be respected and connected in meaningful ways to the curriculum (“inside out” learning). In their interactions with peers, teachers, and others in their communities, students need to be offered opportunities to express their understandings and questions, gain new perspectives, have their thinking challenged, share and build on their knowledge, and learn about the knowledge traditions in their cultures

Expert inference of student understanding with students who are known to the teacher

Berliner (2001)

Domain expert bringing “adaptive expertise” to bear on new problems

Organization of instruction Content specialist in terms of students’ who can situate preconceptions and apply deep PBL scenarios must be knowledge constructed to optimize in ways that the connection of connect it to the students’ knowledge with real world the knowledge that the curriculum conveys.*

Shulman (1986)

Understanding of subject matter

Automaticity for repetitive operations, which allows “reinvestment” of cognitive resources in higher-level activities. This reinvestment facilitates the role of the teacher as designer and facilitator of creative learning experiences.

How topics, principles, and strategies in different subjects are understood, learned, and misconstrued and how real-world problems may build on or challenge those understandings and misconceptions

Understanding of pedagogy

Multiple classroom “worlds”

Understanding of and sensitivity to context

Teacher’s thoughts and feelings in relation to actions

Knowledge of self

Deep knowledge Flexible teaching that Rich and personal providing a structure sources of accommodates and responds to student within which information to interpret the brought to needs; having a curriculum complex rather than the solution of problems simple view of what it means to teach

How knowledge is organized and “packaged” for instruction and how the “packaging” may be deconstructed and “repackaged” creatively

Understanding of curricular knowledge

Elements of teaching that support the central features of problem-based learning (PBL)

Cognitive psychology of instruction

TABLE 4.1

Rich factual knowledge of subject

Sensitivity to the deep structure of a subject; well-integrated knowledge

SOURCE: Adapted from Porath (in press).

*The central features of PBL are highlighted in italics.

Wisdom—the understanding of and interest in others’ minds and the learning context

Arlin (1999)

Using higher-order executive processes to plan, monitor, and reflect on instruction; development of models of problems together with insightful solutions

Rich factual knowledge of teaching, rich procedural knowledge of teaching strategies, and practical knowledge of when and how to use both

Well-developed structure for planning instruction; connection of student feedback to learning objectives

Substantive General pedagogical and syntactic knowledge and beliefs knowledge of about teaching (views of the process of education) subjects; beliefs about subjects (orientation and conceptions of what is important to know)

Sternberg and Horvath (1995)

Knowledge of child development; empirical or social knowledge of learners

Turner-Bisset (1999)

A constructive process that includes understanding students’ perspectives on the curriculum

Curricular innovation coupled with practical knowledge of how to “work the system” to implement innovations

Sense of the context of instruction and the context in which students are being instructed

Practical knowledge of the social and political contexts in which one teaches; tacit knowledge

Teacher as learner orientation; willing to take risk and comfortable with uncertainty

Drawing on deep Knowledge of Identity as a educational settings; knowledge of teacher and its relationship to a subject to understanding teach curricular of a particular personal identity group of learners’ knowledge; critical analysis of curricular knowledge, actions, materials and understanding

56


(“outside in” learning). Crafting learning experiences that honor the significant role that the social environment plays in meaning making is central to PBL. Arlin’s work (1993, 1999) on the wise teacher is important in understanding the teacher qualities that optimize educational experiences where the social interactions in class are focused on meaning making. Arlin’s wise teacher is one who has “an orientation toward self, students, and teaching that highlights the teacher as learner in the act of constructing knowledge with her students” (1999, p. 12). This construction of knowledge unites the curriculum and learners’ perspectives (Bruner, 1996). PBL does not supplant the curriculum but, rather, provides a meaningful vehicle for student and teacher engagement with the curriculum. To truly be a teacher as learner implies creating a social environment in which students interact around problems that are meaningful to them and their community and where curiosity about others’ points of view on the curriculum and their ways of solving problems is evident. The foundation for such intellectual camaraderie lies in the social aspects of meaning making: cooperation, discourse, and debate. Ways in which teaching, curricula, and social aspects of meaning making are organized to support creativity in PBL communities are outlined in Table 4.2 (pp. 58–59), with emphasis on the questions to consider in implementing PBL and on the reciprocal role of the educator as both teacher and learner. Social environments conducive to meaning making can be characterized as having a vibrant intellectual atmosphere and exhibiting the following features:

• • • •

Students are perceived as bringing important, relevant knowledge to school and are viewed as thinkers. Teachers are curious about this knowledge, with the result that learners’ points of view are taken into account in planning instruction. Dynamic learning experiences are planned that engage students in meaningful challenges, and there is a climate of mutual respect and trust. Teachers help learners build bridges between their own conceptions and those of the culture.


•

57

Students collaborate through helping each other solve problems and teachers play an active role in promoting this collaboration.

A Working Definition of the Community Environment In order to grasp the importance of the environment for encouraging and nurturing creativity, we need to have a more refined notion of the concept of community. Broadly, it refers to a group of people working together with a common set of goals or interests. It can be expanded to the neighborhood, town, province, or state, but once it goes beyond a reasonable size the idea starts to break down. We tend not to think of regions or countries as communities. This implies the need to have some kind of personal relationship with others in order for a community to exist. This critical size limitation means that the smaller the group of people the greater is the realization of a common focus and therefore the existence of a community. It is those necessary interpersonal dynamics that hold a community together. Shavinina and Ferrari (2004) note the importance of social–cultural factors for the development of creativity at the micro-social level of school, family, and significant peers and the macro-social conditions of culture, politics, and history. As part of the micro-social level for students and teachers, the community consists of the classroom and school that together form a learning community with common goals. As long as the goals are common to students, teachers, and administrators, this learning community provides the support network necessary for learning to occur. Peterson (1992) asserts that “when community exists, learning is strengthened . . . everyone is smarter, more ambitious, and productive” (p. 10).

Social Aspects of Meaning Making that Influence Creativity Csikszentmihalyi (1988) notes that social support groups or networks are vital for creativity to flourish. The interpersonal relationships built within

Active, focused listener and designer who matches students’ skills, talents, needs, interests, and cognitive ability with the curriculum

Questioner and facilitator who challenges students to question their knowledge and models collaboration and inquiry

2. Student engagement with the problem, defining issues and elements that need research

Teacher’s role

1. Designing a problem that matches the curriculum

Step in PBL

• What are students’

preconceptions? • How do students understand group work? • What strategies result in positive group interactions? • What strategies get in the way of other strategies?*

to move toward definition of issues • Adopts respectful, interested approach to questioning • Helps students engage in and reflect on group processes

certain issue]? • What collaborative skills and backgrounds do students bring to problem solving? • What experience do students have with learning communities?

• Assists learning groups

• What do students think about [a

points of view • Promotes open communication

Questions to consider

• Respects students’

Relationship building

TABLE 4.2 Organizing the curriculum and the learning environment in ways that support creativity in problem-based learning (PBL)

• • • • •

• • • • •

Audiotapes Videotapes Meeting notes Students’ learning logs Teacher’s logs

Observational data Annotated notes Checklists Teacher’s journal entries Students’ journal entries

Sample formative assessment strategies

Assessor who evaluates students’ shared meanings in their conversations and products

4. Students proposing plausible solutions and negotiating meaning

of one’s thoughts influence how the thoughts develop further?* • How do representations of thoughts relate to ways of working in a group? • How does a new idea lead to a new question and vice versa?* • How are new ideas/questions communicated to and received by the group?

SOURCE: Table mainly adapted from Jordan et al. (2003), pp. 147–148. *Adapted from Duckworth (1987), pp. 134–135.

interprets group processes and relationships

• How does a specific representation

to students’ thinking? • How are ideas and group processes modified?* • How does a firmly held conviction influence how a person interprets an experience?* • In what circumstances is a person confused by/deaf to/helped by another person’s thoughts on the problem and/or process?*

and respect students’ points of view • Continues to help students monitor and reflect on their thinking and problem solving, at both individual and group levels • Analyzes and

• What seem to be critical barriers

• Continues to listen to

Coach and mentor who challenges students to expand their knowledge, to think at higher levels, and to solve problems intellectually and interpersonally

3. Students researching by accessing books, experts, and other information sources to gather relevant facts

Questions to consider

Relationship building

Teacher’s role

Step in PBL

Audiotapes Videotapes Meeting notes Students’ learning logs Teacher’s logs First drafts of products (e.g., portfolios, posters, charts, speeches)

interpretation of students’ products • Analysis and interpretation of the interactions between group relationships and products

• Analysis and

• • • • • •

Sample formative assessment strategies

60


a learning community promote a sense of group loyalty among students, a willingness to help each other, a sense of inclusiveness that respects diversity as well as personal and social growth, high levels of participation, greater quality of discussion and questioning, use of diverse strategies for problem solving, and increased risk taking in forming points of view or opinion. An aspect of this type of environment is a community built on mutual respect among all members. These social–emotional qualities encourage risk taking and provide the social validation necessary for students to take cognitive risks. That validation produces feelings of satisfaction and sometimes elation as well as pride in oneself (Cropley, 2003; Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). Overall, a risk-free, or congenial, environment —one of openness, positive attitude toward novelty, acceptance of personal differences, and willingness to reward divergence—enhances the vibrant intellectual atmosphere that encourages the use of metacognitive skills. It provides an opportunity for skill development and helps maintain the intense and sustained motivation or perseverance found in creative individuals (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988; Howe, 2004). This type of environment produces students who are self-confident in their social roles within a group, are willing to take risk in the very public social arena of the classroom, and willingly collaborate with others to interpret and develop meaning from challenging problems. The role of the teacher, beyond creating a risk-free intellectual social environment, is to provide students with age-appropriate problems that challenge their thinking. The provision of opportunities for manipulation and negotiation of ideas is essential in moving knowledge beyond facts to understanding. Within this vibrant environment, individual and group creativity begins to emerge and is highly valued by students. In our experience, the self-esteem that appears to result from such successful thinking encourages and reinforces the value of creativity in problem solving. Students begin to see creative thinking as part of their metacognitive repertoire for solving problems (in the broadest sense). A social environment that encourages novelty provides the “courage to create,” and this courage includes a readiness for divergent thinking and, by defying conventional opinion, exposes one to the possibility of being wrong (Motamedi, 1982).


61

Cropley (2003) points out that when teachers employ methods that emphasize “branching out, finding out, or inventing,” beneficial effects for students accrue, especially their motivation, attitude toward school, and self-image. All of these activities require student–student and student–teacher interactions. This socialized learning underscores the importance of the social–emotional aspects of the learning enterprise. For students, it means a cultural and social support system that nurtures creativity.

Challenges to Building Relationships In building a congenial environment, some of the biggest challenges to the development of a vibrant learning community that educators may face include the following:

• • • •

Time constraints. Most teachers have to make priority decisions based on the amount of time available for each topic. Problem solving requires opportunities to explore ideas and negotiate with others. Other commitments. While project and problem-solving work may become a focus for the class, there are other obligations within the curriculum that may vie for everyone’s time, students’ and teachers’ alike. External pressures. Often, outside influences affect the teacher’s decisions, such as administrative support that is lacking or district-wide testing that necessitates reverting to a more traditional pedagogical mode. Complexity of relationships. The idea of a community as described implies everyone getting along with each other. In the reality of a classroom, that is not always the case. Teachers need to work with students to nurture mutual respect.

Given the above potential constraints on building relationships, the following conditions are necessary for fostering relationships that support PBL:

62


• •

• •

•

Small class size and small working groups. While it is not impossible to nurture community, social cohesion, and effective group problem solving in large classes, smaller groups optimize the chances of building successful learning communities. Acknowledgment of team membership. Students need to know that they are valued for their contributions to finding and solving problems, for their knowledge, and for their ability to work collaboratively and respectfully with others. Their questions, knowledge, and goals become part of the group’s shared efforts. Suitable physical environment. A physical environment that is accessible by all class members and is aesthetically pleasing, well organized, and stocked with appropriate support materials and equipment is essential to supporting learning and creativity. Diverse composition of groupings. Changing group membership periodically encourages the development of a repertoire of social skills, optimizing harmonious relationships among all class members. Diversity in group membership encourages collaboration within and among groupings. Students come to appreciate that they require the participation of all members of their learning community and that all points of view are important to increasing understanding and creativity. Social and emotional support. Conditions that foster a social environment conducive to creativity make it possible to deal with the challenges articulated above. In a community that supports risk taking, aims for deep understanding, values diversity, and promotes collaborative problem solving, these challenges can be understood and addressed proactively.

PBL Case Structures that Foster Group Support The features inherent in the structure of a problem in a PBL case, or scenario, support the types of student experiences and the social– emotional environment necessary for creativity to emerge. These features are often missing in case studies, an instructional strategy often seen as


63

similar to PBL despite some significant differences. PBL scenarios are characterized by the following features:

•

• • •

•

Ill-structured problems. The nature of real-world problems is that they are often without the types of boundaries or structures that define problem solutions. Most problems, in reality, are confounded with other variables and need to be teased out of the social, emotional, cultural, and environmental contexts. Partial information. When we encounter problems in real life, we often have only partial information available to us at first when we try to find a solution. At times, additional information is found or presented to us during the solution process. Questions that belong to students. PBL scenarios are designed to give students the opportunity to become self-directed in their search for solutions, thereby making them, rather than the teacher, the persons who develop the questions. A real problem with a number of plausible solutions. The illstructured nature of real problems means that often there is more than one solution. There may be a right answer, but it is also possible that the right answer is mixed in with a number of plausible answers and so further investigation would be required. Requirement of cooperative group work. The reality of most problem-solving situations in life is that they are group efforts. We tend to seek out individuals who have information that could be useful to problem solution and usually discuss our findings to solidify our understanding of problems and situations. This natural collaborative problem-solving tendency is captured in the PBL procedure.

In contrast, case studies have the following characteristics:

• •

Structured, self-evident problems. Cases are written with the problem to be solved made obvious to students. Questions are provided by the author to guide students rather than students being given the opportunity to develop questions. Enough information to “solve” the problem. Cases come with all the facts necessary for students to solve the problem. Usually,

64


• •

•

there is no need to explore beyond the material provided to solve the problem. Leading questions provided. To ensure that students will be able to find and solve the right problem and learn the lesson objectives, the author provides sets of leading questions at the end of the case. Solutions known to instructors. Most cases come with answer books. Students are to seek the right answer rather than a plausible one. In many instances, students’ results are compared against those achieved in a real situation. Evaluation is often a question of how close the student came to the actual or right answer. Designed for individual or group work. Discussion and the negotiation of meaning are not necessarily part of case studies.

The differences between the value of case studies and that of PBL scenarios point out the need for case scenarios that not only support curricular goals but also are designed with a deep understanding of the developmental needs of students. When properly designed, PBL scenarios provide students with the scope necessary for creativity to emerge.

Conclusion Shulman’s (1990) perspective on turning the foundational educational disciplines of psychology, philosophy, history, and sociology upside down is relevant to PBL. This “upsetting” of foundations puts the content of the curriculum first and asks that the foundational discipline adapt to the content. While Shulman’s suggestion was made in the context of students of education, it is relevant to how we craft PBL scenarios to shape students’ experiences. Students in any discipline can benefit from investigating what it takes to understand a problem, be it scientific, artistic, historical, or geographical, by applying the relevant foundational discipline to the problem at hand. By probing what they know and need to know, coming to a consensus about problem definition, and researching possible solutions, students become aware of what it takes to understand the problem, bringing them to an awareness of the “conceptual landscape” (Leinhardt & Steele, 2005). If students do not engage in this sort of meaningful inquiry in PBL, they may form “one-time-only” theories (Bereiter & Scardamalia,


65

2000). There is a critical difference between a “one-time-only” theory that applies only to the problem under discussion and a general theory that has the potential for broader explanation. Educators also need to engage in meaningful inquiry and form general theories. They must be aware of the conceptual landscape of their classes, crafting the form of instruction in consideration of students’ knowledge and group dynamics. They must also have a general theory of how the learning environment and pedagogy can support deep understanding of the curriculum and nurture creativity in their students. These aspects of teaching represent both the art and the craft of education.

References Arlin, P. K. (1993). Wisdom and expertise in teaching: An integration of perspectives. Learning and Individual Differences, 5, 341–349. Arlin, P. K. (1999). The wise teacher: A developmental model of teaching. Theory into Practice, 38, 12–17. Barab, S. A., & Plucker, J. A. (2002). Smart people or smart contexts? Cognition, ability, and talent development in an age of situated approaches to knowing and learning. Educational Psychologist, 37, 165–182. Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change, 27(6), 12–25. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2000). Commentary on Part I: Process and product in problem-based learning (PBL) research. In D. H. Evensen & C. E. Hmelo (Eds.), Problem-based learning: A research perspective on learning interactions (pp. 185–195). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Berliner, D. C. (2001). Learning about and learning from expert teachers. International Journal of Educational Research, 35, 463–482. Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cropley, A. J. (2003). Creativity in education and learning: A guide for teachers and educators. London: Kogan Page. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and person: A system view of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 325–339). New York: Cambridge University Press. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: HarperCollins. Dodge, B. (2006, July). From nouns to verbs: Turning fossilized content into lively learning. Paper presented at the International Conference on Problem-based Learning, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Lima.

66


Donovan, M. S., Bransford, J. D., & Pellegrino, J. W. (Eds.) (1999). How people learn: Bridging research and practice. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Duckworth, E. (1987). “The having of wonderful ideas” and other essays on teaching and learning. New York: Teachers College Press. Fosnot, C. T. (Ed.) (1996). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press. Howe, M. J. A. (2004). Some insights of geniuses into the causes of exceptional achievements. In L. V. Shavinina & M. Ferrari (Eds.), Beyond knowledge: Extracognitive aspects of developing high ability (pp. 105–118). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Jordan, E., Porath, M., & Bickerton, G. (2003). Problem-based learning as a research tool for teachers. In A. Clarke & G. Erickson (Eds.), Teacher inquiry: Living the research in everyday practice (pp. 141–153). London: RoutledgeFalmer. Keating, D. P., & Hertzman, C. (Eds.) (1999). Developmental health and the wealth of nations. New York: Guilford Press. Leinhardt, G., & Steele, M. D. (2005). Seeing the complexity of standing to the side: Instructional dialogues. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 87–163. Motamedi, K. (1982). Extending the concept of creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 16, 75–88. Peterson, K. (1992). Life in a crowded place: Making a learning community. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Porath, M. (in press). What makes a gifted educator? A design for development. In L. Shavinina (Ed.), The international handbook on giftedness. New York: Springer Science. Shavinina, L. V., & Ferrari, M. (Eds.) (2004). Beyond knowledge: Extracognitive aspects of developing high ability. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A contemporary perspective. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 3–36). New York: Macmillan. Shulman, L. S. (1990). Reconnecting foundations to the substance of teacher education. Teachers College Record, 91, 300–310. Sternberg, R. J., & Horvath, J. A. (1995). A prototype view of expert teaching. Educational Researcher, 24(6), 9–17. Torrance, E. P. (2004). Predicting the creativity of elementary school children (1958–80): The teacher who “made a difference.” In D. J. Treffinger (Ed.), Creativity and giftedness (pp. 35–49). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Turner-Bisset, R. (1999). The knowledge bases of the expert teacher. British Educational Research Journal, 25, 39–55.

CHAPTER 5

Developing Creative Learning Environments in Problem-based Learning Sari Poikela, Pirjo Vuoskoski,* and Maija Kärnä† University of Lapland, *Mikkeli University of Applied Sciences, and †Pirkanmaa University of Applied Sciences, Finland

Abstract This chapter explores through two Finnish case studies the use of problembased learning to provide a creative learning environment. In the first case, online supervision and collaboration during clinical placement of students in a problem-based physiotherapy course were carried out in the virtual learning environment Moodle and using the desktop conferencing tool Marratech. The second case examined business students’ perception of the usefulness of pre-tutorial discussion conducted asynchronously in a discussion forum and in Wiki, both built into the Moodle environment, in constructing students’ individual and group knowledge bases. The results of both cases show benefits as well as challenges in facilitating computer-supported collaboration and learning. The lessons learned from the case studies and the implications are discussed.

Introduction Problem-based learning (PBL) was introduced in Finnish higher education in the 1990s. Since then, its use has spread to various disciplines and programs, and it can be said that PBL has now entered the second phase of development in Finland. What distinguishes PBL as a teaching methodology, perhaps more of an educational strategy, is the change in the whole learning environment that it requires. And this

68

Sari Poikela, Pirjo Vuoskoski, and Maija Kärnä

involves the holistic consideration of a number of elements: the organizational context, curriculum content and design, as well as teaching and learning approaches, including methods of assessment and evaluation. For students, PBL provides a creative learning environment in which knowledge is constructed. For teachers, it offers an effective tool for facilitating learning and nurturing active learners. However, the use of this tool demands faculty cooperation rather than the traditional approach of working alone (Poikela & Poikela, 2006). In this chapter, we examine the development of creative environments in PBL through two case studies investigating the integration of online collaboration with problem-based pedagogy in a business and a physiotherapy course in Finland. Based on the findings, we consider the lessons learned and the implications.

PBL for a Creative Learning Environment Savin-Baden and Howell Major (2004) have noted different approaches to PBL adoption. Among them are what they describe as the “PBL funnel approach” and “PBL on a shoestring,” which involve implementation on a macro level where individual teachers experiment with PBL in their own courses or modules within traditional subject-based curricula. These “patchwork” PBL models adopt a two-pronged approach, using lectures and other traditional teaching methods on the one hand and group work along the line of PBL on the other. An integrated curriculum, in contrast, allows PBL to be implemented on a macro level across the entire curriculum. On a broader scale with a cross-disciplinary approach, problems from different disciplines are integrated into the curriculum. This is a strategy for transforming curricula. At its best, it leads to fundamental pedagogical changes, redirection of teachers’ work, and transformation of the entire learning culture (Barrett, 2005; Chen, 2000; Poikela, 2003). The PBL curriculum provides a collaborative knowledge-building and self-directed learning environment that can be simplified as shown in the schematic in Figure 5.1. This concept has been adopted in many disciplines in higher education institutions in Finland. From our experience,

Developing Creative Learning Environments in Problem-based Learning

69

Work life Experts

Organizations Problems Training Tutorial

Assignments

Other media Internet Library

Lessons Self-directed study

FIGURE 5.1 The problem-based learning curriculum provides a collaborative knowledge-building and self-directed learning environment SOURCE: Poikela & Poikela (2006), p. 76.

it is very important to understand PBL as a whole system rather than merely an instructional technique. Such a learning environment promotes empowerment and creativity for both learners and teachers. The core of the PBL method is the tutorial, a small group session with 7–9 students and a teacher acting as tutor. Tutorials are held once or twice a week with the same participants throughout the study module or semester. Another fundamental element of PBL is a self-directed study period between tutorials when students are required to explore various kinds of information resources in their search for solutions. Group members share responsibilities for conducting information searches focusing on sources of theoretical knowledge with the aim of gaining sufficient understanding to allow deeper exploration of the problem at hand. Additional information can be obtained by interviewing experts or conducting Internet research. The purpose of integrating shared research and self-study into the curriculum is to reduce the time spent in lectures while increasing the time for independent study and information search. Lectures become a learning resource like any other type of resource, including published literature, practical training, and assignments. New kinds of demands are placed on the quality of lectures and assignments; they need to be tailored

70


and timed according to the process of problem solving. New demands are also placed on the quality of learning materials. For instance, Webbased material provided for solving the given problem needs to be relevant, useful, and up-to-date. At the same time, the material produced by students themselves is of increased importance because the learning is shared and collaborative. For PBL implementation, broad cooperation across the institution is required. Teachers cannot handle the curriculum by themselves because PBL demands institution-wide planning and implementation.

The Problem-solving Process The process of problem solving may be structured in different ways. One of the most well-known models was developed by Barrows at the University of McMaster, Canada (Barrows, 1985; see also Barrett, 2005). Another is the “seven jump” model of Schmidt (1983) at the University of Maastricht, the Netherlands, and its many variations from other institutions. The cyclical model developed at the University of Linköping, Sweden, has been widely applied, too. For this reason, it is not possible to identify a single, “best” model of PBL. PBL offers a framework for structuring and facilitating learning and group processes based on creative problem solving. Carefully designed work-related problems create a solid base for learning. The problemsolving process is facilitated by the teacher in tutorials lasting two to a maximum of four hours at a time. The PBL process begins with students working toward a shared understanding of the problem presented to them. They then brainstorm ideas about the content area related to the problem using their existing knowledge and prior experiences. Similar types of ideas are grouped into named categories. The most important and actual problem areas among the named categories are determined. The first tutorial session is then held to decide on the learning tasks to undertake and the goals to achieve. Following the tutorial, students engage in information search and self-study, working both individually and in pairs or in small groups depending on the learning tasks and goals as well as the strategy deemed


71

most appropriate for seeking information. The second tutorial is the time for applying the new knowledge acquired, to tackle the learning tasks, and to reconstruct the problem in a new way. New and deeper knowledge is synthesized and integrated to provide a basis for deeper learning. Participants clarify and reflect on the whole problem-solving process and the learning process in the light of the new knowledge. The PBL process, or cycle, is summarized in Figure 5.2. In the diagram, assessment is placed at the center, as it is part of every single phase of the process. However, it is still necessary to close the tutorial with feedback about students’ own learning, their information-seeking behavior, their problem-solving skills, and the group processes so that improvements can be made. Students may need to learn information-seeking skills when they start doing PBL. It is not enough for the tutor to simply ask students to go

Problem-solving cycle continues

1. Problem setting 8. Clarification: comparing with and structuring original problem

2. Brainstorming: free association 3. Systematization

Assessment 4. Selection: thematization 5. Learning task formulation

7. Knowledge integration and construction

6. Knowledge acquisition: self-study

Experts Training Organizations

FIGURE 5.2

Lessons Assignments

Internet Library Other media

The problem-based learning cycle and knowledge acquisition

SOURCE: Poikela & Poikela (2006), p. 78.

72


and find information from the library or the Internet. It is essential that tutorials include discussion about where and how the most relevant information can be found and what the most important resources are. Students need practice and guidance to familiarize themselves with different kinds of information resources before they can become effective, competent information seekers. Librarians and other information specialists can also provide the necessary guidance. Virtual and Web-based environments are becoming increasingly important as forums for guiding study and for finding, sharing, and evaluating information. Such concepts as Web 2.0, social media, and mobile learning have been the subject of lively discussion concerning the next stage of development of the Finnish technological society. Social media (Web 2.0), including the notion of online collaboration, is the most rapidly evolving phenomenon on the Web. The various facilities of the social media, such as blogs, wikis, discussion forums, and Internet calls, are widely used by the young generation. Thus, it is only natural that the educational possibilities that social media offer should also be seriously considered. Moreover, mobile technology provides new ways for teachers and learners to augment and improve learning and teaching, especially when working with geographically dispersed groups. There has been a growing interest among educational researchers recently in computer-supported PBL in online environments (Donnelly, 2004, 2005; Strømsø et al., 2004; Valaitis et al., 2005; Savin-Baden & Wilkie, 2006; Portimojärvi, 2006a, 2006b). The networked environment can provide a space for constructive learning that enables interaction between learners as well as extensive information search from diverse sources. And students are expected to enhance each other’s learning by using various tools and resources for collaborative problem solving. When students work remotely, they need effective tools for communication. The combination of online technology and PBL challenges not only learners but also educators to adapt their existing skills as well as to adopt new skills to enhance learning in virtual environments. We will next analyze two cases, one in physiotherapy education and the other in business education, where PBL has been successfully implemented for several years and advanced technological solutions have been deployed recently to support PBL online.


73

Cases Case 1. Enhancing Learning and Supervision via Online Collaboration during Clinical Placement in a Problembased Physiotherapy Course This study is an integral part of a wider development project launched in 2005 at the Mikkeli University of Applied Sciences, Finland. The project aims to utilize information and communication technology (ICT) along with problem-based pedagogy to enhance learning and supervision during clinical placement. A fully integrated PBL curriculum has been implemented in this bachelor-degree physiotherapy course since 1998. Integrated blocks of academic study alternating with practical training periods have been designed to enhance the integration of academic and clinical learning. Since its launch, a range of electronic resources and online communication tools have been introduced to staff and students. This study examined online collaboration between students on clinical placement and with their teachers and supervisors using the virtual learning platform Moodle (http://www.moodle.org) for asynchronous communication and the desktop conferencing tool Marratech (http:// www.marratech.com) for synchronous communication. Marratech, used together with a laptop, a Web camera, headphones, text-based chat, and a shared whiteboard, offers a multimodal channel for real-time online communication and mobile learning.

Research question and methods The aims of the study were to examine online collaboration between the participants during clinical placement to find out which aspects of the collaboration were problematic and what improvements could be made to enhance the integration of academic and clinical learning. The study was conducted in autumn 2006 over a five-week period of clinical placement in private and public health organizations located in different parts of Finland. The participants were 24 third-year physiotherapy students, 3 teachers, and 21 clinical supervisors (physiotherapists). A problem scenario related to recording patient information

74


and making decisions in physiotherapy was integrated into the clinical training. The first tutorial was held before the placement, and the second tutorial following the first. As an integral part of professional training, the clinical posting offered an opportunity for independent study and information seeking on the given problem scenario. During clinical placement, students were required to record how they identified and recognized patients’ needs, assessed and gathered information, made diagnoses, analyzed and synthesized information, and applied problem-solving strategies and clinical reasoning in order to plan, prioritize, and implement appropriate physiotherapy. For the tutorials, the students were divided into three small groups of 7–9 students at the beginning of the term. One off-campus group engaged alternately in synchronous and asynchronous online collaboration and self-study. The two groups remaining on campus engaged in computer-supported collaborative knowledge construction and documentation, traditional face-to-face tutorials, and asynchronous online collaboration between tutorials. All participants had access to Moodle during clinical training. The students were required to post their written learning documents, case reports, learning agreements, and reflection diaries onto Moodle. The case report was an account of the student’s own clinical experiences together with relevant research literature. The learning agreement was a written agreement negotiated between the student, the teacher, and the clinical supervisor on the learning objectives and resources, the learning criteria, and the learning outcomes. At the end of each study week, students were expected to reflect on their own learning and understanding in their reflection diary. The teachers and supervisors would guide and give feedback on students’ learning documents via Moodle, while students were required to comment on each other’s documents in the same forum. Additionally, two students on clinical placement abroad used Marratech to communicate with their teacher. Textual data consisted of individual students’ learning documents as well as written comments and conversations between students, teachers, and supervisors made over Moodle. Videos were recorded of conversations conducted between students and teachers using Marratech. Qualitative content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005) was done to define


75

the type of online collaboration. The comments and conversations were coded and then, based on how the various codes were related and linked, sorted into the categories of clinical behavior, content knowledge, and reflective writing. Content analysis continued with a comparison of the content of the categories against students’ individual learning documents. This combined analysis became the basis for interpreting and presenting the findings.

Results The data indicate that online communication appeared to create more opportunities for versatile collaboration, thus enhancing the integration of academic and clinical learning during clinical placement. On the other hand, the lack of ICT skills, time, motivation, or access to appropriate communication tools was a hindrance. Asynchronous online collaboration in Moodle enabled physiotherapy students to receive and post written comments and feedback on their learning and to reflect on the feedback. Most of the collaboration in Moodle was between students and teachers. The content of collaboration was divided into three categories: (1) clinical behavior, comprising comments about students’ behavior in clinical situations; (2) content knowledge, consisting of comments on the given problem scenario relating to recording information and making decisions in physiotherapy; and (3) reflective writing, comprising students’ reflections on their own learning and understanding. While most of the comments and feedback on students’ reflective writing and content knowledge were given by teachers, students commented most often on each other’s clinical behavior. The supervisors’ written comments related only to the learning agreements. In their reflection diaries, students expressed disappointment with delayed feedback on their learning documents. However, they were generally satisfied with their peers for their helpful observations and good questions, and with the teachers for being the most reliable evaluators of curricular expectations. It must be noted that the students did not place emphasis on teachers’ feedback on their clinical learning. Similarly, they did not expect their clinical supervisors to comment on their reflection

76


diaries and case reports, but instead they attached greater importance to their face-to-face interactions with the supervisors in daily learning situations. They also highlighted the benefits of getting feedback during placement from all parties—peers, teachers, and supervisors. Table 5.1 summarizes these observations. The two students on attachment abroad highlighted desktop conferencing as a versatile and efficient way of communication during placement, enabling synchronous collaboration remotely with sight and sound. It allowed the students to get immediate feedback and response from their teacher, reassuring them that they were “on track.” Additionally, the textual communication in Moodle enabled them to follow parallel discussions about similar questions that concerned them. This seemed to ease their anxiety about being “isolated” or “uninformed.” There were other students echoing this sentiment.

Discussion The results of this case study are compatible with those of other studies. It was reported that medical students’ expectations of tutor involvement

TABLE 5.1 Content of asynchronous online collaboration during clinical placement Clinical behavior

Content knowledge

Reflective writing

Participants’ contributions

Peers giving good questions and helpful observations

Most feedback from teachers

Most feedback from teachers, while supervisors comment on learning agreements

Noteworthy observation

Decreased expectation of tutor involvement

Reliance on teacher as evaluator of curricular expectations

Disappointment with delayed feedback; importance attached to feedback from all parties


77

in problem-based tutorials conducted remotely during clinical placement decreased compared with face-to-face tutorials held within the institu-tion (Strømsø et al., 2004). A similar decrease was noted in our physiotherapy students’ expectations of teacher involvement in their clinical learning. Several possible explanations may be offered, such as the characteristics of the communication media used (Portimojärvi, 2006b) or the teacher’s and the supervisor’s competence in working in and guiding interaction in the virtual environment (Donnelly, 2004). The online environment differs from the face-to-face environment in a number of ways, accompanied by its specific tensions. As such, the expertise and skills required for online instruction are different. “Going online” does not necessarily lead to savings in staff time (Hmelo-Silver et al., 2006), an indication of the complexity of the work involved. The context of clinical placement must also be considered in this regard. Physiotherapy students gained greater access to experts during clinical placement, and this may have reduced their need for guidance and feedback from their teacher on their learning. It is also important to note that, while these students expected feedback from their peers and teacher, it was on different aspects of learning from what they expected from clinical experts. Well-timed synchronous and asynchronous virtual communication during clinical placement seemed to create a conducive environment for collaborative learning, joint knowledge construction, and information exchange. It can be concluded that this enhanced the integration of academic and clinical learning as well. However, it might be insightful to examine more closely the different expectations of the students about the role of the teacher and the clinical supervisor. It became clear that guidance was focused on individual learning processes. It could be useful to design collaborative activities conducive to joint guidance, such as online tutorials with the participation of both the teacher and the clinical supervisor, as well as synchronous online sessions for group interaction and guidance during clinical placement. Prior to that, clearly we need to train teachers and clinical supervisors to use online environments and communication technology to facilitate synchronous and asynchronous communication between all parties—students, teachers, and supervisors.

78


Case 2. Using Web 2.0 to Create a Common Knowledge Base in Business Education This study is part of a development initiative undertaken at the Ikaaline Business School, Pirkanmaa University of Applied Sciences, to create an innovative learning environment combining PBL and Web 2.0. The first phase of the project was to develop the curriculum for a Bachelor of Business Administration program based on PBL. The new integrated curriculum was introduced in 2005. It was quickly followed by a plan to integrate Web 2.0 facilities into the PBL environment, so as to encourage students to actively engage in online collaboration, not just to use the existing information resources on the Web. The process of building common ground for a group formed the focus of this study. The common information base, or common ground, is necessary for a group to operate, to achieve its objectives, and to create new knowledge. The concept of collective information processing was first introduced by Kathleen Propp in 1999. The process consists of four stages, beginning with the construction of the individual information base. The individual information base consists of the knowledge that each member possesses of the task concerned and which the member brings to the group, including the person’s past experiences in similar situations, general knowledge, and any information that he or she has collected before meeting with the group. At the second stage, the individual knowledge bases are connected and a new group knowledge base is formed. This group knowledge base includes all the collective knowledge available to the group as a whole. At this stage, there are several group-level factors that might affect the rest of the process, such as group size and composition, internal relationships, and preexisting preferences of group members. The impact of communication and discussion becomes the central focus at the third stage. The information that the group members exchange and shape during group discussions forms the communicated information base. At the final stage, the outputs of the previous stages are processed. The final collective information base includes the information that is accepted and utilized by the group to reach a decision on the task at hand (Propp, 1999, pp. 231–236).


79

Research question and methods The aim of the study was to first explore whether it was possible to create a common information base using two Web 2.0 tools: an asynchronous discussion forum and Wiki, a Web-site engine that allows visitors to edit its contents. Both tools were embedded in the Moodle virtual learning platform. Moreover, we wanted to find out if there were any differences in students’ use of these resources. Nine first-year business students volunteered to participate in this study, which was conducted in the second term of academic year 2005/ 2006, consisting of two eight-week study periods. The students used the discussion forum during the first study period and Wiki during the second period, both to support self-study between weekly tutorials. For each period, the students worked with a different tutor, both of whom were interviewed after they concluded their work with the students. Learning diaries were collected from students after each period, and at the end of the second term a group interview was organized. The interview was recorded and transcribed. The data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

Results The students used the Web discussion space to get new ideas, find new sources of information, and refine their own information search. The space became a forum for sharing the knowledge that each student possessed. There was a general effort among the students to always find unique information to share on the forum. The students reported frequently a reluctance to repeat any information already given by others. The messages contained mainly facts culled from various sources, whereas own experiences were not shared except at the very beginning of the first period. According to the students, the Web discussion helped them form a holistic picture of the topic at hand and focused their own information search. It was considered valuable in expanding individual knowledge bases. Additionally, it generated a pool of shared information that served as a basis for subsequent face-to-face tutorial discussion.

80


However, there was a general dissatisfaction among the students with the nature of the discussions. The messages were mostly long, unconnected statements of facts clearly copied directly from various sources. The students reported that hardly any real discussion, questions, or exchange of opinions could be found. New information introduced by fellow group members was not internalized. After using the discussion forum for eight weeks, the students switched to Wiki. Wiki was a new tool to the students and, in spite of training given at the beginning of the period, they found it difficult, awkward, confusing, and time-consuming to use and the structure of the Wiki environment unsuitable for actual discussion. They used Wiki in the same way that they did with the discussion forum: for sharing the information that they possessed individually, for helping them to refine their own information search, and as a source of new ideas. Compared with the discussion forum, the students found Wiki more convenient for storing information because information on it was well organized and easy to locate. Both Wiki and the discussion forum restricted the topics of discussion in the face-to-face tutorials. Only issues introduced on Wiki were discussed, as the topics for the tutorials were determined based on those found on the Wiki index page.

Discussion The results show only minor differences in application between the discussion forum and Wiki. Both tools appeared to form a source for building up individual knowledge bases and a space for storing shared information. Wiki seemed to offer a more structured and organized resource for broadening the knowledge base than the discussion forum, where the shared information was scattered in the messages. However, the students were unable to reach common ground over the Web. This is well in line with the findings of earlier studies. Clark and Schaefer (1989) note that before the participants of Web-based conferencing are able to reach a deeper level of interaction and learning they have to find adequate common ground in terms of shared understanding, knowledge, beliefs, assumptions, and presuppositions. For that to happen, all participants should show an interest and a willingness


81

to continue discussion toward reaching common ground by providing feedback, questions, and support to their peers (Mäkitalo et al., 2002). In the present study, it was noted that students shared knowledge but not mutual understanding, beliefs, or assumptions. They failed to express support and give feedback to their peers, a fact that was clearly evidenced by the lack of discursive messages. Thus, the group was not able to reach mutual understanding and establish common ground during their Web interaction, and the negotiation of meaning was left for face-to-face discussions. Figure 5.3 shows how the various stages of collective information processing of the study group were divided between Web interaction and face-to-face interaction. The information base is depicted as a triangle, with its tip being the individual information base that a student starts to build at the beginning of a learning task and the base being the common knowledge base of the group at the completion of the learning task. On the basis of the study findings, it is clear that only the first two stages— the expansion of individual information bases and the creation of the group knowledge base—took place over the Web, whereas negotiation of meaning started only during the face-to-face discussion in the tutorial. The line cutting across the triangle represents the border between the

Web interaction

Group knowledge base

Individual knowledge base

Negotiation of meaning Face-to-face interaction

Common ground

{

{

• Information retrieval • Expansion of individual

knowledge bases • Construction of group

knowledge base • Negotiation of meaning • Final group knowledge

base formed • Completion of

individual knowledge bases

FIGURE 5.3 Contribution of Web interaction toward establishment of common ground SOURCE: Kärnä & Kallioniemi (2006), pp. 64–66.

82


outcomes of Web interaction and those of face-to-face discussion (Kärnä & Kallioniemi, 2006). In order to further integrate and harness the full benefits of the online PBL environment, we must find a way to move the boundary between Web interaction and face-to-face discussion further down toward the final stage, which is the formation of the final collective information base or common ground.

Conclusion: The Lessons Learned Both the business and physiotherapy programs under study have incorporated PBL for several years, with fully integrated problem-based curricula. At the beginning, when developing the innovative curricula, many issues had to be solved, such as the design and development of the new curricula, teachers’ insecurity about shifting the focus from teaching to facilitating learning, as well as students’ unwillingness to accept greater responsibility for their own learning. After resolving these issues, the focus has now shifted to developing even more creative and effective learning environments with the implementation of ICT. The two cases represent different fields of professional studies as well as different stages of study (academic study versus professional training). However, in both cases, advanced technological solutions were applied to support PBL online. Despite the differences, similarities can be noted. Firstly, students used online collaboration to get reassurance for being “on the right track.” This physiotherapy students got from their teacher and business students from their peers. Secondly, although students generally welcomed the introduction of new learning methods and the use of online facilities, there was still hesitation and doubt among teachers and supervisors, as well as among some of the students, about adopting ICT tools for learning and teaching. More training and support from ICT experts is needed to build confidence in using the facilities. Only when this is done will students and teachers be able to focus on learning and teaching and not get distracted by frustrating technical problems. Thirdly, in both cases, one of the problems encountered was the lack of discussion and knowledge building among students. In the physiotherapy case, most of the collaboration in Moodle was between


83

teachers and students during clinical placement. In the business case, there was a general lack of discussion and exchange of opinions, beliefs, and understandings among students during the independent study period. Thus, in both cases, the potential of the technologies was not optimally and fully exploited. The online collaboration did not lead to common ground, which would have enabled group members not only to share knowledge but also to create new knowledge. In online PBL, there is an increasing focus on synchronous as well as asynchronous collaboration to meet the need for shared understanding and knowledge building. The aim is not only to enable online tutorials to be held but also to facilitate independent study between tutorials, when students share information in order to build mutual understanding and a common knowledge base. Further, desktop conferencing tools like Marratech coupled with Web cameras and headphones allow communication and group work to take place in online tutorials with sight and sound just like in face-to-face tutorials. Additionally, technological tools can be employed for recording, constructing, and visualizing the shared understanding and knowledge in face-to-face tutorials. Finally, we consider the implications of the lessons learned for the design of problem-based curricula and the implementation of problembased pedagogy. PBL does not follow the structure of academic subjects but that of problem solving within shared and individual learning processes. In a holistic approach to problem-based curriculum design, all aspects of learning, teaching, and assessment, regardless of the tools and environments used, have to be tuned to support the integration of shared learning and self-study, the integration of academic and practical learning, and the building of professional competence.

References Barrett, T. (2005). Understanding problem-based learning. In T. Barrett, I. Mac Labhrainn & H. Fallon (Eds.), Handbook of enquiry and problem-based learning: Irish case studies and international perspectives (pp. 13–25). Galway: All Ireland Society of Higher Education (AISHE) and Centre for Excellence in Learning and Teaching (CELT), National University of Ireland. Retrieved from http://www.nuigalway.ie/celt/pblbook.

84


Barrows, H. (1985). How to design a problem-based curriculum for the preclinical years. New York: Springer. Chen, S. E. (2000). Problem-based learning: Educational tool or philosophy. In O. S. Tan, P. Little, S. Y. Hee & J. Conway (Eds.), Problem-based learning: Educational innovations across disciplines (pp. 210–219). A collection of selected papers from the Second Asia-Pacific Conference on Problem-based Learning. Singapore: Temasek Centre for Problem-based Learning. Clark, H., & Schaefer, F. (1989). Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science, 13, 259–294. Donnelly, R. (2004). Investigating the effectiveness of teaching “on-line learning” in a problem-based learning on-line environment. In M. Savin-Baden & K. Wilkie (Eds.), Challenging research in problem-based learning (pp. 50–68). Maidenhead: Society for Research into Higher Education (SRHE) and Open University Press. Donnelly, R. (2005). Using technology to support project and problem-based learning. In T. Barrett, I. Mac Labhrainn & H. Fallon (Eds.), Handbook of enquiry and problem-based learning (pp. 157–177). Galway: AISHE and CELT. Retrieved from http://www.nuigalway.ie/celt/pblbook. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Nagarajan, A., & Derry, S. J. (2006). From face-to-face to online participation: Tensions in facilitating problem-based learning. In M. Savin-Baden & K. Wilkie (Eds.), Challenging research in problem-based learning (pp. 61–78). Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press. Hsieh, H., & Shannon, S. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. Kärnä, M., & Kallioniemi, M. (2006). Verkkotyöskentelyn osuus yhteisen tietoperustan rakentamisessa (The influence of interaction over the Web in building the common knowledge base). In T. Portimojärvi (Ed.), Ongelmaperustaisen oppimisen verkko (Net of problem-based learning) (pp. 47–66). Tampere, Finland: Tampere University Press. Mäkitalo, K., Häkkinen, P., Leinonen, P., & Järvelä, S. (2002). Mechanisms of common ground in case-based Web discussions in teacher education. Internet and Higher Education, 5, 247–265. Poikela, S. (2003). Ongelmaperustainen pedagogiikka ja tutorin osaaminen (Problem-based pedagogy and tutors’ knowing and competence). Tampere: Tampere University Press. Poikela, E., & Poikela, S. (2006). Problem-based curricula: Theory, development and design. In E. Poikela & A. R. Nummenmaa (Eds.), Understanding problem-based learning (pp. 71–90). Tampere: Tampere University Press. Portimojärvi, T. (2006a). Hyppy tuntemattomaan: Opiskelijana ongelmaperustaisessa verkkoympäristössä (Leap to the unknown: Students in computermediated problem-based learning environments). In A. R. Nummenmaa


85

& J. Välijärvi (Eds.), Opettajan työ ja oppiminen (Teacher’s profession and learning) (pp. 223–247). Jyväskylä: Institute for Educational Research, University of Jyväskylä. Portimojärvi, T. (2006b). Saman-ja eriaikaisen etätyöskentelyn vuorottelu ongelmaperustaisessa verkko-opiskelussa (Synchronous and asynchronous collaboration in online problem-based learning). Retrieved June 13, 2008, from http://elearn.ncp.fi/materiaali/epeda/artikkelit/CMCPBL_vuorottelu_ ePeda_Portimojarvi.pdf. Propp, K. M. (1999). Collective information processing in groups. In L. R. Frey, The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 225–250). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Savin-Baden, M., & Howell Major, C. (2004). Foundations of problem-based learning. London: Open University Press. Savin-Baden, M., & Wilkie, K. (Eds.) (2006). Challenging research in problembased learning. Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press. Schmidt, H. G. (1983). Problem-based learning: Rationale and description. Medical Education, 17(1), 11–16. Strømsø, H., Grøttum, P., & Hofgaard Lycke, K. (2004). Changes in student approaches to learning with the introduction of computer-supported problem-based learning. Medical Education, 38, 390–398. Valaitis, R. K., Sword, W. A., Jones, B., & Hodges, A. (2005). Problem-based learning online: Perceptions of health sciences students. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 10, 231–252.

CHAPTER 6

Inspiring Creativity through Embodied Aesthetic Pedagogic Design Pauline Sameshima Washington State University, USA

Abstract Embodied aesthetic pedagogic design is a means of approaching teaching that intentionally attends to holistic embodied aesthetic considerations, reconceptualizes and destabilizes the teacher role, and develops complicit learning environments. To teach creatively, the teacher must develop an artful relationship between the self and the curriculum, and open avenues for the student to personally engage with, thoughtfully reflect on, and meaningfully organize that curriculum. An arts-based research and learning methodology called performative inquiry is explicated in depth to provide the reader with an understanding of how a teacher can transform curriculum goals into a problem-based learning framework, seek an instructional form that attends to these three design tenets, and thereby develop a creative learning environment that allows access to a multiplicity of possible answers for solving the problem at hand while deeply engaging the learner.

Introduction The world has changed from a manufacturing engine to a services-driven enterprise. To adapt, we need to change our educational approach to developing not only skills and knowledge bases but also lifelong learning skills in order to prepare young people for a complex future. We need an education system that dynamically nurtures and honors imagination, creativity, flexibility, novelty, interdisciplinary perspectives, and deep

88

Pauline Sameshima

reflexive thinking. Young people need to develop the skills for learning how to learn. They need to interact with multiple modes of learning and engage with creative people to help them develop processes of creative thinking and design. They also need to learn how to gather seemingly disparate information, organize it holistically, and refine it mindfully to create elegantly integrated products. This artful design process is the same process for designing engaging curricula. In this chapter, I introduce embodied aesthetic pedagogic design, a means of approaching teaching that (1) intentionally attends to holistic embodied aesthetic considerations, (2) reconceptualizes and destabilizes the teacher role, and (3) develops complicit learning environments. Worldwide, different countries and their governments have considerably dissimilar views on what constitutes creative thought and how creativity is to be studied (Sternberg, 2006). As far back as 1877, Jevons had described creativity as “divergence from the ordinary grooves of thought” (p. 576). My work draws on creativity research from Englishspeaking countries that is based on Guilford’s seminal creativity work in the 1950s and onward, which has led to creativity being understood as meaning divergent thinking (e.g., Baer, 1993; Baer & Kaufman, 2006; Guilford, 1956, 1967; Guilford & Hoepfner, 1971; Torrance & Presbury, 1984). Sternberg notes that “a wide variety of personality traits have been associated with creativity, including independence of judgment, self-confidence, attraction to complexity, aesthetic orientation, tolerance for ambiguity, openness to experience, psychoticism, risk taking, androgyny, perfectionism, persistence, resilience, and selfefficacy” (Kaufman & Sternberg, 2006, pp. 17–18). Evidenced creativity is the ability to conceive of the unlikely being systematically and gracefully integrated as if it should have always been the most likely response to the problem at hand. To teach creatively, the teacher must develop an artful relationship between the self and the curriculum, and open avenues for the student to personally engage with, thoughtfully reflect on, and meaningfully organize that curriculum. To explain this concept, I will briefly introduce each of the three aspects of embodied aesthetic pedagogic design and then demonstrate how these three tenets can generate creativity and deep transformative learning through an arts-based research methodology

Inspiring Creativity through Embodied Aesthetic Pedagogic Design

89

called performative inquiry. The development of creative learning spaces does not necessarily have to take place in performative role spaces as in the example I will provide; but rather the focus should be on how the teacher can attend to these tenets in a variety of particular contexts in relation to the considered curriculum. The example is explicated in depth to provide the reader with an understanding of how the three tenets work together in pedagogic design. If the teacher transforms curriculum goals into a problem-based learning framework and then seeks a form that attends to the tenets, the number of possible answers for solving the problem inherently increases. The example I use stemmed from questions I had as a practicing teacher concerning perceptions of the teacher–parent relationship. I translated the questions into a problem-based “playshop” where participants attempted to shed light on the issues of concern through a performancebased research inquiry. This project, named “Performing outside the parameters of pedagogy: A performative inquiry into the teacher–parent relationship,” developed into an international performative inquiry study that included not only elementary-aged students but also teacher educators, practicing teachers, parents, and university faculty members from multiple fields of study.

Embodied Aesthetic Pedagogic Design Holistic Embodied Aesthetic Considerations Transformational learning can be significantly deepened through the intentional development of a curriculum system and an educational culture that attend to teaching and learning holistically by incorporating body learning (multisensory arts–infused active learning). Consideration must be given to increasing receptivity and openness to learning; fostering skills for relating between learners, between learner and teacher, and between learner and context; modeling wholeness-in-process (the teacher modeling creative knowledge production behavior); layering multiple strategies for connecting to the experience; and acknowledging ecological and intuitive resonances. (For detailed descriptions of these

90

Pauline Sameshima

considerations, see Sameshima, 2007a, 2007b, 2008.) These considerations are essential for developing embodied aesthetic teaching. However, in this chapter, I shall attend to the broader scope of how the three tenets of embodied aesthetic pedagogic design, when integrated, make possible the development of multiple perspectives. The example will show how these considerations are intricately woven into the fabric of the performance framework.

Reconceptualizing and Destabilizing the Teacher Role The teacher’s approach to students’ learning is especially important, as creative problem solving in educational settings requires facilitation, yet without suppression of freedom. Thus, the teacher’s role in overtly as well as indirectly steering the learning is significant. I agree with Scandinavian notions of creativity, that creativity is “an attitude toward life and a way of dealing with the challenges life poses” (Sternberg, 2006, p. 4). The teacher’s perspective and outlook will influence how the curriculum is delivered. In order to be open to other perceptions, the teacher must destabilize self by suspending perceived stereotypical views that are based on socialization and experience. Shapiro (1999) and Boal (1979) consider these views as barriers to moving out of routine views. Authentic learning experiences occur when the learning situation is spontaneous, open, and seemingly undirected (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987). Critical to the use of this approach to inspire creativity is the call for intuition to be acknowledged, particularly when encouraging learning that is “messy” or “rhizomatic” (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987; Sameshima, 2007b; Wiebe et al., 2008). Such a learning environment demands a radical reconceptualization of the teacher role as that of co-constructor of learning. When the teacher’s being is positioned in a way that is not hierarchical or directive, then the learning “system” will be open to a creative means of learning. Significant transformative learning occurs through problem-based learning situations (Tan, 2003) when specific consideration is given to relational pedagogy and power, in combination with the teacher’s approach to learning. Transformational learning occurs when tradi-


91

tional relationships of power are disrupted (Hytten, 1999). In role drama teaching, also known as Forum Theatre (Boal, 1979), the teacher is no longer the teacher, as the drama becomes co-constructed and the students are empowered. This decentralization of power is also a marked characteristic in inspiring authentic creativity. Finding ways to destabilize identities and redistribute power in the classroom creates the possibilities for students to delve deeper or immerse themselves in learning. Destabilizing the teacher identity and changing the power dynamics are part of the uncertainty principle that Tan (2003) talks about. He explains that problem-based learning projects are strengthened by accepting uncertainty, unsystematic thinking, and nonplanning as part of the learning process. This is the crux of creativity generation.

Complicit Learning Environments Think of the teaching environment that allows learning to emerge as, metaphorically, a garden with sprinklers spouting water. The water coming out has the freedom to flow in multiple directions. The water (knowledge), while suspended in the air, is “influenced” by the sun, wind, and other environmental (contextual) conditions before falling freely to the ground to be absorbed as needed by the earth (the learner). Cohen and Stewart (1994) explain that complicit systems are not dependent on initial conditions that frame and limit the space of the possible (see also Sumara & Davis, 1997). The word complicit suggests implication, involvement, and commitment. It usually alludes to association or participation in questionable activities. The word is used specifically to remind educators that, to be mindful and progressive, one needs to be “subversive.” The subversive educator continually questions the unquestioned and the accepted, disturbing and reconceptualizing the status quo. To teach a complicit curriculum, the teacher must be complicitly involved, be deeply committed to learning, and continually question assumptions and traditional processes. To learn within a complicit curriculum, the learner must be immersed in the learning environment. Creativity is most energized when the learner has the possibility of seeing multiple points of view through being both “in” (absorbed in the

92

Pauline Sameshima

moment) and “out” (seeing the immersion from a distance) (Sameshima, 2007b). For example, in performative inquiry, a qualitative arts-based research methodology used as a problem-based learning strategy in role drama situations (Fels, 1999, 2002), creativity is fostered when the learner is able to delve into new transformative spaces yet suspend belief. The ability to move in and out of “reality” is crucial, as this skill provides a safety net or exit point for the learner. The ability to suspend belief but use the “unreal” to negotiate personal positioning is key to this type of creative learning. Augusto Boal (1995), talking about performance spaces for learning, describes this dual awareness as metaxis, which is when the student or actor “can see himself in the act of seeing, in the act of acting, in the act of feeling, the act of thinking. Feel himself feeling, think himself thinking” (p. 13). To use a metaphor to illustrate this bisociative thinking (Koestler, 1975), imagine Janus, a Roman mythological god who had a face on both sides of his head that allowed him to see the past and the future while always located in the present. The ability to view a situation from various vantage points, diverse standpoints, or multiple references is advantageous for broadening perception (Rothenberg, 1979; Sameshima, 2007b; Stout, 2000). Creativity stems from this ability, the skill of seeing multiple perspectives. Pezeshki (2007) points out that integral thinking will be necessary for twenty-first century education. “Integral thinking is generated when individuals who are strong in their independent disciplines come together with open minds toward the concerns of other disciplinary experts” (p. 9A). Performance inquiry provides a learning space that implicates the learner, thereby creating complicit involvement. Problem-based learning environments developed in performative inquiry spaces support and validate learning, providing complicit learning environments that destabilize identity and allow transformative learning to occur.

Performative Inquiry Example This research project demonstrates the use of a holistic embodied aesthetic learning situation, the reconceptualization and destabilization


93

of the teacher role, and the development of a complicit learning environment. A 60-minute multimedia interactive playshop was designed to elicit publicly articulated dialogically constructed undestandings of the teacher–parent relationship from participants. The hope was for participants to come forth with obvious as well as submerged presumptions, notions, and biases of the barriers inhibiting positive teacher– parent relationships. Performative inquiry was a fitting method of research for this interrogation, uniquely allowing and providing a safe forum for voicing commonly unspoken understandings that strongly frame paradigms and ideologies on teacher–parent communication. The playshop was presented in Canada and the United States in 2004 to a broad range of participants, including teacher candidates, beginning teachers, practicing teachers, grade 6–7 students, graduate students and university faculty members from various disciplines, and management conference participants (Sameshima, 2004a–2004e). Many of these participants were parents.

Background to the Project This qualitative arts-based methodological investigation examined the communication practices and the underlying conceptions of the relationship between teachers and parents. The goal of the participatory playshops was to extend the foundation for emergent research on developing positive teacher–parent partnerships for the purpose of raising student achievement at the elementary level (kindergarten to grade 7). Research has indicated that involving the family in a child’s education is an important element in improving the child’s learning (DuFour, 2000; Hirsh, 2003; Richardson, 1997; Sameshima et al., 2006). The areas of concern in research are in providing teachers with appropriate guidance on how to be more effective in communicating with parents (Hirsh, 2003) and teaching parents how they can effectively help their children with schoolwork (Epstein, 2001). Understanding preconceptions, perceptions, and conceptions of the teacher–parent relationship is foundational to addressing these concerns.

94

Pauline Sameshima

Teacher–Parent Communication I get very frustrated . . . ask [about] my daughter and then the answer I’ll get back, “yeah she’s doing fine” which isn’t really what I want to know. So it is frustrating. (Power & Clark, 2000, p. 42, quoting a parent)

Power and Clark (2000) observed in their research that parents had widespread concerns about both written and oral reporting by teachers. Parents found written reports confusing or overgeneralized. When the information was understood, parents did not feel that the reports sufficiently guided them to assist their children. Teachers, on the other hand, spent considerable time reporting formally and informally to parents, much more frequently than the legally mandated number of times in a Western school year (see also Davidson, 2003; Epstein et al., 2002). To look into these issues, my research was guided by the following questions: Why is it difficult for teachers to openly communicate with parents? What barriers are there between teachers and parents? How can better communication be facilitated between the two groups?

Performative Inquiry as a Methodology The insights that arise during role drama may encourage the rethinking of personal and societal positionings and beliefs and the choice of the lens through which an individual views his or her life, thus becoming an invitation to each [participant] to imagine alternative ways of being in the world. (Fels, 2002, p. 8)

Tom Barone (2001) asserts that the goal of using arts-based inquiry is to disturb, to interrogate personal and cultural assumptions that have come to be taken for granted; [and] to do so, [researchers] employ design elements that are appropriate for their intent. These elements (which vary according to art form) are important for their usefulness in recasting the contents of experience into forms with the potential for challenging (sometimes deeply held) beliefs and values. (p. 26)

In 2003, at the University of British Columbia, Canada, I met and studied with Lynn Fels, the pioneer of performative inquiry as a site and action of learning and as an arts-based research methodology. In


95

performative inquiry, the creation of a virtual reality (role drama) becomes a heuristic device that creates a new set of meanings and values for the participant. Through role play, dance, or movement, participants respond to photographs, stories, enacted scenes, or other forms of stimuli proposed by the researcher, teacher, or peer leader. Performative inquiry is based on Boal’s (1979) Theatre of the Oppressed. Boal created a number of activities, such as Forum Theatre, that various communities can use to explore social justice issues. Through the performative inquiry playshop described above, participants publicly revealed assumptions and understandings not previously articulated. Forum Theatre, which enables learners to construct personal understandings of the unfolding scene, is a method of teaching that intrinsically creates complicit, involved learning. I use the word “playshop” instead of “workshop” because, although we are working to seek understanding, the process of play and the unscripted performance excitement generate fresh, bright, and energetic new ways of thinking. Gadamer (1989/1960) speaks of transformation in play: Something is suddenly and as a whole something else, [and] this other transformed thing that it has become is its true being in comparison with which its earlier being is nil. When we find someone transformed we mean precisely this, that he has become another person, as it were. (p. 111)

The plausibility of role drama is based on “structural corroboration . . . coherence with the human condition and credible possibility” (Kilbourn, 1999, p. 31). Arts-informed researchers Cole and Knowles contend that clear intellectual and moral purpose, the researcher being present in the moment of research with the participants and in the retelling, a procedural harmony, and “ambiguity and humility to allow for multiple interpretations and . . . response” are integral to legitimate research (2001, p. 217). Although, according to Cole and Knowles, these defining qualities describe life history research, these and other beliefs support the authenticity of role drama as a means to advance knowledge claims, and offer theoretical and transformative potential. A virtual reality world has the capacity to pull the person who experiences it into an alternative reality (Barone & Eisner, 1997; Langer, 1957). After the role drama activity, out of role, the participants’ views are

96

Pauline Sameshima

broadened as they have come to appreciate another point of view after attempting to enact a scenario, or engage with someone, from a different perspective, paradigm, or ideology. Through role drama sessions, participants may reveal assumptions and understandings not previously evident to themselves or to others. Edward and Nancy Kienholz, installation artists who explore oppression, suffering, and societal pathos, talk about using their art to “force the viewer to a position of self-identification” (Harten, 1996, p. 45). Unlike visual art, where the self-identification is internally realized in the mind and perhaps verbally reflected upon, the performance form of art allows embodied hermeneutic comprehension—visually, auditorily, and kinesthetically. Appelbaum (1995) succinctly holds that “Intellect’s light sees but is powerless to do. The body’s light sees and is able to do” (p. 121). Even a powerful visceral response to an inert visual art piece is generally a private static response. But in role drama, the conversation and understandings are “outside,” publicly and dynamically co-constructed in the moment—a living, breathing multidimensional canvas of art in action. In role, Clifford (1988) says, “reality is no longer a given, a natural, familiar environment. The self, cut loose from its attachments, must discover meaning where it may” (p. 119). Clifford believes that detachment of the self, when assuming another’s role, “is the practice of juxtaposition, a hybrid of ethnography and surrealism, that enables the repositioning of the body within the matrices of culture” (p. 147). In the midst of role play, the individual comes to an understanding of the self in relations because the unarticulated is voiced and participants become aware of holistic themes—seeing the self as an essential piece of the whole puzzle. I believe this concept of seeing oneself as vital in the scheme of the whole is a critical tool that provides powerful agency not only to researchers and individuals in general but also for children to function responsibly in a classroom, whatever their age. Philosopher Hannah Arendt (1968) further supports the aforesaid. She discourages simple acceptance of the abstract collective perspective, strongly promoting “visiting,” which she defines as careful listening to the perspectives of others. By keeping various standpoints in mind while pondering a given issue, one is better able to make a wise judgment. This


97

very action of listening closely and publicly dialoguing within a role drama has wonderfully broad potential for recognizing possibilities for individual and collective agency. Performative inquiry not only allows the individual “thought struggle” but also affirms multiple voices, realities, and experiences (Paley, 1995). When interacting in a group role-play, the synergy of the group often raises awarenesses that may previously have been unidentified. Paley calls this community voice the “polyphonous voice.” To create this individual but harmonious voice, we must speak it aloud. Brownyn Davies tells us, “Collective biography makes visible the liberal humanist myth of oneself as unique and distinct and enables [us] to see the collective (usually discursive) processes through which we become embodied as human” (as cited in McLaren, 2001, p. 70).

Research Inquiry Sessions The 60-minute inquiry session comprised an introductory interactive activity, a visual information slide presentation, and three short activities followed by a discussion period. The final segment was essential in helping members synthesize and create meaning from the preceding exercises. During this segment, we discussed what happened, what questions emerged about the relationships, and what recommendations we could make as a group to improve communication. I will explain each segment and share the most relevant revelations. As participants entered the playshop space, each person was instructed to make a simple hat, a stapled circular strip of construction paper, on which they each wrote their name boldly and attached a yellow square to the “front” and a purple square to the “back.” Participants drew an icon that represented “teacher” in the yellow square and “parent” in the purple square. For example, on my hat, I drew “sun” for teacher by day and “moon” for parent by night. The wearing of the hat contributed to a sense of “instant community,” allowed participants to know each other by name, and ultimately provided a “mask” that promoted freedom of speech. In role, with the “mask” of an alternate persona, participants could more freely contribute to a nonconstricted conversation.

98

Pauline Sameshima

Creating an open, trusting, and secure place for sharing is imperative when attempting to get people to share the unspoken, particularly in a short period of time. As facilitator, I purposely spent time sharing my own location in this landscape. Providing private and personal contexts (photographs of my family and my classroom) and sharing some information wider than “in the moment” are important for opening communication paths. Using the Johari Window leadership personality framework developed by Luft and Ingham (see Hersey et al., 1996) in a slide, I was able to simply frame effective communication based on self-perception, disclosure, and feedback. Simply put, in order to open communication with a group, we have to let the group see each other in alternate contexts, not only the current visible. For example, knowing that the man in the blue sweater loves to sail helps make connections between group members. Laying down a foundational “net” between people is important when beginning this particular type of research, which can be likened to an aerial trapeze act. One never knows where the role drama will lead. Comments may be “caught” by other flyers, or perhaps not. Following the introductory activity, I briefly shared key research information slides on performance inquiry as a research method.

Activities First drama activity The first activity involved sharing three photographs that raised issues about role perceptions. Participants were asked to look at the photographs and identify the teacher and the parent. “The woman on the left is the teacher because she is dressed more professionally.” “The woman on the right looks like a teacher.” “The pad of paper is closer to the woman on the left so she is most likely the teacher.” “The woman on the right looks like she’s the teacher because of her body language.” “Both women look closed off. They don’t look like they’re communicating well.”


99

“If the woman on the left is the teacher, then she looks defensive and the woman on the right looks aggressive.” “The woman on the right is the teacher because she looks like she’s in control.”

Responses to the pictures were consistently similar across all research groups. Most groups became ambivalent as the discussion continued, but it was clear that people were at first quick to make decisions, implying that they had preconceived notions and expectations of what a teacher and a parent look like in a school setting. In my experience as a long-time classroom teacher and administrator, role perception is one of the most significant barriers between teachers and parents. For many teachers, the classroom is a distinctly separate place from their private lives. Teachers essentially create within themselves boundaries or frames around their school and home lives, which in turn impact their public relationships. Gregory Bateson (1972) likens such framing to “the frame around a picture, as a message intended to order or organize the perception of the viewer. . . . The message says, ‘Attend to what is within and do not attend to what is outside’” (p. 187). Unwittingly, framing the roles and dichotomizing the self, even subconsciously, through choice of clothing, location of home relative to the school, and using colloquial language away from school, for instance, all positively enhance what is in the frame. Thus, the roles become self-generatively strengthened as they are defined, and the frames become barriers discouraging intrapersonal wholeness as well as interpersonal connections.

Second drama activity The second drama activity required participants to separate into groups. Using a “Lights on! Lights off!” signal, participants were asked to create a soundscape involving teachers and parents. For example, without using words, one group representing teachers muttered in a slow monotone, while the “parents” made urgent ambulance siren sounds. After the soundscape, the group was asked to explain their interpretation of what they observed. In this case, the act was of worried parents pleading for help for their children and teachers being noncommittal, nonchalant, tired, and overworked.

100

Pauline Sameshima

In the soundscape, words, with their encapsulating multi-meaning baggage, did not guide the path of meaning creation. The vagueness, elusiveness, and openness of the performance method of playing in the liminal space (the edge of conscious understanding) allows the learner to invoke an unworded notion and encourages transformation and différance to generate. The word différance was coined by Jacques Derrida (1982) from the French word différer, “to defer” (in the sense of to postpone) and “to differ.” Différance generally refers to the belief that words and signs can never pronounce exactly what they mean but can only be defined or explained using more words, which leads to the notion that words and signs are always different from what they mean. Derrida argues that, because the perceiver’s mental state is constantly in a state of flux, reading and seeing differs with each rereading. Différance does not imply contradictory understanding upon rereading, but rather a re-arrival of the moment of reading. In performative inquiry, the present moment is always considered the “real” and there is no différance because there is no text to come back to. Even my recollections of the playshops are constructed stories because the role drama was not captured or stilled. I am of the belief that “full” openness may be inhibited if people knew they were being recorded. My postmodern perspective that knowledge is not truth, that knowledge is partial, and my resistance to constraint and closure, all pull me to search for ways to render understanding in heartfelt, nonsequential, and nonlinear forms. If we can render thoughts in nonwords, we may actually come to deeper understandings. I expect a multiplicity of interpretations and know that the understandings are synchronically produced.

Third drama activity This activity required the participants to separate themselves on either side of a masking tape strip taped across the floor. The participants took a pose, in role, as parents (purple square on their hats facing forward) or teachers (yellow square visible). As the facilitator, I then tapped parents and teachers randomly, who then each made a comment from “their side” to the other. They were to


101

say whatever they had always wanted to but could not say to the “other side.” Some comments were responses to comments made, while others were independent; but as the comments progressed, general themes began to emerge. At a preservice teacher conference where I presented this playshop, a theme emerging from the crowd of over 30 teacher candidates was that issues surrounding behavioral management in class arose because of poor parenting skills. Comments such as “Don’t you know your child is driving me crazy!” or “He is ruining all my lesson plans!” and “I’m not here to raise your child!” were surprisingly frequent. Naturally, teacher candidates who spent copious time on detailed lesson plans would have much more frustration dealing with the unpredictability of student behavior when trying to adhere to a lesson plan that is often broken down by time schedules. More experienced teachers were more likely to express their insecurity about delivering the curriculum “properly.” Deep fears of uncertainty in all adult groups about teaching and parenting “the right way” were a recurrent theme. In a grade 6–7 group, students in role as parents instructed the “teachers” to be stricter with their children but not to give their children as much homework because homework was a family stressor. Lastly, fears about either group “crossing” into the other’s space were evident. Some participants in role as teachers felt that parents were challenging their professional skills by asking questions about student learning. Other participants, in role as parents, felt that poor achievement on the part of their child reflected negatively upon the family, allowing teachers a view into the family’s private life. Creating the role play as it unfolds allows space for embodied learning. Role drama encourages a freedom to write a story without having to write on the lines, to even ignore lines, to not use words, to connect body learning with head learning, to create artifacts without understanding, to search for meaning without theme, or to play with no record. These are the ways of learning—playing. As mentioned, Gadamer (1989/1960) posits that transformation occurs in play. What is present will emerge in play, for play is a rite of passage to learning. And learning in safe, secure landscapes encourages provocative liberation.

102

Pauline Sameshima

Discussion Period Following the drama activities, a discussion period is essential. The debriefing, named “mapping-in-exploration” by Fels (2002), is the time and place to begin to unravel the intricacies of reaction and experience. Although the experience of being in a role drama is powerful, very often it is in the reflexive recollections and verbal articulations of the experience where the dialogic synergy of new understanding occurs. The discussion period metaphorically opens the door on the other side of the limen—the metonymic space of the backslash as described by Ted Aoki, which is “the hinge between the imaginary worlds of possibility, and those which we inhabit, that allows us new imagining of possible ways of becoming” (as cited in Fels, 2002, p. 8). Maxine Greene (1978) describes this space as “wide-awakeness.” Garoian (1999) asserts that performance art teaching allows critique and challenge of culture in general. Performative inquiry provides a forum for “awakenings” or “coming to understanding” of “reality” or assumptions often unvoiced. Elliot Eisner (1995) agrees that “artistically crafted novels, poems, films and paintings, and photography have the capacity to awaken us from our stock responses” (p. 2). Performative inquiry thus has the capacity to switch our realities with our dream worlds, to take us from the “real,” the mundane quotidian of day into the awakened dream state. The “awake” space is a merging of the real and the unlimited potential possibilities of imagination and dreams where wholeness, creativity, invention, freedom, wonder, understanding, peace, and hope reside. Surprise and deep revelation were consistent responses expressed during all the discussion periods. Many participants were astonished to find that their views, when voiced aloud, were often universal, sometimes irrational and defensive, and surprisingly liberating. Speaking the unsaid across the “tape border” metaphorically released the “stoppers” and dissolved the barrier between the two groups in the discussion period. During that time, participants were able to reflectively chuckle at what they had come to believe as acceptable teacher and parent defensive postures. Many participants who considered themselves shy and quiet found that they were free to express in this forum. This point is especially


103

important because very often in classroom learning situations conversations are generally directed by the most vocal. There is much work to be done in the area of understanding the teacher–parent relationship. This playshop can be a valuable tool for professional development and for helping preservice teachers come to understand the relationship and barriers to communication between teachers and parents as well as their own underlying values, beliefs, biases, questions, and fears that impact on that relationship. Further work in this area can articulate a set of recommendations to teacher education programs for developing required courses in communication, cultural diversity, and family studies. Improved understanding will result in better communication practices between the two groups, which could subsequently positively impact student achievement.

Conclusion This performative inquiry into perceptions and conceptions of the teacher–parent relationship can liberate our communication practices by opening bridges of acknowledgment to public dialogues. By stepping outside of parameters of pedagogy, we can then begin to understand and work together toward common goals. From this example, we understand not only that perceptions of role and the particular frames in which learners situate the self can impede dialogue and creative innovation, but also that developing environments that allow for multiperspective learning opens avenues for creative and transformative learning. To establish creative learning spaces in curriculum design, teachers must develop an artful relationship between the self, the students, and the curriculum. Mindfully attending to holistic embodied aesthetic considerations, reconceptualizing and destabilizing the teacher role, and developing complicit learning environments are means to construct creative learning spaces that support embodied aesthetic pedagogic design.

104

Pauline Sameshima

References Appelbaum, D. (1995). The stop. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Arendt, H. (1968). Between past and future: Eight exercises in political thought. New York: Penguin Books. Baer, J. (1993). Creativity and divergent thinking: A task-specific approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2006). Creativity research in English-speaking countries. In J. C. Kaufman & R. Sternberg (Eds.), The international handbook of creativity (pp. 10–38). New York: Cambridge University Press. Barone, T. (2001). Science, art, and the pre-disposition of educational researchers. Educational Researcher, 30(7), 24–28. Barone, T., & Eisner, E. (1997). Arts-based educational research in complementary methods for research in education. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. San Francisco: Chandler. Boal, A. (1979). Theatre of the oppressed (C. A. McBride & M.-O. Leal McBride, Trans.). New York: Routledge. Boal, A. (1995). The rainbow of desire: The Boal method of theatre and therapy (A. Jackson, Trans.). London: Routledge. Clifford, J. (1988). The predicament of culture: Twentieth-century ethnography, literature, and art. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cohen, J., & Stewart, I. (1994). The collapse of chaos: Discovering simplicity in a complex world. New York: Penguin Press. Cole, A. L., & Knowles, J. G. (2001). Qualities of inquiry. In L. Neilsen, A. L. Cole & J. G. Knowles (Eds.), The art of writing inquiry (pp. 211–219). Artsinformed Inquiry Series, Vol. 1. Halifax, Nova Scotia, and Toronto, Ontario: Backalong Books and Centre for Arts-informed Research. Davidson, J. (2003). Show, don’t tell: Strategies for family involvement in CES schools. Horace, 19(4). Retrieved November 12, 2007, from CESNationalweb: http://www.essentialschools.org/cs/resources/view/ces_res/305. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus. London: Continuum. Derrida, J. (Ed.) (1982). Différance. In Margins of philosophy (pp. 3–27). Chicago: Chicago University Press. DuFour, R. (2000). Community: Clear connections. Journal of Staff Development, 21(2), 59–60. Eisner, E. (1995). What artistically crafted research can help us understand about schools. Educational Theory, 45(1), 1–6. Epstein, J. L. (2001). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.


105

Epstein, J. L., Sanders, M. G., Simon, B. S., Salinas, K. C., Rodriguez Jansorn, N., & Van Voorhis, F. L. (2002). School, family, and community partnerships (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Fels, L. (1999). In the wind clothes dance on a line: Performative inquiry—a (re)search methodology: Possibilities and absences within a space-moment of imaging a universe. Ph.D. thesis, University of British Columbia, Canada. Fels, L. (2002). Spinning straw into gold: Curriculum, performative literacy, and student empowerment. English Quarterly, 34(1/2), 3–9. Gadamer, H. (1989). Truth and method (D. Marshall & J. Weinsheimer, Trans., 2nd rev. ed.). New York: Continuum. (Original work published 1960) Garoian, C. R. (1999). Performing pedagogy: Toward an art of politics. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Greene, M. (1978). Landscapes of learning. New York: Teachers College Press. Guilford, J. P. (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53, 267– 293. Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill. Guilford, J. P., & Hoepfner, R. (1971). The analysis of intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill. Harten, J. (1996). Universal life. In W. Hopps (Ed. & Curator), Kienholz: A retrospective: Edward and Nancy Reddin Kienholz (pp. 44–47). New York: Whitney Museum of American Art/Distributor Art. (Original work published 1989) Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H., & Johnson, D. E. (1996). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hirsh, S. (2003, April). Develop teachers’ skills as communicators. Results. Retrieved November 12, 2007, from http://www.nsdc.org/library/publications/ results/res4-03hirs.cfm. Hytten, K. (1999). The promise of cultural studies, of education. Educational Theory, 49(4), 527–543. Jevons, W. S. (1877). The principles of science: A treatise on logic and scientific method. New York: Macmillan. Kaufman, J. C., & Sternberg, R. (2006). The international handbook of creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press. Kilbourn, B. (1999). Fictional theses. Educational Researcher, 28(9), 27–32. Koestler, A. (1975). The act of creation. London: Picador. Langer, S. K. (1957). Problems of art. New York: Scribner. (Original work published 1942) McLaren, R. (2001). Off the page. In L. Neilsen, A. L. Cole & J. G. Knowles (Eds.), The art of writing inquiry (pp. 62–82). Arts-informed Inquiry Series, Vol. 1. Halifax, Nova Scotia, and Toronto, Ontario: Backalong Books and Centre for Arts-informed Research.

106

Pauline Sameshima

Paley, N. (1995). Finding art’s place: Experiments in contemporary education and culture. New York: Routledge. Pezeshki, C. (2007, November 6). Moving toward integral thinking at WSU. Moscow-Pullman Daily News, 92(266), 9A. Power, S., & Clark, A. (2000). The right to know: Parents, school reports and parents’ evenings. Research Papers in Education, 15(1), 25–48. Richardson, J. (1997, December/January). Student learning improves when families get involved. Tools for Schools. Retrieved November 12, 2007, from http://www.nsdc.org/library/publications/tools/tools12-97rich.cfm. Rothenberg, A. (1979). The emerging goddess: The creative process in art, science, and other fields. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Sameshima, P. (2004a, February). Emancipation of our roles: Interrogating the status quo. Participatory workshop presented at the Western Canadian Association of Student Teachers (WestCAST) Conference, University of Alberta, Canada. [With data collection] Sameshima, P. (2004b, April). Emancipation of our roles: Interrogating the status quo. Participatory workshop presented at the American Association for the Advancement of Curriculum Studies (AAACS) Conference, University of San Diego, San Diego, CA. [With data collection] Sameshima, P. (2004c, April). Emancipation of our roles. Participatory workshop presented at the International Association of Management Conference, Norfolk, VA. [With data collection] Sameshima, P. (2004d, April). Emancipation of our roles. In 2004 Association of Management/International Association of Management Conference Proceedings (Vol. 1, No. 1). Chesapeake, VA: Maximilian Press. Sameshima, P. (2004e, May). Emancipation of our roles: Interrogating the status quo. Participatory workshop presented at the Canadian Society for the Study of Education (CSSE) Conference, Winnipeg, Canada. [With data collection] Sameshima, P. (2007a). Collaboration as integration: An “embodied aesthetic wholeness.” Curriculum in Context, 3(2), 10–14. Retrieved from http://www. wsascd.org/cic.htm. Sameshima, P. (2007b). Seeing red—A pedagogy of parallax: An epistolary bildungsroman on artful scholarly inquiry. Youngstown, NY: Cambria Press. Retrieved from http://www.cambriapress.com/cambriapress.cfm?template= 4&bid=102. Sameshima, P. (2008). Letters to a new teacher: A curriculum of embodied aesthetic awareness. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(2), 29–44. Sameshima, P., von Euw, N., & Bonney, M. (2006, March). Bifocal frameworks for communication: Parental involvement in an elementary classroom. BC Educational Leadership Research, 3. Retrieved from http://slc.educ.ubc. ca/eJournal/index.htm.


107

Shapiro, S. B. (1999). Pedagogy and the politics of the body: A critical praxis. New York: Garland. Sternberg, R. (2006). Introduction. In J. C. Kaufman & R. Sternberg (Eds.), The international handbook of creativity (pp. 1–9). New York: Cambridge University Press. Stout, C. J. (2000). In the spirit of art criticism: Reading the writings of women artists. Studies in Art Education, 41(4), 346–360. Sumara, D., & Davis, B. (1997). Enlarging the space of the possible: Complexity, complicity and action-research practices. In T. Carson & D. Sumara (Eds.), Action research as a living practice (pp. 299–312). New York: Peter Lang. Tan, O. S. (2003). Problem-based learning innovation: Using problems to power learning in the 21st century. Singapore: Thomson Learning. Torrance, E. P., & Presbury, J. (1984). The criteria of success used in 242 recent experimental studies of creativity. Creative Child and Adult Quarterly, 9, 238–243. Wiebe, S., Sameshima, P., Irwin, R., Leggo, C., Gouzouasis, P., & Grauer, K. (2008). Re-imagining arts integration: Rhizomatic relations of the every day. Journal of Educational Thought, 41(2), 263–279.

CHAPTER 7

Creativity and Group Dynamics in a Problem-based Learning Context Clara E. Gerhardt and Claire Michelle Gerhardt* Samford University and *Art Center College of Design, USA

Abstract The team context, as provided by problem-based learning (PBL), affords opportunities to enhance creative output. Teams involve several participants, implying increased resources, ideas, and energy. Groups have the potential to generate their own synergy, ideally allowing the group to go beyond the capacities of individuals working by themselves. The complexity of some problems requires the input of multiple participants. The dimensions of the combined work output, supported by a multi-professional team, allow high creativity and sophisticated end products. Knowledge of group dynamics can take the creative process to a higher level and minimize elements that are destructive to group functioning. In PBL, the power of group processes is harnessed to facilitate learning through problem solving. Attention to the group structure, group management, and conflict resolution, as well as knowledge of common group-related difficulties, can help the facilitator in making PBL a success.

Introduction Problem-based learning (PBL) is a powerful teaching and learning vehicle partly because of the group processes that occur in PBL teaching and learning interactions. Group members have to assume real-life work roles in these collaborative situations and, above all, they learn from one another. In the PBL classroom, healthy group functioning is integral to the teaching and learning process. The facilitator, with knowledge and skills

110

Clara E. Gerhardt and Claire Michelle Gerhardt

of group dynamics, can anticipate problem areas in group functioning and resolve them in a constructive manner, in the process adding to the impact of the learning situation. Groups tend to go through predictable patterns in order to function as a cohesive and constructive whole. The PBL group can become a classroom model of what group functioning in the workplace can entail. Part of becoming a better team member is understanding the value gained from being part of a team. Teams involve more people, implying increased resources, ideas, and energy than what an individual could generate. For this reason, successful groups represent more than just the sum of the contributions of their members. Groups have the potential to generate their own synergy, ideally allowing the group to go beyond the capacities of individuals working by themselves. Some Nobel prizes are increasingly awarded to teams, because the complexity of certain problems requires the input of multiple researchers. For example, the 2006 Nobel Prize in Physiology went to Andrew Fire from Stanford University and Craig Mello from the University of Massachusetts for their joint work on RNA interference and gene silencing (Nobel Foundation, n.d.). The dimensions of their research did not allow the project to be executed by one individual.

The Synergy of a Team Individual insight is seldom as broad and deep as that of a group. Teams share the credit for victories and the blame for losses. This fosters genuine humility and authentic community. (Avery et al., 1981)

The team context generates multiple perspectives that allow a number of proverbial roads “leading to Rome.” Each path can be approached through several alternative possibilities, and this in itself enhances flexibility. As situations and problems are multidimensional, they require more than individual insight to reach the desired goal or to meet the need in question. Successful teams have leaders who keep the team on target. These leaders are goal directed, keeping their eye on the prize and leading their

Creativity and Group Dynamics in a Problem-based Learning Context

111

team members through difficult transitions to get it. Teams can anchor their goals and pool complementary skills, thereby multiplying the individual worth of their members. Ideally, teams maximize a leader’s potential while minimizing his or her weaknesses. For team members, the team context can have the effect of exposing their individual strengths and weaknesses. In contrast, individuals working alone can change their goals without accountability. They will also take credit and blame by themselves, which in turn can foster a sense of pride or of failure. Being a member of a good team is worthwhile, as it can enhance an individual’s professionalism in a variety of careers. There are simple rules and guidelines to make teamwork more efficient, problem-free, and enjoyable. These guidelines also allow self-assessment in working toward becoming a better team player.

Laying the Ground Rules In successful team collaboration, ideally a set of rules is laid down before the team begins a major task. Laying down the rules for group functioning should be the first communal task of the group, leading toward creative team building and smoothing the collaborative process. Ideally, the rules should not impose on group functioning; instead, they should set the group free to perform at its peak. The Italian ballerina Alessandra Ferri says her dancing technique “gave me the freedom to be who I am onstage, to move with the music however I wish, because my body is so finely tuned. You have to translate your emotions in your body, that is how you speak onstage. That comes naturally for me, but your body is your speech. Technique is not the ultimate, but the beginning” (as cited in Woods, 2007, p. 39; italics added). Team formation is the setting up of a framework within which everyone will function. The metaphor of a harmonious chamber orchestra or a jazz band comes to mind. In a creative team of designers, the process should be the same. Everyone on that team needs to agree that they are all there to create something or to solve a problem, as well as who will play what part and what will be the rule set by which the team will be

112


governed. Maxwell (2001) suggests that team members think of the first team-building exercise as “writing the Magna Carta.” The Magna Carta was the most significant early document in Great Britain, which influenced and led to the rule of constitutional law. Similarly, everyone needs to come together and decide on major issues, establishing the rules and regulations that will allow successful collaboration and unity in mission. It is essential to lay down the following guidelines to ensure successful teamwork.

Clarity of Mission What is the major goal of the team? Ask everyone around the table, “Why are we doing this?” Spend time going through individual answers and considering the various viewpoints. Continue until team members agree on one of the suggestions in order to achieve clarity.

Disclosure of Dedication What will it take for people to invest 100 percent effort? People are motivated by a range of things: to expand their horizons, monetary rewards, visibility, acknowledgment, or simply a good grade. People need to honestly disclose what it is that they need and want from the group interaction. If they are not truthful, they may hinder the group process. Some individuals handle multiple projects and cannot give priority to any one project. As a team, you can barter with individuals so that they can indeed get what they want. In this exchange, individuals have to contribute what the team needs to be successful while also meeting their own needs. In a genuine exchange, group members should be able to commit to saying “Yes, I’ll do that,” as this is the foundation for a strong team.

Decision Making Clarify how decisions will be made. Will they be made by consensus, the leadership, or majority vote? There will come a time in every team when


113

major decisions have to be made, and the team can fall back on their earlier agreement on the decision-making process. This is also a guiding principle in the orderly running of committees.

Communication Practices Establish how and when team members communicate. Ask for preferences: email, telephone, or in person. Collect contact information and make it available to all group members. One of the most important elements in building personal relationships is communication. This applies to teams as well. Effective and clear communication ensures that a group of people can function on the same plane and work toward the same goal without wasting time. If English is a second language to some team members, allow sufficient time to ensure that everyone has an equal opportunity to voice their opinions. Be respectful of cultural and individual differences in communication style, and learn from them. If communication threatens to become unclear, go back to the source to clarify and indicate communication preferences that will facilitate clear exchanges.

Team Structure How will the team be structured, in terms of who does what and when? Determine team members’ strengths and, more importantly, interests and how these can be utilized. Just like in an orchestra, not everyone plays the same instrument. There must be opportunities for each member to show their strengths. Teams that have worked together previously know each member’s strengths well and can allocate the work efficiently. If it is a newly formed team, try to be as open as possible about what each member is interested in working on. Remember to communicate clearly.

Conflict Resolution How will the team deal with conflict should it arise? Create a team constitution of how members should behave. This helps convert the team into a community. Besides talking about how conflict is to be resolved, also

114


consider rewarding the team for good performance: “If we do a good job on this presentation, we’re all going out to dinner.” Occasionally, teams become totally dysfunctional. If after going through a reasonable process of trying to get people in a productive mode but the interventions fail, then it may be necessary to just pull some people out of the team. Alternatively, it can be helpful to break the impasse by bringing in an outside consultant to examine the team’s progress to that point and clarify directions.

Process Management Establish guidelines on who the designated note taker will be, or whether this role should rotate, both of which have advantages of their own. It is important to use consistent file formats and provide access to the group’s documentation to ensure continuity and minimize resource waste. Having to reinvent the wheel at the beginning of each work session can be avoided if documentation is central and available. In the classroom situation, a course management system such as Blackboard (incorporating WebCT) (http://www.blackboard.com/products) can serve this function. This Web-based information platform allows continuous communication between all group members and also provides a valuable record of inputs. Such systems can be applied in both educational and work environments. Being able to readily access each other’s inputs saves time and prevents frustration with miscommunication. It is good practice to have at least one person, a “scribe,” take notes during each meeting session. These notes have to be shared with the rest of the team. When creative ideas flow fast and furious, the designated scribe in the group can capture them on paper for later use and assessment.

Perseverance Some of these guidelines may sound obvious, but the foremost problem that keeps recurring is of teams falling apart because they have not invested time in laying the ground work. Or they have strayed from the guidelines because they thought they already knew the team rules and


115

could bypass the mundane procedure. Take the time to go through this process in order to build a strong team. If we think of how much effort we put into designing products, systems, and services, or learning and teaching new course material, we owe it to ourselves to set aside some time to designing our team, for after all it is a system that will enable and enhance our creativity.

Methods for Successful Collaboration and Inspiring Creativity The main requirements for successful collaboration are to define the goal and to set up the structure for achieving that goal. Once the framework is in place, there are other factors that can help make a strong team. Individual team members can become an asset by offering skills and expertise that can help the team get the work done better and faster. In addition, teams can employ techniques and methods such as the following to inspire creativity.

Six Hats Method by Edward de Bono As a team member figuratively changes hats, the attitude with which a problem is examined changes. This technique can enhance diversity of thought by applying different types of thinking to the subject. It can foster creativity by maintaining a playful (not too critical) attitude as everyone in the group switches from one metaphorical “hat” to another, each representing a different mindset. This allows the team to concentrate on a specific focus at a specific time; for example, criticism can be put on hold while wearing the yellow hat. The group works through one hat or mindset at a time, not all simultaneously. The six hats comprise the following: White hat is cold, neutral, and objective; while wearing it, you can look at the facts and figures. Red hat represents anger (seeing red), and it signals the time to listen to your intuition and emotions. Black is careful and cautious. Yellow is sunny and positive. Green is full of creative new ideas. Blue is the organizer of thoughts (de Bono, 1985).

116


Changing the Environment By moving outdoors or to a more or less stimulating environment, team productivity may be enhanced or the focus refreshed. Rearranging the furniture in the team meeting room can give the team a fresh perspective. Change the environment and maybe the idea previously set will change as well. It can be very helpful to be in the environment or setting for which one is designing or about which one is learning. For example, if a new hospital bed is to be designed, take time to see and experience hospital beds (hopefully merely simulating the experience of being a patient). Fung, Lo, and Rao (2005) describe a learning situation in which students were blindfolded so as to better understand the challenges of designing a product for the visually impaired. They asked the students to sensitively observe key characteristics of one environment and then reintroduce these characteristics into a different context. For example, the mobility of a market may contain elements that may be beneficial to the design of an office space. Similarly, to learn about multicultural perspectives, take the team to a multicultural setting where behaviors or products can be observed, such as an art museum or a place of worship, other than those with which the participants are familiar.

Handing around Partial Solutions Try handing around incomplete concepts to get unexpected ideas. The idea behind this is that even if one team member cannot complete the entire cycle, someone else in the team may be able to. This principle is very powerful in collaborative efforts, such as where teams work on research publications or even where students work on collaborative papers. The work is completed relay style, passing the baton from runner to runner, and in this way optimal effort can be maintained. It should not be confused with the “divide and conquer” method so frequently adopted by students, where an assignment is broken into segments that are then distributed among team members. Handing around partial solutions should have a greater sense of Gestalt, where the whole or sum of the output is greater than its contributing parts or inputs.


117

IDEO Method Cards IDEO is a California-based international design consultancy whose aim is to help organizations “innovate through design” (http://www.ideo. com). IDEO’s general manager, Thomas Kelley, in his books on innovation (2001, 2005) categorizes innovators as personas, such as the learning, the building, and the organizing persona. In a team context, these different personas bring different skills to the team, which if utilized optimally will promote the innovative process. His concepts form the basis of the IDEO Method Cards, which can be used in a group context to stimulate creativity and innovation (http://www.ideo.com/ methodcards/MethodDeck/index.html). The cards’ visual representations can trigger new associations and highlight different perspectives to a situation.

Forbidding Premature Criticism Criticism occurring too early in the brainstorming process inhibits idea generation, and kills even the best idea before it is fully fledged. During the brainstorming phase of group work, the goal is to generate as many diverse ideas as possible in a divergent manner, that is, the ideas can and should divert from the known or the established. If critique is offered in this fragile point of conception, ideas may be discarded prematurely. The popular press abounds with examples of products that were predicted to fail dismally yet went on to become hugely successful, to the point of causing paradigm shifts in our thinking and our use of time. One such example is the personal computer, and another is the concept of overnight shipping service. Both were initially criticized as it was not clear how they could meet existing needs. What happened in practice was that the products or services themselves created the needs to the point that they are now taken for granted and life seems unimaginable without them. The critical evaluation of a concept can and should occur later, when the chosen product or idea has taken shape, and appropriate criticism then will help improve and perfect the idea or end product. To an extent, the team players apply convergent thinking during this late

118


phase as they narrow down their options to one that will command their attention and energy.

The Life Cycle of a Group The “forming, storming, norming, performing” model is attributed to Bruce Tuckman, who published it in 1965. In the 1970s, he added a fifth stage, adjourning. Tuckman’s theory explains team development and behavior. The essence of the model is as follows (Avery, 2002):

• •

•

•

•

Forming. This is the relatively easy part of the group process, where several people get together to form a group. At this stage, the group members are polite to one another and usually positive as they are full of good intentions. Storming. The group has met interpersonal obstacles. There may be a leadership struggle and also dissonance. This is a difficult stage and has the potential of disintegrating the group. Its key characteristics are blaming, arguing, control struggle, disunity, tension, and jealousy. However, if the group resolves its difficulties and gets past this stage, better teamwork can ensue. Norming. The group finds standards by which it would like to work and focuses on the uniting factors. The stages can alternate; in other words, even a group that performs well can occasionally lapse into storming. Groups can bounce back and forth between storming and norming. Performing. Once the storming is complete, and the group has implemented its rules to contain the elements of storming, it can become productive. Focusing on the collective task and aligning its members’ interests, the group functions well enough to produce the work required. Adjourning. The group disbands after it has (hopefully) completed the task at hand. Mostly, and ideally, a well-functioning team should generate good relationships, some of which will continue after the group disbands.


119

Recent research on group functioning makes it clear that the context within which the group collaborates is crucial as well (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006, 2007). This context will define many facets of the group as it links to the system within which it functions, be it business, education, management, or others. For that reason, we feel that the final stage in the group process could be contextualizing, when the group is placed against the backdrop of a larger system or organization, in an ecosystemic manner. This concept would also reflect the current trend of systemic thinking in organizational psychology.

Creating Powerful Partnerships Team collaboration with creative output in mind requires more than just an abundance of “creativity.” In practice, creativity can be a somewhat loosely defined term, and West (2002) adds a valuable nuance to it by distinguishing between creativity and team innovation. According to West, team innovation is intentional, a conscious attempt by group members to initiate the changes that would bring about benefits. Among the factors that may contribute to this intentionality, he places high on the list the group’s ability to form an emotionally secure work environment, one in which trust and mutual respect will create the sense of safety that is required for this type of mental synergy. West also discusses the ability of the group to collectively reflect on the process in which it is engaged. To an extent, these are principles that we recognize from a therapeutic context, where clients reflect in a safe environment of established rapport, warmth, and congruence. To these principles West adds yet another original concept, the “fourth element.” This refers to the extent to which the group can manage the demands and threats that may affect its creativity and innovation. Just as in normal human development, where the child has to learn to tolerate some frustration in adapting to the realities of life, which inevitably involves delayed gratification or fulfillment of needs, similarly the group needs to be able to see the bigger picture and its end goal without getting caught up in minor discomforts. The interrelatedness between emotion and performance in the group context has been a focus in recent years (Ashkenasy, 2004), as the range

120


of emotions that arise within an individual, between team members, and from the group as a whole can play varying roles in supporting the creative process. Additionally, cognitive and skill-based outcomes can be positively influenced by team training. Teams that acquire additional knowledge and competencies through team management can perform at a higher level, and skills such as planning and coordination, collaborative problem solving, and communication can be enhanced through training (Ellis et al., 2005). A number of factors interact in influencing team performance, of which context is crucial, as described by Kozlowski and Ilgen (2006) in their groundbreaking work that sums up and integrates the research from the past 50 years. Certain key words often come up when the constructive functioning of groups is discussed, such as generosity, helpfulness, respect, acknowledgment, appreciation, fairness, and ritual. These are the same elements that ensure healthy family functioning, and the lesson to be learned is that groups function as temporary mini-families and thus it is a good principle to apply the same rules as with families. The principles of good group functioning, loosely based on Avery (2002), are as follows, which are recognizable as characteristics that promote healthy and constructive interpersonal relationships:

• • • • • •

Work with others to determine what is in it for them. Be generous, as united strengths lead to enhanced outcomes. Be helpful to others (it is in your best interest). Do unto others as you would like them to do unto you. Protect others’ interests. Play fair, communicate openly. Give “efficient gifts” (favors that cost little or nothing but mean a lot to the recipient). Give them often and ask for favors with the same principle in mind; in other words, do your part in the group. Celebrate others’ successes. Give compliments where they are due and remember the fun part of being a team member. The celebratory ritual is a just reward and a powerful incentive. Appreciate conflict. Disagreements within the team can be a learning opportunity.


• • • •

121

Distinguish criticism from feedback. “Constructive” criticism can still be regarded as criticism, so go easy on it; rather, use a toned down version of feedback that is more respectful. Practice “tit-for-tat.” Be aware that certain actions lead to reactions from your teammates—cause and effect. End with the beginning in mind. Find a way toward closure that does not close doors but allows for future collaboration. Achieve closure. Design an emotionally meaningful way to end the group that will also celebrate success and leave the group emotionally satisfied.

In building a strong team, the characteristics that form the bricks and mortar of the team-building process are (1) mutual respect and agreement, (2) desire and motivation to work together, (3) support from one another, (4) maintaining a sense of humor, (5) capitalizing on each team member’s strengths, (6) staying focused and pooling strengths and skills, (7) keeping the goals in sight, and finally (8) celebrating success! Notwithstanding the best efforts at applying them, good teaming practices cannot replace the skills or techniques required to perform a specific task optimally. For instance, a poor musician will not enhance a chamber orchestra’s performance, even if its members work well as a group. However, poor teaming strategies can turn potential success into failure, and it can rob participants of the emotional reward of being a member of a well-functioning team.

Enhancing Team Productivity Ideally, a team has to hold a number of meetings following its formation, the first of which is designed to organize the team and to establish its expectations and norms. In this first meeting, the following team-building and meeting-management techniques can be employed: 1. Introductions to help team members know each other 2. Establishment of the agenda, to which all team members can contribute

122


3. Check in/check out, an exercise held at the beginning and end of the meeting in which team members assess how they feel about the progress of the team and about their own expectations 4. Establishment of team norms, a discussion of important guidelines and team rules including (a) the obligation to dissent, which is the obligation of team members to voice their opinions and concerns even when it means disagreeing with other team members (b) use of a peer leadership model, where different “emerging” leaders take turns to lead different phases of the project at hand (c) use of the standard agenda creation process to ensure that team members know what will be discussed during the team meeting (d) use of the check-in/check-out process at each meeting to keep the team apprised of individual concerns 5. Establishment of team meeting schedule for regular meetings, for example, each week during the lunch hour on Tuesday and Thursday. Certain characteristics can be identified in desirable team players. Learning what others’ strengths are, and allowing them to shine, is a generous way of collaboration that facilitates and acknowledges ideas from other team members. This will make the team function more efficiently. Even “minor” capabilities can change the climate, such as organizational abilities. If a team member has good organizational skills and applies them in the team context, the person can be tasked to track references and act as “accuracy coach,” who has the responsibility of reminding the rest of the team where they last left off and what tasks still need attention, as well as looking out for the team’s best interests, such as staying on target and not straying off the topic in unconstructive ways. This skill immediately makes the person a valuable team member. So even if a team member is only good at something that may seem mundane, like being excellent at note taking, this skill may prove to be a valuable asset that will contribute to a better team. However, remember


123

that it is equally important to try and fulfill members’ interests besides the team’s by allowing people to grow. At the same time, bear in mind commonly occurring problems that could disrupt the creative team-building cycle (DeShon et al., 2004):

• • •

Absence of a team constitution, with no rules, no structure, and no decisions on how to bridge the rocky patches. Productivity does not miraculously flow from teams; it takes effort. Allowing excessive perfectionism or pessimism to take over. Be realistic in the goals; if you overshoot the deadline, then you will miss the target completely. Out of touch with the pulse of the team. A team can in its unison create its own cognitive domain. Be sensitive to the feedback of group members as their views reflect the climate of the group.

To overcome these problem areas, the team would do well to adopt a team decision-making process and a team conflict resolution process, as well as time management techniques to ensure that time together is used most effectively. In a troupe of dancers, although each member has a unique interpretative style, all dance in a loose unison as demanded by the choreography; they are part of a greater whole sharing a common goal. Similarly, in a sports team, each player is part of the larger team context, contributing to team success (or failure). The same applies to the workplace: there needs to be cohesion in the larger group context. The following team survival guidelines may prove to be valuable:

• • • • • • • •

Know the expectations and roles of all team members. Focus on strengths, as opposed to weaknesses. Build team resources with brainstorming methodologies. Read the team’s feelings and be sensitive to the team climate. Beware of the dreaded team killers: the pessimist and the perfectionist. Build the right team: design it like you would anything else. Resolve conflict: a stitch in time saves nine. Deliver the product, gracefully and timely.

124


Finally, briefly reconsider the key characteristics of good team players, as individual strengths contribute to the overall strength of the team: intuitive, communicative, passionate, talented, creative, having initiative, responsible, generous, and influential (Avery et al., 1981).

Conclusion The classic advice in an economic context is to use resources prudently for their maximum impact. These resources represent time, labor, money, and the many related derivatives from these three. Constructive teamwork pools energy, resources, and skills for mutually beneficial outcomes. The literature tells us repeatedly that in the majority of instances good teams do not form spontaneously and easily; rather, it demands expertise, and this expertise can be developed and nurtured. Individuals entering and participating in groups with the intent of being constructive collaborators have the ability to move along the group process swiftly and successfully to the envisaged goal. At the same time, they benefit as individuals. This applies to PBL groups as well. It is a win-win situation where the sum is indeed more than the parts. The “centrality and importance of teamwork across a wide landscape of modern life” (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006, p. 115), as highlighted by the authors who have contributed so much to the understanding of teamwork, requires that we learn to work as teams, harmoniously and productively, be it in the PBL classroom or in the workplace.

References Ashkenasy, N. M. (2004). Emotion and performance. Human Performance, 17(2), 137–144. Avery, C. M. (2002). How to get teams to achieve. Innovative Leader, 11(3), article #548. Retrieved May 2008 from http://www.winstonbrill.com/bril001/html/ article_index/articles/501-550/article548_body.html. Avery, C. M., Auvine, B., Striebel, B., & Weiss, L. (1981). A handbook for consensus decision making: Building united judgment. Madison, WI: Center for Conflict Resolution. de Bono, E. (1985). Six thinking hats. New York: Warner Books.


125

DeShon, R. P., Kozlowski, S. W. J., Schmidt, A. M., Milner, K. R., & Wiechmann, D. (2004). A multiple-goal, multilevel model of feedback effects on the regulation of individual and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 1035–1056. Ellis, A. P. J., Bell, B. S., Ployhart, R. E., Hollenbeck, J. R., & Ilgen, D. R. (2005). An evaluation of generic teamwork skills training with action teams: Effects on cognitive and skill-based outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 58, 641–672. Fung, A., Lo, A., & Rao, M. N. (2005). Creative tools. Hong Kong: School of Design, Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Kelley, T., & Littman, J. (2005). The ten faces of innovation: IDEO’s strategies for defeating the devil’s advocate and driving creativity throughout your organization. New York: Currency/Doubleday. Kelley, T., Littman, J., & Peters, T. (2001). The art of innovation: Lessons in creativity from IDEO, America’s leading design firm. Grand Haven, MI: Brilliance Audio. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77–124. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2007, June/July). The science of team success. Scientific American Mind, pp. 54–61. Maxwell, J. C. (2001). The 17 indisputable laws of teamwork. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson. Nobel Foundation (n.d.). The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2006. Retrieved May 2007 from http://www.nobelprize.org. West, M. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51(3), 355–387. Woods, A. (2007, June/July). A prima in her prime: International ballerina Alessandra Ferri. Pointe, 8(3), 36–39.

CHAPTER 8

The Problem-based Learning Model for Teaching Entrepreneurship Shipra Vaidya National Council of Educational Research and Training, India

Abstract This chapter describes a pilot program designed to investigate the teaching of entrepreneurial skills at the elementary level using a problem-based learning approach. The ultimate goal of the program is to broaden the scope of general education to cover these life skills rather than to teach entrepreneurship per se. The overall course objective is to let students understand why entrepreneurial attributes are essential for their future survival in the workplace. The results of the experiment indicate that, when appropriately guided, children can comprehend the rather complex “adult” concept of entrepreneurship and learn to think entrepreneurially and creatively.

Introduction Among the many challenges confronting educators today is the mismatch between the goals of the curriculum and the demands of the workplace. The objective of elementary education, which is compulsory in India, is not just to prepare students for higher education; it needs to ensure wellrounded development of the child and to lay the foundation for future employability by arming the child with essential life skills, often also called core work skills. Against this backdrop, this chapter reports a pilot program designed to explore the teaching of entrepreneurial skills at the elementary level using a unique problem-based learning approach. The aim is ultimately

128

Shipra Vaidya

to widen the scope of general education to include these life skills rather than to teach entrepreneurship per se. The overall course objective is to let students understand why entrepreneurial attributes such as self-efficacy, leadership, and creativity are essential for their future survival and success in the workplace.

Entrepreneurship as Generic Competency The concept of an entrepreneurial culture in education is new to Indian educational discourse, although it could be argued that some aspects of entrepreneurialism are visible in the Indian education system, such as the emphasis on linking education to the economy or on developing skills for employability (see various reports by the Ministry of Education, 1964–1966, 1975, 1978, 1985; also Ministry of Human Resource Development, 1986). Recent debate has centered on whether our present general education equips students with generic competencies and skills needed for the knowledge society so that they will be able to function in a competitive global environment when they join the workforce. The development of the entrepreneurial individual presupposes an education system that builds not only theoretical knowledge but also practical knowledge, including how to obtain the information needed and how to flexibly apply knowledge to the different contexts that emerge in a constantly changing environment. As humans make the world increasingly complex and challenging, lifelong learning becomes a necessity in order to keep up with a rapidly evolving technology-powered workplace. And with career paths becoming increasingly nonlinear and the pursuit of knowledge interdisciplinary, people have to continuously update their knowledge to be able to apply it to newer contexts. Hence, we need to build a learning society, not just a knowledge society. The functional objective of education is to prepare students to be conscientious citizens who make positive, productive contributions to the society and the economy. To that end, imparting an understanding of what entrepreneurship entails ought to be an integral part of education for all, with early and frequent exposure to the entrepreneurial behaviors

The Problem-based Learning Model for Teaching Entrepreneurship

129

exhibited by real-life practitioners in a wide variety of contexts. However, given the multitude of jobs and professions with their different sets of skills and demands, there is a need to identify the common denominator in what it takes to achieve success, regardless of the profession. As such, in addition to subject knowledge, developing generic skills and competencies should be an important objective of any educational program. The word competence is often used interchangeably with terms such as skill, capacity, capability, aptitude, and proficiency, with their overlapping meanings. Together with skills, competence implies the possession of a set of dynamic qualities necessary for understanding and accomplishing a task. It has an all-encompassing meaning that conveys a necessary and sufficient level of preparedness for carrying out a set of tasks reliably, accurately, and responsibly in accordance with predefined standards or expectations in a given social context (including the work context). Generic entrepreneurial competencies can be broadly considered in three dimensions (NCERT, 2005; see also NCERT, 2000): 1. Basic competencies relate to the personal attributes necessary for undertaking any task, including sensitivity, sense of aesthetics, critical thinking, creativity, motivation for work, capacity for analysis and synthesis, as well as the ability to grasp methodologies, tools, and techniques. 2. Systemic competencies relate to the overall capacity for working in changing contexts, including the ability to develop a holistic perspective, to change and redefine one’s role, to take initiative, and to chart new paths. 3. Interpersonal competencies relate to the social aspects of work, including social skills, communication skills, the capacity to understand and accommodate others’ points of view, as well as the ability to work with others and in interdisciplinary contexts. Entrepreneurial competencies can be taught, learned, internalized, and enhanced through appropriate learning experiences and contexts. Problem-solving exercises, design tasks, project work, and other practical activities provide the perfect framework and opportunity for initiating the learner to the art of working, imparting specialized skills and

130

Shipra Vaidya

developing generic competencies. An understanding of which generic competencies are of value at the workplace in the new social paradigm allows teachers to design the requisite learning experiences and integrate them into the curriculum. Such experiences have profound impacts and need to be planned with care. Experiential learning in diverse contexts deepens overall understanding and enhances skill, competence, and confidence. It also provides opportunities for developing the vital skills of adapting and surviving in a constantly changing environment. The relevance of the curriculum to the real world is extremely important for students. It is not necessary to look at the high-technology artifacts to appreciate this. We have only to look around us to realize that every aspect of human life necessitates enterprise and resourcefulness. The study of entrepreneurship allows students to learn a broad spectrum of generic skills and competencies. The challenge for educators is to model the flurry of activities usually witnessed in students to construct environments where the process of learning engages both the mind and the hands. There is good reason to broaden the scope of education to allow students the opportunity to explore their future paths and society’s concerns with a critical mind. Learning specific professional skills is useful whether or not the student intends to pursue those specific professions in their future lives (Vaidya, 2002, 2005).

Experiential Learning Learning can be defined as a process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experiences. Successful learning requires both guidance from the instructor and practice by the student. In other words, learning does not just happen. It occurs through a cyclical process involving four stages: concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation. Experiential learning does not mean that students learn everything on their own. The instructor is still present, providing a framework for learning, offering guidance, and helping students to expand their thinking as their confidence develops. Too often, however, we find classroom learning approaches varying between two extremes: the didactic knowledge transmission approach


131

where the teacher is the “sage on the stage” and the constructivist approach where students are given tasks to engage them. The former approach is often criticized for treating students as passive recipients and assuming that knowledge can be transmitted and assimilated by students’ mind. The latter approach, on the other hand, while motivating students to complete tasks and activities does not necessarily engage them in the knowledge creation process (Vaidya & Vaidya, 2002; UNESCO, 1996). An experiential education, by contrast, introduces students to the complexity of real-world situations, which often cannot be replicated in the classroom. Table 8.1 summarizes the differences between traditional TABLE 8.1

Traditional learning and experiential learning compared Traditional learning

Experiential learning

Student

Student as passive spectator Impersonal and vicarious learning experience Low student involvement and commitment Student assumes less risk for learning

Student as active participant Personal and direct learning experience High student involvement and commitment Student assumes more risk for learning

Teacher

Teacher-centered and teachercontrolled Teacher’s experience primary Teacher as transmitter of knowledge Teacher is decision maker Teacher knows better Teacher responsible for student’s learning Teacher as judge

Student-centered and studentcontrolled Student’s experience primary Teacher as guide/facilitator of learning Student is decision maker Student knows better Student responsible for own learning No excessive teacher judgment

Learning/ knowledge

Predefined learning One-way communication Passive learning Goal is to accumulate and assimilate knowledge Linear, sequential learning Instruction Predictable outcome Emphasis on pedagogy School viewed as regimental Product/knowledge oriented Theory based

Customized learning Two-way dialogue Interactive learning Goal is to develop knowledge, skills, and attitude Nonlinear learning Discovery Outcome not always predictable Emphasis on learning School viewed as fun Process oriented Experience based

132

Shipra Vaidya

learning and experiential learning. An offshoot of experiential learning is problem-based learning (PBL). PBL is designed to put students in real-life situations where they have to solve real-world problems. It can be readily adopted for developing entrepreneurial competence, and indirectly generic competencies, in elementary students.

Cultivating Entrepreneurial Abilities: A Basic Educational Challenge The entrepreneurial spirit is essential for human endeavors, including teaching and learning. Entrepreneurial attitudes and skills can be developed in people of all ages, even school children. What we need to do is to believe in the potential of kids and to inspire the entrepreneurial spirit at an early age. Encouraging and supporting a child in entrepreneurial pursuits brings many benefits to the child. Although not all students will go into business, an understanding of what is involved in becoming a successful entrepreneur offers valuable insights into their personal potential as well as practical lessons in economic and financial principles. This knowledge, of course, will serve as a foundation to help students become productive citizens. For entrepreneurs to be successful, they must have strong analytic skills and a sense of curiosity, and these need to be cultivated in students too. Teaching children the monetary value of the rupee is another way to help foster entrepreneurial abilities. Opening a savings account in a child’s name and letting him or her determine how much to spend and how much to save helps the child learn to plan for the future and build confidence in making decisions. In cultivating entrepreneurial capabilities in children, the role of the school should lie in supporting entrepreneurship and not in pushing the child into it. An entrepreneurial culture needs to be created to arouse interest in entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship is more of an attitude than a skill or a profession. It is well understood that children form their vision of the outer world at a very early age by asking questions relating to causality and justification. Hence, in relation to the formation of the entrepreneurial spirit, stimulating such questions at an early age


133

encourages children to think about the role of entrepreneurs in society. Entrepreneurship education in school not only promotes entrepreneurship but also encourages children to be the architects of their own fortunes. With this understanding, entrepreneurship can be defined for educational purposes as the ability of the individual possessing a wide range of essential skills and attributes to create wealth, cope with challenges, and make creative contributions by transforming ideas into practical and targeted activities, whether in a social, cultural, or economic context. Thus, it would be useful to start entrepreneurship study early in the educational journey of the learner and maintain it over the entire journey. It should not be confined to any particular age or time of learning. Nor should it be restricted to the context of business entrepreneurship. The importance of these qualities transcends the moneymaking aspect to students’ future survival. Thus, it leads us to the very heart of general education itself (ACEID, 1994; see also Covey, 1989).

The Project The purpose of this research is to profile entrepreneurship study as an educational objective in order to foster creativity and innovation at the elementary level. The focus is on helping children grasp the concept of entrepreneurship and fostering their entrepreneurial skills along the way. An active learning approach is adopted to develop a range of skills, both soft and hard, which include idea generation, teamwork, research, and networking, as well as building confidence. Aside from providing a vehicle for enhancing the capacity of the learner to think entrepreneurially, the project’s intention is also to create an entrepreneurial culture within general education. The main thrust of this experimental program is to build the foundation for learning practical knowledge. This activity-based program is developed to explore children’s understanding of entrepreneurship. It makes use of teaching materials, lesson notes, and narratives (in the form of short stories) designed to promote an entrepreneurial vision, initiative taking, and relevant skills. The emphasis throughout the course is on providing opportunities for

134

Shipra Vaidya

students to learn through activities by doing tasks, addressing problems, and evaluating options, step by step. The entrepreneurship course material is built on real-life themes covering skill sets required for entrepreneurship, including 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Taking initiative How entrepreneurs think What entrepreneurs look for—an opportunity Using your senses to find opportunities What signals a good opportunity How to sell your idea Developing a business plan

The result is a program that immerses students in a highly intensive learning environment. The objectives of the program are

• • •

to make students realize their latent potential and to develop their capabilities for meeting the challenges ahead to counsel and motivate students to make independent career decisions and pursue unusual and challenging career options to foster entrepreneurial traits including pursuit of excellence, self-efficacy, and a problem-solving mindset

To assess the level of comprehension of elementary students, two social science teachers delivered the material to a heterogeneously constituted group of 40 students selected from grades 6 to 8. These students had a business or professional family background. The sample was selected to comprise close to 50 percent girls for investigating any gender differences in entrepreneurial abilities and any stereotype of girls’ career aspirations. In class, the teachers ensured that all children could see the text and illustrations being presented. Some children chose to look at the text as the teacher read, while others preferred to just listen. They were referred to illustrations whenever appropriate and asked to relate them to the text. It was felt important to maintain a friendly atmosphere and to encourage dialogue so that the children would be forthcoming with their views.


135

The PBL Approach to Entrepreneurial Skill Development The PBL approach puts the child in the driver’s seat. It emphasizes student-centered learning with teachers acting primarily as facilitators. Students are encouraged to actively engage with the learning material and turn to teachers only for advice and guidance instead of being passive recipients of lectures. The following questions guided this study:

• •

Are elementary students able to comprehend the complex concept of entrepreneurship? Can the teaching of entrepreneurship be brought down to the elementary level?

The study was conducted with the assumption that the group had no prior understanding of entrepreneurship. The children had never encountered the term “entrepreneur” in their formal study.

The Course The course began with an introduction of the concept of entrepreneurship. The children were split into five groups of eight each. Deliberate efforts were made to constitute the groups heterogeneously comprising both boys and girls from each of the grades 6 to 8.

Activity 1. Taking initiative: Introducing the concept of entrepreneurship To begin with, the word “ENTREPRENEUR” was written on the blackboard. Each of the small groups was asked to talk about this word as they understood it. The students were allowed to use the dictionary or discuss among themselves within the group. It was evident from the discussion that they understood the word only in general terms, such as a rich man, wears lots of jewelry, smokes a cigar, or helps others. The gender and age of the children did not appear to affect this perception. This part of the course was conducted in both English and Hindi. Different shapes and sizes of entrepreneurs were described in terms of

136

Shipra Vaidya

external body parts and internal organs. Different forms of entrepreneurship were discussed in relation to “working for a good cause,” and each time the children were made to see that entrepreneurship is not just starting or running a business but has also a social context. Working to help a community is a kind of entrepreneurial activity. A story “Melody Maker” was then narrated. It was chosen to show that entrepreneurship is not restricted to adults. Even young children like themselves can engage in entrepreneurial activities. The story was narrated empathetically, laying stress on each and every emotion in the situation. The idea was to arouse the interest of the children, to motivate them to think like entrepreneurs. The children listened enthusiastically to the story. A few were simply listening and trying to relate to the expressions of the teacher, while some others were reading the text as the story was narrated. However, when the concept of entrepreneur/entrepreneurship was introduced for the first time, the children were not able to link it with the tale. For example, when asked if they would like to engage in an entrepreneurial activity, they did not relate the question to the story. However, with a little intervention, they could cite raising money for leprosy patients and helping slum children, for instance, as such activities. A jigsaw game “Things I Can Do and Things I Care About” depicting the social aspect of entrepreneurship (Figure 8.1) was played to discover some easy ways to make a difference. The children were encouraged to create additional pieces themselves to make the game more interesting.

Activity 2. How entrepreneurs think and what they look for: Seeing, observing, and recalling This activity was conducted to assess the thinking processes of children in recognizing business opportunities and to teach how to make use of one’s senses to spot good business ideas. The children were first asked to list down, as many as they could think of, all the people they saw on their way to school and what these people were doing. As the activity progressed, they were asked to write down all those activities from their list that they felt people were doing for money.


Things I Can Do

137

Things I Care About

FIGURE 8.1 Jigsaw game for raising awareness of the social aspect of entrepreneurship

Later, the teacher facilitated a discussion on market gaps, a concept that the children could not comprehend theoretically. But with the use of an activity, they could get a feel of the concept to some extent. The children were asked to list all the businesses that they could think of in their neighborhood. They were able to point out major businesses like financial institutions but not street hawkers, vegetable sellers, stationery shops, and other small businesses. However, with guidance, they could recall all those business activities. The response was enthusiastic. After that, the children were given time to think and then list a few business activities that they did not find in their neighborhood. With a little facilitation, they were able to name some examples.

138

Shipra Vaidya

The activity then changed course to focus on hobbies. Initially, the children came up with common hobbies like dancing, singing, reading, and listening to music. With some prompting, they were brought on track and began to recall things they learned in their arts and crafts class. They came up with business ideas such as making soft toys, baking and cooking for birthdays and other kinds of parties, selling friendship bands, making candles and decorative items for festive occasions, and producing music discs or composing songs. Some children interested in stitching and embroidery talked of fashion design and further extended it to interior design. The notion of dignity of labor did not emerge in the discussion, as the children came from high-income families. When the popcorn hawker operating near the school gate or outside the cinema hall was mentioned, the idea of going into such a business did not appeal to them. Perhaps, being urban kids, they had higher aspirations. At this stage, the children were able to grasp business terminology, talking and conversing in business lingo, about sales, profit and loss, and so on. They also had an idea of advertising and the purpose it serves, as well as factory or industry being the place of production. They had a limited understanding of market and market gap, in that market is a place where things are bought and sold.

Activity 3. Selling a business idea The session on how to sell your idea centered on the five major decisions required in selling a product: 1. Who and where are your potential customers? 2. What motivates your customers? 3. What is the cost of promotion compared with the cost of your product? 4. How do you reach your customers? 5. How do you promote your product? The teacher cited a few products, such as soft toys, music discs, dance classes, medicines, and fast food, and asked the children to name the


139

consumers of these products. Without difficulty, the children understood that the key to selling a product or service is to identify its consumers. Discussion on each of the five decisions was followed by a quick activity. The points and ideas arising out of the discussions were noted down on the blackboard for all to see. This helped guide the thinking of the children, and they came up with diverse ideas. However, the crux of the matter was that the students were not able to focus and think deeply on any business idea arising out of the discussions. In each activity, they talked of different types of business ideas, but the teachers had been instructed to steer the children’s thinking along the line of hobbies and skills. The children were repeatedly prompted to think around their hobbies for potential business ventures that were related to their hobbies. The teacher then listed different types of sales tools one by one and asked the children to relate these tools to business activities around them. Gradually, the children became observant of their surroundings. Previously, they had never looked at things around them so keenly or observed so closely. But when given a chance, they were able to do so. It is apparent from this exercise that, through appropriate activities, children can grasp rather complicated concepts. The need is to provide for appropriate teaching within the school curriculum so that entrepreneurial thinking becomes second nature to children.

Evaluating the Understanding of the Sample Group The last two days of the experiment were devoted to assessing the children’s level of comprehension of entrepreneurship. To begin with, the children were asked to reflect on the course for 15 minutes and to recall the lessons delivered earlier. The children looked at the pictures presented in the course with interest and reflected on the lessons within their group. This was followed by an activity to define entrepreneurs. Based on a picture shown (Figure 8.2), the children were asked to define entrepreneurship or entrepreneur in their own words. The children were able to spell out the dimensions of entrepreneurship, such as recognizing opportunities or potential, taking initiative,

140

Shipra Vaidya

FIGURE 8.2

Activity to define an entrepreneur

looking around, keeping your eyes open and your ear to the ground, coming up with ideas, starting a venture, selling the idea, and gathering resources. They could even identify the characteristics of entrepreneurs, such as being independent, confident, and hardworking, providing employment, thinking independently and differently, seeking out opportunities, overcoming challenges, planning and organizing tasks, instilling team spirit, identifying team members’ abilities, and making use of skills and hobbies. The children were not told the characteristics of entrepreneurs but learned about them in the course of the discussion. This shows that children can comprehend such a concept when guided. Finally, the children were asked to write a business plan for either one of two business ideas: a bakery and confectionery outlet or a house painting business. The findings of this activity were, however, inconclusive. Children who had a business family background immediately understood the activity. Nonetheless, all the children enjoyed making advertising copy, posters, flyers, and jingles for their products.


141

The activities appeared to excite and inspire the pupils, although the long-term effects are not known. Nonetheless, it would still be of value to integrate entrepreneurial activities into the school curriculum. After the spark has been ignited, we need to fan the flame into a fire.

PBL: A New Teaching–Learning Paradigm for Promoting Entrepreneurship Throughout the course, PBL was observed to be effective in developing entrepreneurial behavior among children. The children assumed greater responsibility for their own learning and were free to engage with the given problems as deeply as they liked. Complex, loosely structured problems acted as the focal points and stimuli for the course. Such problems encouraged idea generation and development. And by working in small groups instead of individually, the students tended to arrive at multiple solutions to a problem. The nature of the activities fostered the development of critical analysis skills essential for entrepreneurship, while their applicability and relevance to real life provided greater meaning to students. In addition, students were encouraged to extrapolate prior knowledge gained from other experiences to solve the problem at hand, much as entrepreneurs do when they develop new business ideas. Finally, assessment of students’ learning became more comprehensive with PBL tasks. At the same time, there are barriers to the adoption of PBL. Students, being accustomed to highly structured textbook-based teaching, often got lost if unguided within the PBL environment. The teachers, who were used to predictable outcomes with textbook-based pedagogy, considered training as important in using PBL and the constructivist learning approach.

Conclusions and Implications for Further Research We believe that entrepreneurship offers a new way of looking at learning: that learning about an idea is not the same as living out that idea. We view entrepreneurship as a means to feel and think about a way of life,

142

Shipra Vaidya

and we want our students to make the best of their lives. As such, we need to nurture individuals who are independent-minded and passionate about what they do. The course presented here is designed to encourage students to dream up novel business ideas and in the process to instill entrepreneurial thinking and behavior rather than merely preparing them for employment, which much of our current formal schooling still supports. All the activities developed for the study, with entrepreneurship as a central theme, are interdisciplinary in nature and constructed in such a way as to encourage students to think creatively and entrepreneurially about major world issues. They are designed to promote new idea development, creativity, and humor. The intention is to lead students to think beyond the “right answer” and learn to see opportunities in an everchanging environment. The findings demonstrate very clearly that the activities developed for this research can be replicated for an interdisciplinary learning environment in the school setting. The overwhelmingly positive response of the children is proof of the inspirational power of these activities. However, given the tentative, exploratory nature of the study, similar research designed for a wider setting is needed to confirm these preliminary results.

References ACEID (1994). Becoming enterprising: Technical guidelines. Bangkok: Asia-Pacific Centre of Educational Innovation for Development, UNESCO. Covey, S. R. (1989). The seven habits of highly effective people. Reading, Berkshire: Cox & Wyman. Ministry of Education, India (1964–1966). Education and national development. Report of the Education Commission. Ministry of Education, India (1985). Vocationalisation of education. Report of the Kulandaiswami National Working Group, All India Council of Technical Education. Ministry of Education and Social Welfare, India (1975). Curriculum for the ten year school. Report of the Ishwarbhai Patel Committee. Ministry of Education and Social Welfare, India (1978). Higher secondary education with special reference to vocationalisation. Report of the Adiseshiah Committee.


143

Ministry of Human Resource Development, India (1986). National policy on education. NCERT (2000). National curriculum framework for school education. New Delhi: National Council of Educational Research and Training. NCERT (2005). National curriculum framework. Position paper on work and education. New Delhi: National Council of Educational Research and Training. UNESCO (1996). Learning the treasure within. Report of the International Commission on Education for the Twenty-first Century. Paris. Vaidya, S. (2002). Assessing incidence of entrepreneurship spirit among commerce stream students at the higher secondary stage. New Delhi: Educational Research Innovative Committee, NCERT. Vaidya, S. (2005). Educational reforms: New trends and innovations in educational development. New Delhi: Deep and Deep Publications. Vaidya, N., & Vaidya, S. (2002). Encyclopedia of educational foundations and development: A quest for 21st century (Parts I & II). New Delhi: Deep and Deep Publications.

CHAPTER 9

Internet-enhanced Seven-Jump Problembased Learning: Promoting Creativity, Economic Literacy, and Argumentation Skills Jonggyu Bae Seoul Sinseo High School, Korea

Abstract This chapter discusses the potential of an Internet-enhanced problem-based learning model to promote creativity, economic literacy, and argumentation skills in solving controversial issues in social studies. More specifically, it compares this model with the decision-making model in producing these effects. While the decision-making model mainly seeks problem solution in a linear process based on objective data, the developed problem-based learning model challenges students to explore issues from multiple perspectives and to generate creative solutions. It is argued here that the promotion of the four dimensions of creativity underlies the potential of the developed model to enhance economic literacy and argumentation skills.

Introduction Korea’s current national social studies curriculum advocates the use of issue-centered learning and teaching approaches. But in middle and high schools, the lack of appropriate instructional methods hinders the implementation of this curriculum. This situation needs to be urgently looked into and rectified. An issue-centered approach to social studies aims at steering students toward a process of thinking and learning in which they seek knowledge

146

Jonggyu Bae

based on what they need to know for solving decision-making problems. In addition, it requires that students make conclusions based on the best evidence available. These capabilities can be developed if teachers are committed to nurturing students’ skills in higher-order thinking and knowledge construction. By contrast, the prevailing decision-making model (Banks & Banks, 1999) regards problems as closed tasks, and the goal of the solution process is to be able to arrive at a consensus. This model does not adequately develop the thought processes by which knowledge is created, evaluated, and used because of its objectivist paradigm that emphasizes a linear decision-making process. As such, we seek solutions that would foster the various cognitive patterns and experiences occurring in experts as they solve controversial issues. Toward that end, I adopt an Internetenhanced model adapted from the seven-jump problem-based learning (PBL) framework (Schmidt, 1983; Schmidt & Moust, 2000).

The Decision-making Model Ill-defined problems are generative and they make the problem solver ask questions. In fact, so many questions are generated that they give rise to a wealth of ideas. Such problems are also considered as the kind of problem that would lead to inquiry in social studies. They necessitate different forms of inquiry processes and call for different types of scaffolding compared to well-defined problems (Muukkonen et al., 2004). With illdefined problems, scaffolding efforts are often channeled into conceptual clarification, knowledge building, argumentation, and evaluation. Such problems encourage students to break from established knowledge and take new perspectives. The decision-making model recommends that when students are presented with ill-defined problems they pay attention to the specifics of the problem, develop and test hypotheses, and conduct systematic data collection and analysis (Figure 9.1). When students solve controversial issues by this model, they relate the knowledge that they have derived from social inquiry to the values relating to the resolution of these issues. These values are identified and then clarified by prioritizing the value

Internet-enhanced Seven-Jump Problem-based Learning

147

Problem situations

Value inquiry

Social inquiry 1. 2. 3. 4.

Formulating the problem Formulating hypotheses Collecting data Testing hypotheses

1. Identifying the value issue 2. Identifying alternatives 3. Hypothesizing about consequences 4. Making a choice

Knowledge

Value clarification

Making a decision

FIGURE 9.1 The decision-making process SOURCE: Based on Banks & Banks (1999), pp. 65–78.

of each decision. Each inquiry has its own well-defined problem-solving process. It is recognized that values have cognitive content, which can be modified and directed toward certain goals in the decision process. Hence, combining social inquiry with value inquiry can produce synergy. However, controversial issues dealt with by the decision-making model may be reduced to well-defined problems because social inquiry and value inquiry do not take place simultaneously. Therefore, the decision-making model is not satisfactory for exploiting controversial issues in ill-defined problems. In addition, the goal of inquiry in this model is to come to an agreed decision. However, some students may be inclined to solve problems in unique ways. PBL provides opportunities for students to find creative ways of solving ill-defined problems.

The Internet-enhanced Seven-Jump PBL Model This model was developed by Bae (2007) and incorporated into K–10 curricula. The PBL process begins with problem presentation. Ten

148

Jonggyu Bae

tutorials are held to build students’ skills in using the Internet resources and to develop their thinking skills for solving the problems. Each tutorial class has six groups with six students in each group. The groups plan and carry out the work necessary to acquire the needed knowledge and skills. Each group member selects one or more of the learning issues identified to work on. As it is difficult for inexperienced students to form ideas for the resolution of the problems from the outset, they are given time to develop different options and perspectives in planning their tasks. The teacher provides scaffolding by modeling and facilitating the desired problem-solving processes while engaging students in authentic inquiry activities such as presenting the problem, clarifying concepts and terms, defining the problem, analyzing the problem, drawing up an inventory of possible explanations for the problem, formulating individual learning issues, searching for information, and synthesizing the explanations (Figure 9.2).

Problem situation (step 1)

Clarification of concepts and terms (step 2)

Problem definition (step 3)

Problem analysis (step 4) Self-directed learning (step 6) Building explanations (step 5)

Individual learning issues

Knowledge inventory

Synthesis of explanations (step 7)

Argumentation

Formulation of hypotheses

Small-group discussion

Information search

FIGURE 9.2 The Internet-enhanced seven-jump problem-based learning process


149

Self-directed learning occurs when students relate newly acquired knowledge to what they already know in resolving individual learning issues (Mayer, 1998). In the Internet-enhanced model, unlike in the traditional seven-jump model, the teacher uses the Internet to scaffold the inquiry process during self-directed learning. A Web-based bulletin board with two columns labeled “What We Know” and “What We Need to Know” is set up, on which students document their prior knowledge under “What We Know” and the hypotheses that they believe are critical to finding out more about the learning issues under “What We Need to Know.” Students’ prior knowledge should be related to the hypotheses that may be part of the solution. The second column then drives students’ information search. This process is repeated as needed with students continuing to gather new information that in turn may change what they know and raise a new need to generate more questions and ideas. Through this process, they build up a knowledge base or “knowledge inventory”—an incubator for creative decision making. After a period of self-directed learning, group members return to the problem armed with increased knowledge and skills. With complex social issues, this process of knowledge synthesis continues until the problem is resolved and the decisions are justified based on the principles and mechanisms underlying the issues. At the same time, each group reflects on its argumentation process, both collectively and individually, during which each member assesses himself or herself and is likewise assessed by the teacher. Finally, each group presents its solutions to the class. This session provides clarification and further ideas to complement the group’s evidence, warrants, and conclusions. Assisting students to construct sound knowledge structures for understanding controversial issues can help them develop literacy along with argumentation skills.

Internet-enhanced PBL: A Viable Alternative? The developed model has key characteristics that make it appealing as an alternative instructional approach. First, the problems used incorporate real-world challenges. Well-designed real-world problems possess

150

Jonggyu Bae

characteristics that can stimulate the generation of myriad ideas. By generating ideas, students increase their understanding of the problem. When teaching macroeconomic concepts such as national income, gross domestic product, price determination, and international economics, teachers can extract or adapt from newspapers authentic, open-ended problems such as the following: On November 19, 1997, South Korea’s finance minister said that he didn’t have a choice. “The Korean economy was almost bankrupt,” he said in an interview. “Foreign reserves were almost running out. There was no other option.” The won lost half its value in November 1997 when Seoul reversed its policy and allowed the currency to float. At that time, some key macroeconomic indicators were in fact strong, he said. But some other indicators pointed to excessive borrowing. The country’s balance of payments deficit had surged to more than $20 billion. Close to half of its foreign debt was short-term. The minister met top U.S. Treasury and International Monetary Fund officials visiting Seoul. Their message was clear: Washington would only help Seoul if it agreed to an IMF bail-out. A deal was reached within weeks, and South Korea ended up with a package of more than $58 billion—the biggest ever seen. Question 1. How might the major macroeconomic indicators correlate considering the excessive borrowing situation at that time? Question 2. What is your opinion regarding how the major macroeconomic indicators should behave and interrelate in order to achieve economic stability? Question 3. Between economic stability and economic growth, which should be the priority for a country?

Authentic tasks, because of their inherent complexity, get students to seek different solutions according to the perspectives they take. The development of multiple perspectives demonstrates cognitive flexibility and creativity, and it paves the way toward deeper and broader learning. With multiple points of view being presented in class discussions, students gain deeper understanding of the concepts being taught as well as broaden their perspectives on economic issues. Because students are allowed to deal with information in a flexible way, they are free from fixed ideas while at the same time getting the opportunity to arrive at new perspectives.


151

Learning in this way can lead to deep learning and lay the foundation for creativity, although it requires considerable scaffolding from the teacher to ensure that students are able to successfully carry out the complex tasks. By contrast, in the decision-making model, students utilize an established set of knowledge when solving controversial issues, which prevents them from developing more complex and flexible knowledge structures that are required for solving ill-structured problems (Spiro et al., 1991). As a result, learners develop oversimplified views of the world because they are trying to apply rigid, compartmentalized knowledge to ill-defined situations that cannot be adequately accounted for by these simple knowledge structures. Secondly, the PBL approach promotes metacognitive awareness. It provides opportunities for students to identify existing gaps in their knowledge, which prompts them to address the deficiency. In the process, their ability to construct new and different knowledge develops. As students interact and work with others in trying to solve the problem and make a value decision, they have the opportunity to reflect on their own understanding and construct more useful, internalized representations of the concepts (Collins et al., 1989), thereby enhancing their metacognitive skills. Through dialogue and interaction, the teacher and students together engage in a collaborative inquiry process that can potentially enhance students’ literacy and their argumentation skills. Economic literacy implies that students have their own organization of knowledge in that domain. Students’ organization of knowledge helps them know when, why, and how their knowledge inventory and skills are relevant in their argumentation concerning the problem situation. Domain-relevant knowledge and skills are one of the three components of creativity proposed by Amabile (1989). The other two components are creativity-relevant skills and task motivation. Four cognitive traits of creativity have been suggested, and they are fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration. It can be inferred that the organization of knowledge is not only an element of creativity but also a part of argumentation, allowing students to assess their knowledge inventory and motivating them to learn the knowledge that they lack.

152

Jonggyu Bae

Using the Internet to Enhance the Inquiry Process The developed PBL model enhances the inquiry process by exploiting the power of the Internet. To facilitate interaction, a Web-based collaborative and networking tool, a bulletin board, is set up for all members of the groups to access in and outside class. Using this tool, students can become part of a virtual discussion group. They can post messages, ask questions, raise issues, and respond to the comments of others. Through the use of the Internet, scaffolding of students’ thinking and knowledge construction can be facilitated. Cognitive apprenticeship is embedded in the bulletin board to guide students in building the necessary knowledge base to support their argumentation. The online facility allows the groups’ deliberations, multiple viewpoints, and acquired information to be documented and shared outside tutorials. Exposing individual responses to the scrutiny of the group can also facilitate the clarification of viewpoints and lead to a more focused discussion of the issues. An argumentation tool (Figure 9.3) is also installed on the course Web site to guide students in arguing their positions. The process of argumentation advances from the initial nonspecific questions to specific learning issues developed during small-group discussions. The learning issues act as a premise. A premise has to be supported by evidence and warrants. Premise

Evidence 1

Evidence 2

Evidence 3

Warrant 1

Warrant 2

Warrant 3

Conclusion

FIGURE 9.3

Structure of the online argumentation tool


153

A warrant is based on theory. When students participate in argumentation with other group members, they progress through the “zone of proximal development” (Vygotsky, 1978) as they critically examine each learning issue, considering the evidence and warrants that support it and the conclusion toward which they point.

Conclusion When students deal with controversial issues, they need to employ divergent thinking. Divergent thinking is a core element of creativity (Davis & Rimm, 1989; Amabile, 1989). Thus, to solve controversial issues, it is essential to adopt an inquiry model that is geared to promoting creativity (Maxim, 2003). The Internet-enhanced seven-jump PBL model, as noted earlier, engages students in more creative thinking in resolving controversial issues than the decision-making model. The developed model is not just a problem-solving process; it also leads to the learning of subject knowledge. The synergistic interactions between the activities of problem solving and subject knowledge acquisition lead students toward expertise in solving controversial issues. Therefore, this model can act as a catalyst in fostering creativity and developing economic literacy and argumentation skills.

References Amabile, T. M. (1989). Growing up creative. New York: Crown. Bae, J. G. (2007). The effects of a problem-based learning model enhanced by the Internet on economic literacy and argumentation in solving controversial issues in social studies. Ph.D. thesis, Seoul National University. Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. A. (1999). Teaching strategies for the social studies: Decision-making and citizen action. New York: Longman. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (1989). Education of the gifted and talented. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

154

Jonggyu Bae

Maxim, G. W. (2003). Dynamic social studies for elementary classrooms (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Mayer, R. E. (1998). Cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational aspects of problem solving. Instructional Science, 26, 49–63. Muukkonen, H., Hakkarainen, K., & Lakkala, M. (2004). Computer-mediated progressive inquiry in higher education. In T. S. Roberts (Ed.), Online collaborative learning: Theory and practice. Hershey, PA: Idea Group, Inc. Schmidt, H. G. (1983). Problem-based learning: Rationale and description. Medical Education, 17, 11–16. Schmidt, H. G., & Moust, J. H. C. (2000). Factors affecting small-group tutorial learning: A review of research. In D. H. Evensen & C. E. Hmelo (Eds.), Problem-based learning: A research perspective on learning interactions (pp. 19–51). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1991). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. Educational Technology, 31(5), 24–33. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner & E. Souberman, Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original works published 1930–1933)

C H A P T E R 10

Using Problem-based Learning Activities to Identify Creatively Gifted Mathematics Students Scott Chamberlin University of Wyoming, USA

Abstract This chapter investigates the potential of problem-based learning activities as a vehicle for assessing the creativity of gifted mathematics students. Presented with the problem scenario of a physical education teacher who wants to know if one can accurately predict from body size which sports event a student would excel in, a group of 36 grade 4 and 5 students was asked to analyze relevant data available on the Web to determine whether a relationship exists between body size and prowess in specific athletic events. Samples of typical and potentially creative student responses are presented, and the implications for using such tasks to assess creativity are considered. Findings suggest that problembased learning tasks can lend themselves to the identification of creatively gifted mathematicians.

Introduction Problem-based learning (PBL) has been adopted at all levels, from kindergarten through graduate school (Hmelo-Silver, 2004; Tan, 2005),

Special thanks to Bob Simpson, district mathematics coordinator, and Darcie Achord, grade 5 teacher, for arranging the problem-solving opportunity and for facilitating the problem with grade 4 and 5 students.

156

Scott Chamberlin

and this is made possible by the flexible nature of its core features. The core features are the same regardless of the grade level, but adaptations are needed to accommodate age-related ability levels. These features include the emphasis on self-directed learning, collaborative problem solving, as well as open-ended tasks that are set in realistic contexts, are interdisciplinary in nature, and foster higher-order thinking (Chin & Chia, 2004; Cockrell et al., 2000; Dunlap, 2005; Goodnough, 2003; Hmelo-Silver, 2004; Majeski & Stover, 2005; Nelson et al., 2004; SavinBaden & Wilkie, 2004; Tan, 2005; Van Liet, 2005). Students engaging in PBL tasks go through several steps: meeting the problem, defining the problem, gathering facts about the problem, hypothesizing solutions to the problem, researching the problem, rephrasing the problem, generating alternative solutions, and advocating solutions to the problem (Fogarty, 1997). This chapter addresses the use of PBL activities as a curricular tool to identify students who are creatively gifted in mathematics by analyzing their responses to a problem. Following a brief review of the literature, the educational context for administering the problem is provided. Subsequently, sample student responses are discussed in an attempt to provide an understanding of the differences between typical and creative responses. The chapter concludes with a discussion of assessment practices.

Mathematical Creativity Although mathematical creativity, giftedness, and PBL have been discussed in the literature, empirical studies on the interrelationships between these three areas do not exist. Consequently, this literature review will merge several areas of research to provide a background for the present discussion. In modern history, Balka and Krutetskii brought attention to the question of creativity in mathematics. Balka’s dissertation (1974a) reviewed existing instruments for measuring creativity and propelled the discussion into the arena of mathematics education in the United States. In the same year, he published an oft-cited article that detailed

Using PBL Activities to Identify Creatively Gifted Mathematics Students

157

the criteria used to characterize creativity in mathematics (Balka, 1974b). Similar to Balka’s work, Krutetskii’s research (1976) focused on several aspects of creativity, and he suggested that the identification of mathematical creativity must be within the setting of mathematical problem solving. According to many researchers, a critical component of creativity is flexibility in thinking (Helson & Crutchfield, 1970; Keisswetter, 1983; Krutetskii, 1976; Silver, 1994). Krutetskii was the first to equate mathematical creativity with mathematical giftedness, and others have since made the same claim (Haylock, 1997), although Silver does not agree with that (personal communication, February 2, 2007). Over ten years ago, Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik (ZDM), a leading international journal in mathematics education, dedicated a special issue to creativity in mathematics. In this issue, Ching (1997) discusses types of problems that can be used to assess creativity in students. This discussion is similar to the focus of this chapter in that it explicates assessment tools that may be employed to identify creatively gifted mathematicians. Silver (1997), on the other hand, examines mathematical creativity and how it can be developed through mathematical problem solving and problem posing. He identifies the three components of mathematical creativity as fluency, flexibility, and novelty. This conception of creativity is similar to that of Torrance (1974). Leung (1997) also looks at problem posing as an indicator of mathematical creativity. His argument is that problem posing can foster mathematical creativity by getting students to think flexibly. More specifically, Leung agrees with Mamona-Downs (1993) and Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen and colleagues (1995) that “problem posing means the formation of novel problems, with solutions unknown to at least the one who formulates it” (p. 81). Similarly, Pehkonen (1997) discusses the value of mathematical creativity and what can be done in the classroom to foster it. It seems logical that the pedagogical approach and the curriculum are the two factors that would make the greatest impact on developing creativity in the classroom. This phenomenon has yet to be researched, although Silver (1997) suggests that open-ended, ill-structured tasks are best at promoting creativity in mathematics. Following ZDM’s special issue, Krulik and Rudnick (1999) considered teaching techniques for improving creative thinking in mathematics.

158

Scott Chamberlin

One of their suggestions was that Polya’s (1973) fourth step to problem solving be changed from “look back” to “reflect.” In so doing, students look critically at their answers. Ideally, reflecting will encourage students to seek additional solutions to problems rather than just accepting the first “standard” solution to a problem. The emphasis becomes finding as many solutions as possible and not merely identifying the one obvious solution. Hence, thinking in flexible ways is fostered. Perhaps the article most germane to this chapter is that by Williams (2002), which discusses a tool for assessing creativity in the classroom. Specifically, utilizing Bloom’s taxonomy (Bloom et al., 1956), he created indicators of cognitive processes that may lead to a creative product and designed the tool based on five seminal articles on mathematical creativity (Chick, 1998; Dreyfus et al., 2001; Dreyfus & Tsamir, 2001; Krutetskii, 1976; Williams, 2001). An article that has had a significant influence on the field of gifted education is “Creativity: The Essence of Mathematics,” in which Mann (2006) describes myriad definitions of mathematical creativity as they relate to mathematical giftedness and considers implications for instruction and assessment. E. Paul Torrance (1974) has perhaps made the biggest impact on mathematical creativity in gifted education. His test of creativity, according to Haylock (1997), employs indicators of mathematical creativity that comprise fluency, flexibility, and originality. Fluency is measured by the number of acceptable responses, flexibility by the number of different kinds of responses, and originality by how often specific responses are produced by a respondent relative to how often the group provides such responses. Novelty or originality is perhaps the gauge of creativity most often employed in the educational world. Consequently, novelty in mathematical solutions has been used in this chapter to refer to mathematical creativity. Adapting Marland’s (1972) definition, giftedness is defined here as any high performance with demonstrated achievement and/or potential ability in creativity or productive thinking. As is apparent in the literature review, there is no one agreed method for assessing mathematical creativity. For this study, PBL activities were chosen as a vehicle to assess and identify mathematically creative students.


159

The PBL Task A mathematical PBL activity called the Athletics Problem (see Appendix) was implemented over a two-week period in the Rocky Mountain region of the United States. The participants in this exploratory study had not previously been identified as gifted, although they were picked out by their teachers as top students in general education. The problem required the use of the statistical concepts of standard deviation (SD) and correlation, specifically because they had not been introduced to the students in their mathematics curriculum. Hence, novelty was a major criterion in selecting the mathematical concept. The task was on athletics (track and field) and consisted of a scenario in which an elementary physical education teacher is trying to ascertain whether or not body size, specifically height and weight, has any relationship to the optimal athletic event for an athlete. Statistical terms, such as SD and correlation, were not mentioned in any part of the problem so that students would not be prompted to apply statistical processes in the event that they were aware of them or found them in a resource. Moreover, students were given only one week to complete the task, and any use of statistical terminology may provide clues regarding how to efficiently solve the task. Web sites are available that detail athletes’ heights, weights, and the athletic events in which they competed (e.g., U.S.A. Track and Field Athlete Bios on http://www.usatf.org and Indiana Invaders Athlete Bios on http://www.indianainvaders.com). The USATF site is the most comprehensive source available, as it provides both women’s and men’s data. Students were asked to relate an athlete’s best event with body size, for either women or men. In essence, this task demanded that students create a model to look at body size data (variable A) and decide what event is best for an athlete (variable B).

Method Students were recruited by the mathematics coordinator in one of the largest districts in a Rocky Mountain state. To identify students, the coordinator asked all grade 4 and 5 teachers to identify no more than three of the most advanced mathematicians in their classes. This was

160

Scott Chamberlin

done in an attempt to identify students who were capable of using highlevel mathematics on a challenging problem. The selected students met at an elementary school on April 24 and May 1, 2007, from 9:30 a.m. until 11:00 a.m. In the first meeting, they were put into groups according to schools, so as to allow students the opportunity to work on the task in groups when they returned to their own school. Following an explication of the problem and a brief discussion about track and field events, students were instructed to work on the task in the time remaining that day and then as homework, and they were told that it was imperative that each group understand all of the mathematics in the problem such that any one of them could provide an explanation and rationale to the large group upon returning the next week. Subsequently, the author and two facilitators went round the room to ensure that students understood what was asked in the problem statement. One week later, students assembled to present their problem solutions. Their work was collected and analyzed to identify whether responses were typical of students of this age or whether potentially novel solutions existed, using a four-level rating system designed by Livne, Livne, and Milgram (1999). This rating system places a large emphasis on novelty. The four levels of understanding are, briefly, (1) ordinary: initial impression from data on the surface, (2) mild: attention to details, (3) moderate: integration, and (4) profound: transfer/ application.

Results Solutions that are sound mathematical responses but not creative ones are discussed first, followed by two responses that appear to warrant further consideration for evidence of creativity. It is important to note that the responses that are not creative are not poor responses. In general, students answered the given question thoroughly and used mathematics that was advanced for grades 4 and 5. Novel responses were sought in an attempt to identify potential creativity. The approach most frequently used, by five out of the total eleven groups, was to look at the range of body sizes and graph the data in an attempt to predict any correlation between body size and athletic event.


161

Another typical approach, employed by four groups, was to use some or all measures of central tendency, such as mean, median, and mode. Rudimentary versions of SD and correlation were used to analyze the data spread. Range is a simplified version of SD; and although it is somewhat sophisticated for students of this age, it is not novel per se. All groups made graphs or charts of the data in an attempt to represent them pictorially. Graphing is a large part of curricula in grades 4 and 5 in the United States. Table 10.1 is a typical response from a group. These nine typical responses were rated 1. Of all the groups, two groups appear to have come up with potentially creative responses with a rating of 3. One of these groups responded that it is possible to predict the optimal event for some athletes but not for others. This response may be considered creative partly because of the

TABLE 10.1 A typical student response: chart of men’s data recreated from usatf.org Event High jump Long jump Triple jump Decathlon Pole vault Shot put Discus Hammer throw Javelin Race walk 100 meters 110-meter hurdles 200 meters 400 meters 400-meter hurdles 800 meters 1,500 meters 3,000-meter steeplechase 5,000 meters 10,000 meters Marathon

Height in inches 72–80 72–77 72–76 71–76 73–75 72–78 74–80 74–79 73–74.5 69–74 69–75 70–74 67–75 72–74 72–74 68–76 68–74 66–75 69–70 67–73 67–73

Weight in pounds 180–195 155–200 155–195 185–202 175–190 253–325 205–300 238–320 205–230 132–178 165–190 165–190 150–175 155–180 165–190 148–175 130–165 127–160 130–134 127–155 127–130

162

Scott Chamberlin

way the question was phrased: “Using data from a Web site, is it possible to look at an athlete’s height and weight, without knowing what event they do, and predict the best event for the athlete?” It is likely that the typical elementary student would view such a question as entirely dichotomous. That is to say, given the understanding that most elementary students have of SD and correlation, this question would be interpreted as the existence or not of a relationship. Practically speaking, to upper elementary students, body size does or does not indicate a propensity for success in a certain track and field event. As none of these students had been introduced to the concept of SD or correlation prior to the activity, this response is novel and may deserve consideration as a potentially creative response. Students at this age and with this level of knowledge are likely to view the response as one of the two extremes. This group deduced from their analysis of data from usatf.org that body size can indicate what event in which track (running) athletes will do best. However, their analysis suggested that size does not indicate what event in which field athletes will do best. Their spread of data was minimal for running events (low SD) and scattered or large for field events (high SD). They stated that distance athletes are typically slender and short to medium in height. Middle-distance runners are also slender and typically of medium height. Sprinters are often of medium height and heavier than distance and middle-distance runners, because of the need for upper body strength. However, field athletes come in many different shapes and sizes. In essence, this group suggested a potentially creative response to this problem by looking at all events individually. They may have answered the problem in much the same way a highly trained statistician would. They stated that, for track athletes, accurate predictions could be made about success in athletic events. However, for field athletes, only weak predictions could be made from the data. Moreover, this group read into the problem such factors as muscle type and training. They sought more detailed information about such factors as leg height, upper body strength, and so on. The other group created a mathematical model to answer the question, with a matrix to classify athletes as tall, medium, or short (in height) and heavy, moderate, or light (in weight). A sample matrix is recreated as Table 10.2. With this matrix, along with parameters defining each of the


163

TABLE 10.2 Matrix designed by one student group to classify athletes by body size Tall

Medium

Short

Heavy Moderate Light

nine categories of height and weight, the students simply put athletes into categories to ascertain whether a large or small spread existed. The more categories that are represented by athletes from the same event, the larger the spread of body sizes. In turn, a large spread indicates that it might be difficult to predict success in a certain athletic event. For instance, if the decathlon has athletes in four boxes, perhaps tall moderate, medium moderate, tall light, and medium light, then the spread may be considered large, indicating a low correlation. On the contrary, if the 10,000 meters has athletes in two boxes, such as medium light and short light, then the event may be regarded as having a smaller spread, suggesting a high positive correlation. Data characterized by a small spread can be used to more closely predict future success in an athletic event.

Methods of Assessment The focus of this chapter is to use PBL tasks as an assessment tool to identify creatively gifted mathematicians. An important caveat is that measuring creativity with only one analysis of a PBL task is problematic. The National Association for Gifted Children (2005) recommends using multiple pieces of data to make conclusions during assessment in identifying giftedness. Similarly, with creativity, multiple pieces of data must be analyzed and assessed before any suggestion of creativity can be taken seriously. Two factors need to be taken into consideration when designing a PBL task to identify creatively gifted mathematicians. First, the task must have sufficient depth to precipitate multiple, creative responses as the Athletics

164

Scott Chamberlin

Problem did. Second, working on the presupposition that the task is an adequate one, the teacher must have some method of assessment to identify creative responses. Two methods of assessment can be utilized to track highly creative responses over time. One method tracks students’ performance on one problem-solving task, while the other tracks students’ performance on a series of problem-solving tasks. The first method entails keeping an electronic database of responses to allow comparison of current with previous responses. The second method involves having students work in various groups over the course of a school year and tracking the level of creativity in each individual. The first method requires the accumulation of responses from numerous students in the electronic database. After years of administering the same task, a pattern of common responses will surface. When a new or novel response is elicited after years of administering the activity, it is likely that the response suggests student propensity for creativity. One way to expedite this process is to have several teachers in a consortium or a central group, such as a mathematics teachers association, administer the problem so that a large database can be attained in a relatively short period of time. Ten teachers administering a problem to three different classes with seven groups in each will produce 210 responses in a matter of weeks. A period of 10 to 12 years may be required for a single teacher to attain 210 responses. With numerous responses gathered by multiple teachers, it is easy to see recurring responses among them and identify novel or less common responses relative to frequently occurring ones. In the case of the Athletics Problem, along with the rating system, knowledge of curriculum standards and intuition developed after years of experience were relied upon to identify creative responses. It would have been easier to quantitatively document creative responses among an abundance of responses in an electronic database than it was with a mere 36 students each doing the same problem once. The second method is a more complicated process than the first, but it too can yield valuable information regarding creativity. The difference between them is that this method tracks students over the course of a school year whereas the first tracks students on only one performance. As it is imperative to have multiple pieces of data for consideration of


165

creativity, this method may be more valid than the first one because it is not a one-time analysis. In this method, individuals in each group receive mean scores and by midyear creative individuals may be identified quantitatively. Therefore, if the groups in which student A is working score high continually on a creativity scale, then student A probably has a propensity for creativity. An example will clarify how this method works. In a class of 20 students where each student is identified by a letter (A through T), completed PBL tasks are turned in to the teacher throughout the course of the year with students’ identification letters written on the back of the work to indicate ownership. If students A, B, and C did PBL task 1, then the group’s mean creativity score received for the task is recorded under students A, B, and C. For the next PBL task, if students A, D, and E work together, the mean creativity score will be recorded under students A, D, and E. Ultimately, the progression of scores will follow each student, regardless of the student’s group. That is to say, if student B has continually produced less than creative work, it would show after a series of PBL tasks done with various groups, even when student B has worked with a creative individual. Similarly, if student A is highly creative in general, it should theoretically show repeatedly, even when the student has worked with less than creative peers. By having a rating system that focuses on creativity and anonymous grading of work, an evaluator can be confident that creativity exists, or does not, because a pattern has been created. In the present study, assessment was guided by three components: ratings, questions, and cognitive tasks. Rating was guided by the key mathematical terms used in the cognitive tasks, which were group presentations and written work. The instructors asked questions to ascertain the mathematical processes applied by students. The three components work in combination and are difficult to separate during analysis. In many cases, students did not know advanced mathematical terminology, so the instructors looked for grade-level terminology. As an example, students in grades 4 and 5 often use average to represent any part or some combination of central tendency. Therefore, when the word “average” was mentioned, the instructors would ask students the process they had used to derive the average and, from the students’ elaboration, determine if it was mean, median, or mode. In addition to questions, there were individual group presentations accompanied by written explications of

166

Scott Chamberlin

processes, so the instructors were able to match their notes with students’ written work.

Conclusion Although algorithms are efficient ways of solving complex problems, their use by students may not indicate mathematical creativity (Haylock, 1997). Students can be expected to use algorithms for simplistic calculations, but the mathematically creative individual may not. Another tactic that can be deployed to gauge mathematical creativity is to have students recreate the problem or pose it in another way (Silver, 1997). Having students create their own tasks is a way to make the problem meaningful to them. One caveat with this approach is that the teacher has to use the same problems if employing the first method discussed above to evaluate mathematical creativity. If the teacher keeps adopting new problems, no pattern of typical responses may be established. In addition to their use as a curricular tool to identify mathematically creative students, PBL tasks may hold promise for fostering creativity. Silver (1997) writes, “The development of students’ creative fluency is also likely to be encouraged through the classroom use of ill-structured, open-ended problems that are stated in a manner that permits the generation of multiple specific goals and possibly multiple correct solutions, depending on one’s interpretation” (p. 77). He did not make this statement in reference to PBL tasks. However, his description of problems should seem strangely familiar to users of PBL. Characteristics such as “ill-structured,” “open-ended,” “multiple specific goals,” and “multiple correct solutions” should encourage PBL users that PBL tasks may lend themselves to creativity development. Students in PBL are not asked to select the one method for solution and implement it. Instead, they are required to identify a solution, implement the solution, and then determine whether the solution meets the needs of the problem. It is important to note that students rarely select a creative option overtly. Rather, they simply create a solution, implement it, and then see if it works. A caveat here is that the most obvious of the three components of creativity has been used in this chapter, the one with which most readers


167

identify: novelty. However, Torrance (1974) and Silver (1997) suggest that fluency and flexibility are also components of creativity. Fluency, according to Torrance and Silver, is reflected in the number of responses that can be generated to a question. Flexibility, as the term suggests, is shown by the varied responses produced and the ability of the solver to work from more than one perspective. Having students present problem solutions to other groups also promotes flexibility because they are made to examine the problem from more than one perspective. It is important to note that mathematical creativity may surface in multiple modes, and standardized test data often do not reveal such information (Balka, 1974a). Other mathematical problem-solving approaches have been used to identify creatively gifted mathematicians, such as model-eliciting activities (Chamberlin & Moon, 2005).

Appendix

The Athletics Problem

Summer is on the horizon and tomorrow is the last day of school at JC Watts Elementary. The last day of school means one thing to all students—field day. Each year, students look forward to competing against peers one year older or younger than they are. There are three separate age-group categories for Watts Field Day: Kindergarten/1st, 2nd/3rd, and 4th/5th. Field day is an entire day in which students take part in several competitions for fun. Younger students, of grades K–1 and 2–3, compete in activities such as blowing up a balloon, eating blueberry pie, tug of war, and egg toss. Older students, of grades 4–5, compete in track and field events, such as the long jump, shot put, hurdles, high jump, 100 meters, 200 meters, 400 meters, 800 meters, the mile, and the two mile. The Watt’s physical education teacher, Mr. Finley, has students practice these track and field events to prepare for field day. He thinks that students with certain body sizes tend to do well in certain events. As an example, it has been his experience that tall students often do better at the high jump than shorter students. Light-weight students often fare well in the endurance or distance events like the mile and the two mile.

168

Scott Chamberlin

Mr. Finley is seeking some sort of method to determine whether or not he can look at a student and decide the optimal event for the student. As an example, can Mr. Finley simply look at a student and say “You should be a good shot putter and you should be a good twomiler” without even seeing the student perform any events? He has been perplexed by this thought for Photo courtesy of Trackshark.com: The foremost some time. He has actualauthority in track and field ly collected some informal data. However, he feels that data on current and future U.S. Olympic athletes, such as data from USATF, United States of America Track and Field, an organization that governs and funds Olympic athletes throughout the United States, would be more accurate than his data. Using data from a Web site (e.g., http://www.usatf.org/athletes/ bios/ or http://www.indianainvaders.com/athletes/index.asp), is it possible to look at an athlete’s height and weight, without knowing what event they do, and predict the best event for the athlete? To select an athlete, simply click on the name, and the vital statistics, such as event, weight, and height, will appear.

References Balka, D. S. (1974a). The development of an instrument to measure creative ability in mathematics. Dissertation Abstracts International, 36(1), 98. (UMI No. AAT 7515965) Balka, D. (1974b). Creative ability in mathematics. Arithmetic Teacher, 21, 633– 636.


169

Bloom, B., Englehart, M., Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: Longmans, Green. Chamberlin, S. A., & Moon, S. (2005). Model-eliciting activities: An introduction to gifted education. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17, 37–47. Chick, H. (1998). Cognition in the formal modes: Research mathematics and the SOLO taxonomy. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 10, 4–26. Chin, C., & Chia, L. (2004). Problem-based learning: Using students’ questions to drive knowledge construction. Science Education, 88, 707–727. Ching, T. P. (1997). An experiment to discover mathematical talent in a primary school in Kampong Air. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 29(3), 94–96. Cockrell, K. S., Caplow, J. A. H., & Donaldson, J. F. (2000). A context for learning: Collaborative groups in the problem-based learning environment. Review of Higher Education, 23, 347–363. Dreyfus, T., & Tsamir, P. (2001). Ben’s consolidation of knowledge structures about infinite sets. Unpublished technical report, Tel Aviv University, Israel. Dreyfus, T., Hershkowitz, R., & Schwarz, B. (2001). The construction of abstract knowledge in interaction. In M. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 25th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 377–384). Utrecht, Netherlands: Freudenthal Institute. Dunlap, J. (2005). Problem-based learning and self-efficacy: How a capstone course prepares students for a profession. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53, 65–85. Fogarty, R. (1997). Problem-based learning and other curriculum models for the multiple intelligences classroom. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Skylight Professional Development. Goodnough, K. (2003, April). Preparing pre-service science teachers: Can problembased learning help? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Haylock, D. (1997). Recognising mathematical creativity in schoolchildren. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 29(3), 68–74. Helson, R., & Crutchfield, R. S. (1970). Mathematicians: The creative researcher and the average Ph.D. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 34, 250–257. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16, 235–266. Keisswetter, K. (1983). Modellierung von problemlöseprozessen. Mathematikunterricht, 29, 71–101.

170

Scott Chamberlin

Krulik, S., & Rudnick, J. A. (1999). Developing mathematical reasoning in grades K–12. In L. V. Stiff & F. R. Curcio (Eds.), Developing mathematical reasoning in grades K–12: 1999 yearbook (pp. 138–145). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Krutetskii, V. (1976). Psychology of mathematical abilities in schoolchildren (J. Teller Trans.; J. Kilpatrick & I. Wirszup, Eds.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Leung, S. S. (1997). On the role of creative thinking in problem-posing. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 29(3), 81–85. Livne, N. L., Livne, O. E., & Milgram, R. M. (1999). Assessing academic and creative abilities in mathematics at four levels of understanding. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 30, 227–242. Majeski, R., & Stover, M. (2005). Interdisciplinary problem-based learning in gerontology: A plan of action. Educational Gerontology, 31, 733–743. Mamona-Downs, J. (1993). On analyzing problem posing. In I. Hibrabayashi, N. Nohda, K. Shigematsu & F. L. Lin (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th Annual Meeting of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 41–48). Tsukuba, Japan: Program Committee of the 17th PME Conference. Mann, E. L. (2006). Creativity: The essence of mathematics. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30, 236–260. Marland, S. P. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented. Report to the Congress of the United States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. National Association for Gifted Children (2005). NAGC standards: Student identification. Retrieved August 6, 2007, from http://www.nagc.org/index. aspx?id=543. Nelson, L., Sadler, L., & Surtees, G. (2004). Bringing problem-based learning to life using virtual reality. Nurse Education Today, 3, 1–6. Pehkonen, E. (1997). The state-of-art in mathematical creativity. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 29(3), 63–67. Polya, G. (1973). How to solve it (2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Savin-Baden, M., & Wilkie, K. (2004). Challenging research in problem-based learning. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press. Silver, E. A. (1994). On mathematical problem posing. For the Learning of Mathematics, 14, 19–28.


171

Silver, E. A. (1997). Fostering creativity through instruction rich in mathematical problem solving and problem posing. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 29(3), 75–80. Tan, A. (2005). A review of the effectiveness of problem-based learning. Korean Journal of Thinking and Problem Solving, 15, 29–46. Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance tests of creative thinking. Lexington, MA: Personnel Press. Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, I. M., Middleton, J. A., & Streefland, L. (1995). Student generated problems: Easy and difficult problems on percentage. For the Learning of Mathematics, 15, 21–27. Van Liet, B. (2005). Student-developed problem-based learning cases: Preparing for rural healthcare practice. Education for Health: Change in Learning and Practice, 18, 416–426. Williams, G. (2001). “‘Cause Pepe and I have the same level of intelligence in mathematic”: Collaborative concept creation. In J. Bobis, B. Perry & M. Mitchelmore (Eds.), Numeracy and beyond: Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (Vol. 2, pp. 539–546). Sydney: MERGA. Williams, G. (2002). Identifying tasks that promote creative thinking in mathematics: A tool. In B. Barton, K. Irwin, M. Pfannkuch, and M. Thomas (Eds.), Mathematics education in the South Pacific: Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 698–705). Auckland: MERGA.

C H A P T E R 11

Group Collaboration in an Online Problem-based University Course Donna Russell University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Education, USA

Abstract This study applies sociocultural learning theories to evaluate online collaborative learning in a problem-based graduate course at the School of Education of a U.S. university. The course was designed to build advanced problem-solving abilities and knowledge in students through the use of online collaborative workspaces. Students’ discussions were evaluated and related to their effectiveness in generating the problem solution. Some of the conclusions made from the study are that the facilitator should monitor students’ online discussions based on the principles of effective group work, groups should define their roles through a series of guided reflections and self-assessments, and the course should be designed around real-world problems to encourage meaningful collaboration.

Introduction As more and more university courses, degree programs, and even entire universities go online, concerns are increasingly raised about the quality of the learning and the productivity of the knowledge construction process in these courses. For instance, how does online collaboration support advanced learning processes? What is the quality of the knowledge resulting from these courses? What are the sociocultural models for designing collaborative and constructivist online learning environments?

174

Donna Russell

It is the premise of the design and evaluation of the online problembased learning course which is the subject of this study that learning online can be productive if the course is designed based on theories of sociocultural learning. This points to the importance of the collaborative culture of learning, the social aspects of the inter- and intrapersonal processes of learning, and the concepts of problem-based learning (Vygotsky, 1986; Jonassen et al., 1999; Bereiter, 2001). The theoretical grounding for this study is the sociocultural theory of human interaction and development (Vygotsky, 1978; Bruner, 1990) with an emphasis on understanding the processes of mediated activity (Wertsch, 1998). A systems framework for understanding the collaborative process in context and over time is used based on cultural historical activity theory (Engeström et al., 1999; Il’enkov, 1977). This research is an attempt to develop new understandings about the pedagogical aspects of designing collaborative online learning environments that are aligned with sociocultural theories of learning. The theory of constructivism focuses on active student involvement in the learning process, unlike previous theories of learning that focused on the passive role of the learner and the student’s ability to reproduce learning behaviors when the teacher provided a stimulus. In constructing knowledge, students create meaning by comparing what they already know with new experiences. They resolve the inconsistencies by either adapting or assimilating the new knowledge into their existing knowledge base. Bruner (1990) calls this process meaning making. In constructivist theory, learning is a process where “students are actively engaged in working at tasks and activities that are authentic to the environment in which they would be used” (Savery & Duffy, 1996, p. 37). Research in constructivist learning environments suggests that instructional designs grounded in constructivist principles engage students in purposeful activities as they attempt to tackle a complex problem, overcome an obstacle, or negotiate a contradiction in their thinking (von Glasersfeld, 1998). In addition, such designs allow students to apply their knowledge more effectively under appropriate conditions (Brown et al., 1989). Students are presented with a complex problem and, through the process of responding to that problem and comparing their theories with other students’ through discussions, they acquire knowledge and skills

Group Collaboration in an Online Problem-based University Course

175

that enable them to revise their theories and develop new ones. When students have the opportunity to articulate what they have learned and reflect on the process that they went through and the knowledge that they acquired in that process, they understand more and are better able to apply that knowledge in new situations. Jonassen (2000) refers to this as intentional learning since students are focusing their learning on satisfying their personal goals. Constructivist learning theories include situated theories of learning (Greeno, 1997; Lave & Wenger, 1991) and distributed cognition theory (Pea, 1993; Resnick et al., 1991; Salomon, 1993), the latter explaining how the responses of the learner and the design of the learning environment impact the cognitive development of knowledge in students. Problem-based learning (PBL) is an instructional method that addresses the complex challenges that students will face in the future by asking students to tackle complex, ill-structured real-world problems. PBL proposes that learning experiences are built on the interdependent attributes of meaningful learning including authentic, intentional, active, constructive, and cooperative learning (Jonassen et al., 1999) and involve meaningful application of knowledge and skills. One of the tenets of PBL is that it is difficult to give meaning to knowledge once it is taken out of context. Hence, PBL immerses students in a context similar to that in which the problem normally occurs outside the classroom. Students, additionally, can consider themselves as active members of their community of students within the context of the problem, a phenomenon Lave and Wenger (1991) call legitimate peripheral participation. Although the literature varies on the unique characteristics of problems, there is agreement that the problems should be ill-structured and of wicked complexity (Rittel & Webber, 1984). The course that is the subject of this research was developed based on a PBL design template created by the author (Figure 11.1). The template incorporates many of the concepts of a constructivist learning environment. In this model, phase 1 of the PBL design process engages learners in questioning the relevance of the problem to begin challenging them to recognize the legitimacy of the problem (Barab & Duffy, 2000) and to develop a local context for the issues raised in the problem. It is through this process that students formulate issues for study within their

176

Donna Russell

group’s topic—the problem space. This is an initial questioning phase to establish relevancy and encourage student interactions by asking the question “Why is this problem important to us?” INPUT Prior knowledge and misconceptions

PROBLEM SPACE DESIGN PROBLEM SOLVING

1 Create an image of the desired state of the system

COMMUNITY

PHASE 1 OUTPUT Artifact; rationale for the relevancy of the problem to their community

Why is the problem important to my community? INQUIRY PROCESSES Working in groups, learners gather and analyze information (physical, scientific, and historical evidence) to determine the authenticity (Barab & Duffy, 2000; Petroski, 1996) of the problem and to define the scope of the problem in their community.

2

PHASE 2

(Re)negotiate design inquiry boundaries

How can we use our expertise to better understand the problem and develop a feasible solution?

3

INQUIRY PROCESSES Working in groups, learners gather and analyze information about an area of expertise (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989) and how that area relates to the problem in the unit; through case study analysis (Bruer, 1993; Shulman, 1992), learners examine areas of expertise in practice, develop a lens through which to view the practice, and determine the interdependence of the areas of expertise.

(Re)articulate a shared vision of the future system

4

5

PHASE 3 Outline the specifications of the future system

Develop the model of the future system

FIGURE 11.1

How can we use the knowledge and skills from phase 1 and phase 2 to develop a feasible solution?

OUTPUT USED AS INPUT Knowledge that diverse community needs impact the complexity of the problem (Bereiter, 2001)

E

OUTPUT USED AS INPUT Knowledge that a problem can look different and be understood differently from different perspectives

E E E E

INQUIRY PROCESSES Working in jigsaw groups (Aronson, Blaney, Stephan, Sikes, & Snapp, 1978), learners develop a solution to the problem and assess the feasibility of that solution from the perspectives of the experts within the group and the needs of the representative communities.

Problem-based learning design template

SOURCE: © Donna Russell.

OUTPUT Artifact; conceptual understanding of an area of expertise and its application to solving the problem

OUTPUT Artifact; representation of the group’s solution and conclusion about its shortand long-term feasibility

OUTCOME Knowledge has properties of use and value; is something that can be used and responded to


177

In phase 2, students develop an area of expertise within their group’s inquiry process. The concept of collaborative learning is supported by research on the nature of developing conceptual understanding of complex issues (Bruer, 1993; Brown & Campione, 1990; Brown et al., 1993; Palinscar & Brown, 1984). The students in each group work on a different area of expertise to gather some aspect of the information necessary for the final solution. This kind of group collaboration has been called a jigsaw (Aronson et al., 1978). The concept of this process of developing expertise is supported by research on the nature of apprenticeship and expertise (Brown et al., 1989). In this phase, learners are responding to a wider issue: “How do other people, including outside experts, perceive and attempt to solve similar problems?” In phase 3, the groups present a strategy for solving the problem. In this course, students were required to formulate a plan for implementing the educational technology program that they had chosen for their research which would respond to the issues and topics identified in the first two phases. This final phase is designed based on research on building a community of learners (Brown & Campione, 1990). Students are asked to bring together the different areas of expertise and respond to the problem by identifying a justifiable course of action that resolves all the sub-issues identified by the group. In this phase, students are concerned with the question “How can we develop a feasible solution that incorporates all the knowledge and aspects from phase 1 and phase 2?”

The Course This online course, Development of Technology-based Programs in Education, was part of a master’s degree program designed to develop educators’ capability to design, develop, and evaluate learning technologies in a variety of learning environments. The course was conducted completely online in a Blackboard learning environment where students worked in online groups interacting using synchronous and asynchronous communication tools including a discussion board, a chat room, a digital drop box, and email. At the first online discussion,

178

Donna Russell

students were asked to choose a problem—how to and why implement a new technology into an educational setting—as a potential topic of study. They then formed groups according to their choice of problem. Each group collaborated online to produce the artifact for each phase. They were required to research topics, carry out online discussions, collaboratively write proposal papers, present their final solutions, and evaluate the other groups’ solutions. The three artifacts that each group had to produce were three papers that defined the problem space, identified the areas of expertise, and developed and justified a plan for the problem solution. Phase 1 of the course involved the definition of the problem and identification of issues for consideration. Students were required to include in their paper (1) a focus statement or question, (2) description of the problem, (3) elaboration of research into the problem including a minimum of three other technology-based educational programs of a similar nature for comparison and evaluation, (4) identification of technology-related issues concerning the problem including benefits and costs, and (5) a summary statement defining the aspects of this problem that made it unique and identifying possible strategies for its solution. During this phase, students discussed in an online group workspace those issues related to the problem, including identification of important characteristics of the problem, group members’ areas of research, potential benefits and constraints of technology-based responses to the problem, as well as possible solution strategies. Phase 2 entailed the identification of the areas of expertise required for solving the problem. Students were required to include in their paper (1) a goal statement, (2) a description of the required areas of expertise, (3) responses to contact with experts in these areas, and (4) a decisionmaking matrix correlating expertise areas with their responses to the problem space. During this phase, students carried out discussions in the online group workspaces with experts on areas of expertise as well as with their own group on these areas and on solution strategies. Phase 3 involved the design and development of the plan of action for problem solution. Students were asked to include in their paper (1) a description of the solution strategy, (2) the design of the technology


179

program including a flowchart and schedule of implementation, (3) a list of human and capital resources needed to develop the program, and (4) a summary statement listing the criteria for evaluating the new technology program over a single session and over three complete iterations of the program (a session is a single lesson, while an iteration is an entire educational cycle such as a semester course). The criteria for assessment of the paper included (1) a description of the technological response to the problem and a justification statement; (2) discussion of the evaluation process, including formative and summative assessment of the impact of the technology program’s activities on the educational setting; (3) identification of the progress of program implementation; (4) assessment of the plan’s potential success in meeting the educational program’s goals; and (5) any new materials needed to implement a plan of action such as the curriculum, including assessments or lessons, and appropriate plans for the evaluation and field-testing of these materials. In their group discussions during this phase, students evaluated all their proposed strategies using their decision-making matrix and then chose a strategy for the final problem solution, drew up a plan of action and a schedule for implementation, and established an evaluation process based on the decision-making matrix. The course ran for 16 weeks over the winter semester of 2006 at the School of Education of a U.S. university with 18 graduate students who were working toward a Master of Arts in Curriculum and Instructional Leadership with an emphasis on learning technologies. The students grouped themselves into five teams. Group 1 chose to design an online e-portfolio program for preservice teachers. This group had four members that included a preschool teacher and three elementary school teachers. Group 2 decided to develop a five-year technology plan for a local private school. This group included three members with one technology teacher from the school concerned, one online curriculum designer, and one technology specialist. Group 3 elected to create a model for an online university course. This group comprised five members; two were teaching online university courses and the others were elementary school teachers. Group 4 chose to work on a plan to implement an online data management system for a school district. This group of four

180

Donna Russell

included a technology coordinator for the district that was considering installing an online data management system, an information system manager, and two elementary school teachers who were using technology in their classroom. Group 5 decided to develop a plan to implement assistive technology in special education classrooms in a district. This group consisted of two special education teachers. The various groups’ artifacts were evaluated using a scaled rating system designed to assess their fulfillment of the assessment criteria for the projects. This scaled rubric was based on Bereiter’s (2001) scheme of knowledge.

Research Methods The purpose of this research was to assess the quality of group interactions in an online problem-based graduate course and to identify the relationship between the quality of group dialogue and the level of response to the course projects. Online collaborative group work was reviewed to rate the level of group interaction. The dialogic rating method was developed based on the methodology of cultural historical activity theory and the method of socio-constructivist dialogic analysis using the concepts of task roles and relationships in groups (Pfeiffer, 1991) and the association between productive group dialogue and effective group work (Russell, 2005a). These concepts allowed the researcher to rate the productivity of the dialogues in online group spaces based on the participants’ roles in completing the required tasks and their relationships in the group. Analysis was then made to look for patterns of relationships between the dialogues, the effectiveness of online group work, and the design characteristics of the course (Russell, 2005b). The task role categories for coding group dialogues are (1) task roles, (2) relationship building roles, (3) both group task and relationship roles, and (4) nonfunctional behaviors. Task roles are dialogic functions required in selecting and carrying out a group task, and they include (1) initiating, (2) seeking information, (3) seeking opinion, (4) giving information, (5) giving opinion, (6) elaborating, (7) coordinating, and (8) summarizing. Group relationship roles are functions required in


181

strengthening and maintaining group life and activities, and they include (1) compromising, (2) consensus taking, (3) encouraging, (4) gatekeeping, and (5) harmonizing. Both group task and relationship roles include (1) evaluating, (2) diagnosing, (3) testing for consensus, and (4) mediating. The types of nonfunctional behaviors are (1) aggressive, (2) blocking, (3) self-confessing, and (4) competing. By coding text instances of task roles in the group discussions, the dynamics of each group’s interactions in the present study were rated and their level of response to the problem was related to the assessment ratings of the group’s artifacts (Russell & Schneiderheinze, 2005).

Results Group 1: Online E-Portfolios for Preservice Teachers This group designed an e-portfolio template as the final solution to their problem. They completed a thorough response to the course requirements. The e-portfolio template included multiple media formats for structured storage of student projects. Additionally, suggestions were made for teacher training and technology support that would be needed to implement e-portfolios in the classroom. This e-portfolio proposal was sent to the curriculum and instruction chair to consider for adoption at the School of Education. Initially, when the group attempted to use the chat room, some members struggled with the technological aspects. However, they overcame the difficulty and used this synchronous online forum productively to make decisions related to their group projects.

Group 2: Five-Year Technology Plan for a School This group designed a very thorough program for implementing a fiveyear technology plan for a school and suggested several potential grants in their final paper to support the implementation process. This plan was presented to the parents and teachers in the school and was accepted. The

182

Donna Russell

technology teacher in the group also initiated components of the plan, including establishing a technology committee to engage teachers and parents in an ongoing dialogue on potential new technologies. The group relied on the discussion board for their interactions. This asynchronous forum frustrated them with the wait time for group members to respond to their questions. In spite of this, they developed their respective areas of expertise and produced a quality final implementation plan that included all the group members’ ideas and knowledge.

Group 3: Model for an Online University Course This group was the largest and most productive team in the course. They were able to produce all the components of their projects at an extremely high level of sophistication. As part of their online course model, they created curriculum guides, media sources, discussion forums, a description and assessment of cognitive processes, and suggestions for professional development for faculty implementing online courses. Two members were able to implement the model in their own courses immediately. A sample of one of their chat room discussions is shown in Figure 11.2. The purpose of this dialogue was to design the decision-making matrix for self-evaluation of their final solution. This group developed interesting group dynamics with one member, identified as MR, taking on the role of group leader and another, identified as AH, assuming the role of class clown by injecting humor into their dialogues. Both AH and MR were teaching online and understood the importance of developing a viable project that met their teaching needs. Figure 11.3 is a line graph of the ratings for the task roles observed in the group members, and Figure 11.4 is that for the relationship roles seen in the same chat. The students engaged in both positive task roles and relationship roles during their live chats, which in turn encouraged all the participants to put in their ideas and expertise and guided the development of their projects, eventually raising both their level of problem response and the assessment rating for their final project.


183

Mar 5, 2006 9:24:23 PM CS [time

student

text]

21:24:19

DC

Back to matrix (:

21:24:49

AH

for the matrix - is there any specified number of criteria we need - or do we want to generalize multiple criteria into categories?

21:25:32

DC

I can see that we divide the matrix into 4 parts: Students, Learning Theory (Curriculum), Technology, Assessment and then have criteria for each of the following

21:25:47

AH

thats do-able

21:26:22

AG

The sample that she posted has 6 criteria

21:26:59

DC

there isn’t a set number though...if you look at the sample paper, they don’t follow that sample exactly either.

21:27:46

AH

do you think each of your areas will have enough criteria to have a separate matrix for each area - the use a final summary matrix to evaluate each area together?

21:30:09

DC

all four of the sub-areas work together to solve the problem space (to use the jargon correctly)

[Group member joins the chat room] 21:31:59

AG

haha

21:48:56

AH

norm!

21:49:46

MG

Okay, what survivor like task is mine

21:49:59

AG

You have to eat this pile of bugs

21:49:59

MG

Totally not my fault, new location, Java trouble

21:51:18

AH

you must journey to the mountain

FIGURE 11.2

Sample of chat room discussion from group 3

184

Donna Russell 35

Student’s rating

30 25 20 15 10 5 0

1

2

3

MG

4

Role

DC

5

6 AG

7

8 AH

Key for roles: 1 = initiating, 2 = seeking information, 3 = seeking opinion, 4 = giving information, 5 = giving opinion, 6 = elaborating, 7 = coordinating, 8 = summarizing

Task roles in group 3

FIGURE 11.3

35

Student’s rating

30 25 20 15 10 5 0

1

2 MG

3 Role DC

4 AG

5 AH

Key for roles: 1 = compromising, 2 = consensus taking, 3 = encouraging, 4 = gatekeeping, 5 = harmonizing

FIGURE 11.4

Relationship roles in group 3


185

Group 4: Online Data Management System for a School District This group designed a program for implementing an online data management system in a suburban school district. The project was proposed by the group member who was the district technology coordinator. He eventually successfully presented the completed proposal to the school board and also implemented several components designed for this course project, including surveying parents, teachers, and administrators for their ideas relating to the implementation of this new online technology in the district. The group employed the discussion board effectively to manage their project goals. However, they were unsuccessful at making regular use of the chat room for real-time decision making. After successfully collaborating on the phase 1 paper, the group decided on a new editor to monitor their progress and edit the second paper. Each member selected an area of expertise to study and write about for this paper. One member chose to study the impact of implementing an online data management system on parents, believing that parents are important players in this process and should be informed about a new technology that would allow them to access their children’s teachers and check grades online. The editor, however, decided to exclude this group member’s contribution from the paper. As a result, their second paper received a much lower assessment rating because it did not include all the areas of expertise that had been identified in phase 1 as important for addressing the problem. Additionally, it was revealed after the course was completed that this editor had also emailed negative comments to this same member outside of the online course workspaces. This e-bullying by a group leader greatly reduced the effectiveness of the group’s dialogues because it discouraged certain group members from participation. The group ultimately picked a new editor for the third paper and included the role of parents as part of the final implementation strategy.

186

Donna Russell

Group 5: Assistive Technology for Special Education Schools This group was comprised of only two special education teachers. Their chosen problem was how to implement assistive technologies to aid their special education students. They did not use the chat room or the discussion board regularly but would telephone each other occasionally to make up for the lack of online communication. They met only once in the chat room, which was when they were attempting to create the decision-making matrix. Their single chat is shown in Figure 11.5. This is an example of an unproductive online discussion in comparison to the productive dialogue of group 3 on the same topic shown in Figures 11.2 to 11.4. The type of task role or nonfunctional behavior exhibited is included in brackets after each response. The brevity of the discussion and the lack of productive decision making are obvious. The group had only two members, and this small number may be the reason for their lack of collaboration. Without the need for multiple group members to simultaneously meet online to discuss a topic, they fell back on an older technology for communication and thereby reduced their chance to view the problem from multiple perspectives. They were unable to complete the decision-making matrix, the schedule, and the flowchart, all of which required multiple collaborative dialogues for successful completion.

DC: So what are our thoughts on the matrix [initiating] AK: Has anyone been able to understand the grades? i am finding it difficult to find a letter grade or anything like that [blocking] DC: Have you found the gradebook [giving information] AK: Yes- but i really dont seem to have a score, percentage, letter grade, everything is by points [seeking sympathy] AK: is anyone missing any points yet? [blocking] DC: add up the points that you have earned and divide it by the points possible so far and that is your percentage [ giving information] AK: only worry that we haven’t been doing the dbs on time [self-confessing]

FIGURE 11.5

Chat room discussion of group 5


187

The group members each wrote their section of the papers without a comprehensive discussion on their initial problem space. Their papers were simply descriptions of assistive technologies for special education students and not strategies for implementing these technologies. This group was unable to prepare a justifiable implementation strategy. Their response to their chosen problem space was limited to research and the identification of individual perspectives without the multi-voicedness of collaborative online discussions. Because of this lack of multiple perspectives and inadequate problem solving, their papers rated lower than those of all the other groups.

Task Role Rating of Group Work Effectiveness Using the task role ratings of group dialogues, the researcher identified the students’ responses to online group work. The group working on assistive technology (group 5) had the lowest level of productive interaction. With only two members, their effectiveness in collaborative problem solving was probably reduced. The group designing the online university course (group 3) was rated as the most effective in using online dialogue tools. Two of their members were teaching university courses online, and they supported the group dialogues by engaging in productive leadership roles and positive relationship roles. The group working on the online data management system (group 4) included four members who had a background in utilizing technologies in educational programs. However, no one in this group assumed an ongoing productive leadership role, not even the member whose district would be implementing the online system. This resulted in a lack of productive leadership roles in their dialogues and eventually a negative exchange occurred outside of the online course workspaces. By contrast, in groups 1 to 3, the member who proposed the project often assumed a leadership role. These members’ desire to implement the new technology in real-life settings drove their interest in developing productive group dialogues and motivated them to monitor their group’s dialogues. The first three groups used the chat room and discussion board effectively to design the problem solutions of the three phases, all of which required group decision making. They utilized the online group

188

Donna Russell

workspaces productively to develop solutions that met or exceeded the requirements for problem solving established in the guidelines for the course. Additionally, these groups were assessed as using high levels of knowledge to develop these responses (see Bereiter, 2001). Groups 4 and 5 did not use the chat room and discussion board productively. They utilized means of communication that were not monitored by the instructor, such as email outside of the Blackboard system or the telephone. These groups did not establish online interactions that were collaborative in nature and, as a result, their projects did not meet all the criteria specified for the course that required demonstration of multiple perspectives in their plans for addressing their problems. Understanding a problem from multiple perspectives is an important aspect of identifying a verifiable response to the problem space, and ultimately this can only result from collaborative dialogue. This collaboration was designed into the course and when it was not productive, as in the case of these two groups, the result was a lower level of response from the group.

Discussion Several questions guided this study, including how does online collaboration support advanced learning processes, what is the quality of the knowledge resulting from these courses, and what should be the sociocultural models for designing collaborative and constructivist online learning environments. This study demonstrates that the use of high-level knowledge to solve complex open-ended problems requires productive online group dialogue. There are several design concepts identified in this study that can support the potential of a PBL course to develop these advanced knowledge capabilities.

Design for Engagement Real-world issues should be used as the problem space and students should be able to choose their topic of study. By embedding meaningful topics in the problem space, students will be more engaged in developing their response. Online group discussions can be very productive if both


189

synchronous forums for making real-time decisions and asynchronous forums for group questioning and feedback are provided. A relationship exists between the group members’ motivation to engage in the dialogic process in a timely and productive manner and the success of the group in integrating multiple perspectives into their new knowledge for the problem solution.

Design for Facilitation A facilitator who is responsive to the needs of the groups and the individual students should monitor the online group workspaces. The facilitator should also stipulate that all course-related group discussions be conducted in the open course forums. In this study, antitask behaviors such as e-bullying were much more likely to occur outside these monitored spaces. The designer/facilitator should encourage groups of three or more to incorporate multiple perspectives in their dialogues. The same group work problems that can arise in face-to-face groups can also occur in online groups, and it is important for the facilitator to ensure that everyone is able to participate productively in group discussions so that all students feel encouraged to develop their ideas during the discussions.

Design for Self-Assessment When designing a PBL course, the collaborative aspects should be defined and included in the assessment process so that students can appreciate the purposefulness of group discussions and understand how they are assessed. Groups should have a leader who can monitor their group work and keep the group on task. This can be designed into the course as a requirement for every group; for instance, in this course the groups were told to assign an editor to monitor their progress. Or it can be included in the self-evaluation process by asking students to define their roles in the group work process and self-monitor by completing surveys or reflective questionnaires about their roles in the group and the group’s overall functioning. By including guidelines for productive online discussions

190

Donna Russell

in the course syllabus, they can become a part of the expectations and assessment of students and thereby increase the potential for successful group dialogue.

Conclusion and Implications Collaboration in an online PBL course is one of the most important factors affecting how complex and creative the final solution can become. Students in this course acquired advanced conceptual knowledge and were able to develop high-rated projects by working collaboratively in online groups. Students who were unable to establish productive collaborative processes in their groups developed projects that were assessed at a lower rating. Online PBL courses can be productive if they are designed based on theories of constructivist learning (Russell, 2007). Understanding the design of effective online PBL courses is crucial with the trend toward online courses in all areas of higher education. Additionally, collaborative problem solving is becoming essential in an increasingly complex and fluid technology-driven work environment that requires problemsolving capabilities for success. As a result, designing online PBL courses that require students to work collaboratively and productively to solve complex problems will increasingly become a necessary aspect of higher education’s role in society.

References Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephan, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Barab, S., & Duffy, T. (2000). From practice field to communities of practice. In D. Jonassen & S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 25–48). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Bereiter, C. (2001). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1990). Communities of learning and thinking or a context by any other name. Contributions to Human Development, 21, 108–126.


191

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42. Brown, A. L., Ash, D., Rutherford, M., Nakagawa, K., Gordon, A., & Campione, J. C. (1993). Distributed expertise in the classroom. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations. New York: Cambridge University Press. Bruer, J. (1993). Schools for thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamäki, R. (Eds.) (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Greeno, J. G. (1997). On claims that answer the wrong question. Educational Researcher, 26(1), 5–17. Il’enkov, E. V. (1977). Dialectical logic: Essays on its history and theory. Moscow: Progress. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85. Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., & Wilson, B. G. (1999). Learning with technology: A constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehensionfostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175. Pea, R. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 47–87). New York: Cambridge University Press. Petroski, H. (1996). Invention by design: How engineers get from thought to thing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Pfeiffer, J. W. (Ed.) (1991). The encyclopedia of team-building activities. San Diego, CA: University Associates, Inc. Resnick, L., Levine, J., & Teasley, S. (Eds.) (1991). Perspectives on socially shared cognition. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1984). Planning problems are wicked problems. In N. Cross (Ed.), Developments in design methodology (pp. 135–144). New York: Wiley. Russell, D. (2005a). Implementing an innovation cluster in educational settings in order to develop constructivist-based learning environments. Educational Technology and Society, 8(2), 7–15. Russell, D. (2005b). Paradigm shift: A case study of innovation in an educational setting. International Journal of Information Communication and Technology Education, 1(12), 19–36.

192

Donna Russell

Russell, D. (2007). Online professional development for educators: A case study analysis using cultural historical activity theory. In R. C. Sharma & S. Mishra (Eds.), Cases on global e-learning practices: Successes and pitfalls (pp. 356– 369). Hershey, PA: IDEA Group, Inc. Russell, D., & Schneiderheinze, A. (2005). Understanding innovation in education using activity theory. Educational Technology in Society, 8(1), 38–53. Salomon, G. (Ed.) (1993). No distribution without individuals’ cognition: A dynamic interactional view. In Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations. New York: Cambridge University Press. Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1996). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educational Technology, 35(5), 31–38. Shulman, L. (1992). Toward a pedagogy of cases. In J. H. Shulman (Ed.), Case methods in teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1998). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), Constructivism in science education: A philosophical examination. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner & E. Souberman, Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original works published 1930–1933) Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language (E. Hanfmann & G. Vakar, Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1934) Wertsch, J. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.

C H A P T E R 12

Assessment of Creative Knowledge Building in Online Problem-based Learning Tjaart Imbos and Frans Ronteltap Maastricht University, the Netherlands

Abstract Deep learning is facilitated by instructional designs in which active and interactive student behaviors are the core concept, in combination with the use of tools for knowledge building and knowledge exchange. This chapter considers the question of how teachers can assess the progress of learning in an online collaborative learning environment that fosters learning through interaction. In such an environment, students articulate in writing their understanding of the topics in a domain. In a subsequent group interaction, they elaborate and enrich their understanding, as well as clarify misunderstandings and misconceptions. The tutor’s challenge is how to assess students’ written work to gauge their proficiency in the topics, individually and as a group. Two models are explored for their potential application in assessing knowledge construction. One is latent semantic analysis, a mathematical model that induces the meaning of words by analyzing the relations between words and passages in bodies of text, which may be employed in automatic text scoring. The other is Bayesian networks, graphical models representing sets of variables and their relationships, which may be adopted for the assessment of student competence.

This chapter is based on a paper presented by Tj. Imbos at the IASE Satellite Conference on Assessing Student Learning in Statistics.

194

Tjaart Imbos and Frans Ronteltap

Introduction At Maastricht University, all curricula are problem based. Students work on problems in small learning groups. The groups start their learning with a discussion about a specific problem. This discussion serves to organize the self-directed learning activities that follow the group meeting. The progress of self-directed learning is continuously evaluated, and it ends with a wrap-up and reflection on the outcomes of learning. Figure 12.1 is a graphical representation of the problem-based learning (PBL) process.

Group interaction

FIGURE 12.1

Individual learning

Evaluation

Group interaction

The problem-based learning process

Two phases of interaction can be distinguished in the PBL process, with different activities and different functions. Interaction at the beginning is focused on the analysis of the problem by brainstorming. All students are involved in a rapid and spontaneous exchange of ideas about the resolution of the problem. From a cognitive perspective, students engaging in this activity are activating prior knowledge and trying to integrate new concepts into an existing knowledge structure. The interaction in the second phase has the function of broadening students’ knowledge base when they share and elaborate their acquired knowledge and understandings relating to the resolution of the problem. Before we continue, it is relevant at this point to ponder the relation between PBL and creativity. If we define creativity as the ability to find new and unusual solutions to a problem, PBL then is a creative process. From an individual perspective, an attitude of innovation is cultivated as students generate and evaluate new ideas. From a group perspective, creativity is promoted by the interaction between peers. In summarizing, we can say that PBL as a whole is a creative process in which brainstorming in the first phase stimulates the divergence of ideas while the

Assessment of Creative Knowledge Building in Online Problem-based Learning

195

exchange of knowledge in the second phase leads to convergence (Jeong & Chi, 2007). Maastricht University adopts the seven-step procedure of Schmidt (1983) as its PBL framework. These steps are as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Clarify concepts not readily comprehensible. Define the problem. Analyze the problem: brainstorm. Analyze the problem: compile the results of brainstorming. Formulate learning issues. Collect additional information outside the group. Synthesize and evaluate the acquired information.

The first steps of the procedure focus on problem definition and analysis, as a basis for theorizing toward building a personal theory or a mental model of the problem in question. Collaborative learning situations stimulate discussion, debate, and elaboration, as well as verbalization and explicit formulation of relevant concepts and processes (Van der Linden et al., 2000). Bereiter and Scardamalia advocate the idea of student communities working together to become proficient in particular fields of knowledge (Bereiter, 2002; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994), which they call knowledge-building communities. In these communities, students become knowledge builders and participate in knowledgebuilding discourse. Presented with problems to initiate learning, students engage in productive interaction in a decentralized, open learning environment to build collective understanding and to gain a deep understanding of the underlying theories (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 2003). The creative brainstorming phase in the seven-step procedure ends with the formulation of learning issues for investigation following the group meeting. A growing number of group learning tools are available to facilitate collaboration. Philip (2007) describes the new possibilities offered by one such tool called Knowledge Forum, an asynchronous platform: “Idea generation can take place during these group sessions, during which all students are given the chance to express their ideas, or in individual notes posted directly to the KF database. While in a typical classroom setting ideas or comments generated in discussion are usually lost, the KF database preserves these ephemeral resources so that students

196


can return to them for comment and reflection. Students are then encouraged to read the notes of other students and soon find that there are differing schools of opinion about the problem. The teacher’s job is to ensure that students remain on task and work towards the solution of the problem under study by reading each other’s notes and contributing new information or theories to the database.” The role of teachers, as facilitators of learning, will be made easier if they have access to tools for analyzing the knowledge-building process. Advances in cognitive psychology have extended our understanding of students’ learning and broadened the range of student performances that can be assessed to gather evidence of the development of knowledge and abilities. Research in cognitive psychology and artificial intelligence has led to the development of tools for describing and representing the knowledge that one possesses. In this chapter, two mathematical models are explored as tools for understanding and diagnosing the nature of the knowledge demonstrated in students’ writing. They are latent semantic analysis and Bayesian networks.

Assessing Students’ Written Work At the School of Health Sciences, students are assigned to small collaborative learning groups for each course. These groups are guided by a tutor. In academic year 2002–2003, a group of students actively used the online knowledge-building tool POLARIS (Ronteltap et al., 2007). While attending a basic statistics course covering topics such as statistical testing, regression analysis, analysis of variance, and analysis of cross-tabulated data, the group posted a total of 167 comments in 30 different discussion threads, with a mean length of 5.7 lines of reasoning. Some examples are presented in Figure 12.2. An interpreted analysis of one of the comments done using Atlas.ti (http://www.atlasti.com), a program for the qualitative and quantitative analysis of text, is shown in Figure 12.3. On the left of the figure is the student’s comment, while on the right the interpreted analysis. Such programs are nice and convenient tools, but they are very time-consuming to use because all the codes for interpreting text


197

The question was: What is the logic of rejecting the null hypothesis when the p-value is low. When the p-value is low, the probability is low that the sample mean is outside the critical area, therefore high that it is inside the critical area. When the sample mean is in the critical area, mu is outside the confidence interval, therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. Author Irma Dijk Subject Summary of chapter 5 Read by Raf Remans, Irma Dijk, Tjaart Imbos, Corine Vaes, Ilse Peereboom, Anja Depoortere, Rianne Kamphorst, Chantal Bakker, Marja Gelderloos, CWJ Wulms, H. Berger Agreed by

Statement The confidence interval is the area in which the population mean ? may be expected with afore mentioned confidence. The confidence interval can be computed. Statistical testing is a way to determine whether the difference between the sample mean and the population mean is by chance or not. The null hypothesis is the proposition that is true when the afore mentioned means differ only by change. On the other side is the alternative hypothesis which indicates that the sample mean and the population mean differ not by change. The significance level (?), is chosen in advance en indicates so to say where the border is between rejecting or accepting H0. Most of the times one chooses 1% or 5% as significance level. These values indicate small probabilities; the test result as stated in H0 could happen to be by chance. If I think of the level of significance, I see the tails of the normal distribution in front of me. If the p-value is still further to the right or to the left in these tails (thus when the test result is more extreme) than one states that the test result is produced by chance. Then H0 is not accepted. But when the p-value is not in that area, then it is already less likely that the test result is different than stated in the H0. As a consequence H0 is accepted. ?That area?, where the extreme results are, is the critical area or the rejection area. The acceptance area is just the opposite: the safe area: large probabilities. I hope that I have interpreted all of this correctly. According to me the p-value actual is something like the level of significance. When the p-value ? alfa, then the test result is due to chance; is the p-value > alfa then the test result is not due to chance, but clearly different. A z-test is used when µ and ? are known; the standard normal distribution comes along with it. The t-test is used when these two, or at least ? is unknown. In stead of these missing data the sample mean and the sample standard deviation are used as estimates for µ and ?. By this more uncertainty is introduced in the test procedure. The t-test is combined with another distribution than the standard normal distribution. The tails of the t-distribution are heavier and become less heavy as the sample size n becomes larger. The larger n the more the t-distribution resembles the standard normal distribution. To be able to read a t-table the degrees of freedom must be known. There always is a certain likelihood of incorrectly accepting or rejecting the null hypothesis. Type I error: H0 is rejected incorrectly. Type II error: H0 is accepted incorrectly. Question Paragraph 5.9 is not very clear to me. Is it important to know? Who is willing to tell something about it? Read by Raf Remans, Corine Vaes, Irma Dijk, Anja Depoortere, Rianne Kamphorst, Tjaart Imbos, Chantal Bakker, Marja Gelderloos, H. Berger Agreed by Date 19-06-03 16:07 Statement I felt that my reasoning was not correct, but when I wrote my thoughts I could not find the inconsistencies, and regrettably it does not work now. Who does know it? Author Anja Depoortere Subject significance

FIGURE 12.2 the tutor

Examples of discussions in POLARIS between students and

198


Statement The question was: What is the logic of rejecting the null hypothesis when the p-value is low. When the p-value is low, the probability is low that the sample mean is outside the critical area, therefore high that it is inside the critical area. When the sample mean is in the critical area, mu is outside the confidence interval, therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. Author Irma Dijk

Decision Null hypothesis

Asking questions~

Articulation Integration1 Interpretation statistical testing Critical region Confidence interval Decision

Null hypothesis

P-value~

Null hypothesis

Subject Summary of chapter 5 Read by Raf Remans, Irma Dijk, Tjaart Imbos, Corine Vaes, Ilse Peereboom, Anja Depoortere, Rianne Kamphorst, Chantal Bakker, Marja Gelderloos, CWJ Wulms, H. Berger

FIGURE 12.3

Part of a discussion thread in POLARIS interpreted by Atlas.ti

have to be manually created and are thus subjective. (For an overview of such programs, see Popping, 2000.) There is a need for an automated system for scoring and classifying students’ written work.

Building a Knowledge Base for Assessing Student Proficiency What are the prerequisites for such a system? To begin with, an extensive knowledge base containing all the topics relevant to our courses has to be built by feeding it with expert knowledge as well as knowledge from non-experts with various levels of proficiency: novices, student experts, advanced students, and so on. This database will become the reference against which the writing of students on a topic can be compared, scored, and interpreted. For this purpose, the contents of the database need to be analyzed and categorized into knowledge elements, explanations, dialogues, strategies, and processes. A knowledge base is not simply a repository of inert knowledge; it needs to be updated constantly to remain relevant.


199

Knowledge is organized in mental structures. Some properties of these individual internal mental structures may reflect what a person understands: the richness of the mental structures, the integration of the studied material, and the use of additional concepts and how they link. To measure understanding, these properties have to be preserved during knowledge elicitation and then expressed in external knowledge representations for evaluation (Bude, 2007). We can elicit the knowledge of experts and subject it to cognitive analysis of discourse as applied in research on expert tutoring. A description of the cognitive processes, reasoning, and knowledge representations involved can then be made. To be useful, this information needs to be classified and compiled. The result is an expert model that can be used to “understand” the writing of students in order to guide them toward better and deeper understanding of the knowledge they are learning. An expert knowledge base consists of different types of knowledge. The best known are declarative and procedural knowledge. However, for our purpose, a more elaborate system of knowledge qualification is needed. An expert knowledge base can also be characterized by qualities, such as level of knowledge (deep or surface), generality of knowledge, level of atomization of knowledge, modality of knowledge, and structure of knowledge. A useful system for organizing knowledge is proposed by de Jong and Ferguson-Hessler (1996), which considers not only the elements of a knowledge base but also the function that each element fulfills in a performance or task. This is an important feature, for we do not want our students to just acquire knowledge but also to be able to apply that knowledge to solve problems in the domain that they are studying. The knowledge matrix that de Jong and Ferguson-Hessler propose for organizing knowledge is characterized by two dimensions: types of knowledge and qualities of knowledge. By combining these two dimensions, a close description of a knowledge base relevant to certain types of problems and tasks can be created. Using knowledge matrices in this way, it is theoretically possible to describe a complete knowledge base. To cover a complete statistics curriculum, the knowledge base will be sizable. To build such a large database, knowledge compilation techniques such as those employed in artificial intelligence can be applied.

200


Reducing the Dimensionality of the Knowledge Base Researchers dealing with a large number of variables frequently employ data reduction techniques such as factor analysis and cluster analysis to reduce the number of variables for analysis. In the discussion forums in POLARIS, large amounts of text are created. Hence, data reduction is needed. To analyze qualitative data, as students’ writing is, a technique comparable to factor analysis is available: latent semantic analysis (LSA). LSA is a mathematical model for extracting and inferring the meaning of words by analyzing the relations between words and passages in bodies of text (Landauer et al., 1998). The essence of semantic information is captured using the method of dimension reduction. Suppose two students write about their understanding of statistical testing. Even if they both show a good understanding of the topic, their writing will still differ. The need is to find a way to tell that the two samples of writing are comparable, or to quantitatively compare two parts of the text that will identify the similar reasoning processes of the two students. This capability may be afforded by LSA. LSA infers information from the many relations present in the writing of learners. The analysis does not represent a whole knowledge space but only the paths through which students have chosen to find their way in that space—in other words, how the knowledge space is understood by students. The features of LSA are that (1) it does not assume independence of writing actions but instead uses dependencies to infer the structure of the writing; (2) it reduces the dimensionality of the knowledge space; and (3) it makes no a priori assumptions about the space. LSA is therefore self-organizing. LSA can be used to automatically assess the semantic similarity between any two samples of text. This meets our assessment need. Using LSA, students’ written work can be compared against the expert knowledge base and scores automatically computed to reflect the level of proficiency of a group of students or an individual student in a particular topic. LSA has been successfully applied in automatic essay grading, automatic tutoring, human language acquisition simulations, and modeling comprehension phenomena. Various other applications have been


201

reported (Wild) et al., 2007). An LSA-based system has the capacity to handle hundreds of thousands of documents simultaneously (Landauer & Dumas, 1997).

Toward an Evidence-based Assessment System Suppose we are able to build an automatic system with complex knowledge bases and reduce its dimensionality using LSA, then a new problem arises: how to make sense of the complex data that result and how to interpret the writing of students as evidence of competency. We cannot use the statistical methods and rules of thumb developed for classroom quizzes and standardized tests. To solve this problem, two conditions have to be fulfilled. The first is that we need tools of probability-based reasoning that have proven to be useful in modern test theory and adapt them for the more complex situations that result from the system we have in mind. Second, we need more than a scoring system. We also need to establish principles for designing a complex assessment system. Such principles should guide us through questions such as what inferences do we want to make, what observations do we need to support these inferences, what situations can evoke these observations, and what reasoning can connect them. In other words, we need a framework for designing assessments, an evidence-centered framework (Mislevy et al., 2002). In such a framework, three basic models should be present and connected. They are student models, evidence models, and task models. The student model describes which competencies should be assessed. The model uses student variables to approximate aspects in the domain of interest. Students are measured and scored on these variables, which are actually unobservable. These variables can be behaviorist, trait, cognitive, or situational, but in all cases the issue is the same: constructing student variables from limited evidence. The number and nature of student variables to include depend on the purpose of the assessment. It can be one summarizing variable or several variables. If there is more than one variable, the empirical or theoretical relations between the variables can be described for each student at a certain point in time. These relations can be described in terms of a probability distribution that can be

202


updated as new evidence about the student’s learning becomes available. In that case, the student model takes the form of a Bayesian inference network, or Bayes net (BN) (Jensen, 2001). BNs offer a methodology for managing knowledge and uncertainty in the complex assessment system that we have in mind. The evidence model is the heart of evidentiary reasoning in assessment, that is, arguments about why and how the observations are made. The evidence model consists of two parts: (1) the responses or writing of students (students’ products) and the corresponding observed variables (scores on aspects of students’ products) and (2) the statistical submodel, which expresses how observed variables in probability depend on student variables. Examples of statistical submodels are classical test theory, item response theory, latent class models, and factor analysis. These models can be expressed as special cases of BNs, being an extension of the relation between student variables and observed variables. Finally, the task model delineates situations that would elicit the behavior described in the evidence model. It provides a framework for constructing and describing the situations in which students act and produce their work products. The task model provides the input for the evidence model.

Bayesian Networks: Connecting the Submodels of an Assessment System Testing and assessment of student competence has been improved with the application of item response theory (IRT). In IRT, an examinee’s capability is expressed in terms of an unobservable student variable. The written responses of a student are assumed to be independent, conditional on both the latent variable and the characteristics of the writing task. An IRT model can be depicted as a graphical model in the same way as is done in structural equation modeling with q as a single parent of all writing tasks, graphically depicted as arrows pointing from q to the observed writing response Xj . At the beginning of a discussion thread, the full joint distribution P(X1, X2, . . . Xn , q) characterizes a student’s q and his or her future responses to writing tasks. This distribution then


203

can be obtained as the product of the initial distribution of q, p(q), times the conditional distribution of each response to the writing task, P(Xj |q), given by the IRT model, and p(q) is the examiner’s “belief ” in an examinee’s q. Based on new information, the examinee’s q can be updated, leading to a new posterior distribution for q. All new information leads to new inferences about students’ q. This process continues until the written discussion is terminated. Using graphical models as a predictive framework, the resulting BNs combine the student model with the task model of the assessment system and vice versa (see Mislevy, 1994, for a detailed discussion). A complete system is of course complicated, but estimation procedures are available (Mislevy, 1994).

Conclusion Writing is a powerful way to make students and teachers aware of the ongoing learning processes and to document these processes. However, for assessment purposes, students’ work needs to be interpreted and scored. In online learning environments, students’ postings can snowball, so a technological system for interpreting and scoring them is necessary. Developing such a system is a huge challenge. A database of knowledge elicited from experts and derived from published sources is needed, as well as a scoring system to compare students’ writing against some standard. For our intended use, the system also needs to be able to update the assessments in the case of incremental learning. Despite the enormity of the task, the system can be developed using cognitive methods to describe knowledge and its use, latent semantic analysis, and IRT and BNs in combination as the main tools. Much work needs to be done, but in a few years we hope to report the experiences with a system for automatically scoring and diagnosing students’ proficiency in statistics.

References Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

204


Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2003). Learning to work creatively with knowledge. In E. de Corte, L. Verschaffel, N. Entwistle & J. van Merrienboer (Eds.), Powerful learning environments: Unravelling basis components and dimensions (pp. 55–68). Oxford: Elsevier Science. Bude, L. (2007). On the improvement of students’ conceptual understanding in statistics education. Maastricht: Maastricht University Press. De Jong, T., & Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. M. (1996). Types and qualities of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 31(2), 105–113. Jensen, F. V. (2001). Bayesian networks and decision graphs. New York: Springer. Jeong, H., & Chi, M. T. H. (2007). Knowledge convergence and collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 35, 287–315. Landauer, T. K., & Dumas, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104(2), 211–240. Landauer, T. K., Foltz, P. W., & Laham, D. (1998). An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 259–284. Mislevy, R. J. (1994). Evidence and inference in educational assessment. Psychometrika, 59(4), 439–483. Mislevy, R. J., Steinberg, L. S., & Almond, R. G. (2002). On the structure of educational assessments. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 1, 3–62. Philip, D. (2007). The knowledge building paradigm: A model of learning for Net generation students. Innovate, 3(5). Retrieved March 2008 from http://www. innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=368. Popping, R. (2000). Computer-assisted text analysis. London: Sage. Ronteltap, F., Koehorst, A., & Imbos, T. (2007). Online knowledge-building interactions in problem-based learning: The POLARIS experience. In O. S. Tan (Ed.), Problem-based learning in eLearning breakthroughs (pp. 169–184). Singapore: Thomson Learning. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledgebuilding communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265–283. Schmidt, H. G. (1983). Problem-based learning: Rationale and description. Medical Education, 17, 11–16. Van der Linden, J., Erkens, G., Schmidt, H., & Renshaw, P. (2000). Collaborative learning. In R. J. Simons, J. van der Linden & T. Duffy (Eds.), New learning (pp. 37–57). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Wild, F., Kalz, M., van Bruggen, J., & Koper, R. (Eds.) (2007, March 29–30). Miniproceedings of the First European Workshop on Latent Semantic Analysis in Technology-enhanced Learning. Heerlen, Netherlands.

C H A P T E R 13

E-Portfolios for Problem-based Learning: Scaffolding Thinking and Learning in Preservice Teacher Education Woon Chia Liu, Albert K. Liau,* and Oon-Seng Tan National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore; *HELP University College, Malaysia

Abstract The use of electronic portfolios, or e-portfolios, is an emerging practice in preservice teacher education. This chapter describes the development of an e-portfolio to support the problem-based learning process, with the aim of using it to scaffold knowledge construction, document students’ learning, and facilitate idea sharing. The e-portfolio was piloted in a preservice educational psychology module, and preliminary results and feedback indicate that it provided the anticipated benefits.

Introduction Education must foster the creation of a critical mass of individuals with greater creativity and higher levels of thinking skills. (Tan, 2003, p. 10)

With unprecedented advances in technological innovation and ease of access to information, the twenty-first century is both an exciting and a trying time for educators. It is clear that the traditional ways of teaching, where good pedagogy equates to providing clear explanations to students in disseminating content knowledge, are no longer adequate to prepare our next generation for the knowledge-based economy. The challenge now is for educators to equip students with learning, thinking, and

206

Woon Chia Liu, Albert K. Liau, and Oon-Seng Tan

problem-solving skills that will enable them to cope with the demands of a fast-changing world. As a result, educators are charged with the responsibility to find new ways of looking at knowledge and at students’ participation in the learning process. They also need to provide evidence of the process and progress of student learning over time for the purpose of evaluation (Wickersham & Chambers, 2006). Obviously, if there is going to be any change in how we perceive teaching and learning, the change must begin in teacher education with student teachers. This chapter describes the development and use of an e-portfolio within a problem-based learning context in a core educational psychology module for student teachers in Singapore. The e-portfolio is designed to serve as a scaffolding, documentation, and collaborative tool.

Problem-based Learning and Teacher Education Problem-based learning (PBL) can be defined simply as a model that organizes learning around problems. It is a pedagogical methodology that is in line with the constructivist principles of learning (Hendry & Murphy, 1995). It is an active-learning, learner-centered approach that provides students with opportunities to construct their own knowledge through peer interaction and collaborative inquiry. In PBL, problems are designed to trigger as well as anchor learning. They are usually real-world problems that appear unstructured and illdefined. It is important for the problems to call for multiple perspectives in their solution so that students are “forced” to exercise their critical and creative thinking. Presented with a problem, students work collaboratively and cooperatively in small groups to identify the current state of their knowledge, generate hypotheses, identify learning objectives, seek sources of further information, analyze and evaluate the information obtained, reflect on and integrate the new knowledge, and come up with plausible solutions for the problem (Askell-Williams et al., 2007). An integral part of the learning process is self-directed learning, where students assume responsibility for the acquisition of information and knowledge. The PBL cycle ends with students presenting their solutions

E-Portfolios for Problem-based Learning

207

as well as evaluating and reviewing their experiences and the learning process (see Tan, 2003, for details). PBL has been credited with a whole range of cognitive and affective outcomes. Capon and Kuhn (2004) propose that students exposed to the PBL pedagogy are better at synthesizing new information into existing knowledge structures. Their contention is supported by meta-analyses. Specifically, compared with traditional teaching approaches, PBL appears to enhance knowledge construction, reasoning skills, and understanding of underlying principles that link concepts (Albanese & Mitchell, 1993; Gijbels et al., 2005). In addition, Breton (1999) documented that students engaging in PBL were able to relate theory to practice and they developed a greater ability to recall and reuse what they had learned. Likewise, Spencer and Jordon (1999) argue that PBL provides the benefits of better knowledge retention, deep thinking, self-directed learning, increased motivation, more stimulating environments, and improved student– teacher interaction. In the context of teacher education, significant gains over time have been documented in PBL on students’ self-rated competence in communication skills, discipline knowledge building, personal development, and interpersonal development (Murray-Harvey et al., 2005). Taken together, there appears to be consensus that PBL is a promising educational innovation, one that looks ideal for teacher education. Not only that it provides an environment for active learner engagement and a platform for developing real-world skills such as thinking, problem solving, collaboration, and communication, it appears to be able to bridge the gap between theory and practice. However, if PBL is to be adopted as the pedagogy, it must be accompanied by changes not only in the curriculum but also in instruction and assessment (Barron et al., 1998).

E-Portfolios An educational portfolio can be defined as a collection of students’ works demonstrating their learning process and progress (Wickersham & Chambers, 2006). It should contain artifacts selected by students to showcase their best work, to demonstrate development, and to provide

208


opportunities for reflection on their learning process. An e-portfolio, then, is a compilation of portfolio items—audiovisual, graphical, or text—stored in electronic formats (Barrett, 2001). Portfolios and e-portfolios can be employed for many different purposes, such as for assisting learning, formative or summative assessment, and seeking employment (Barrett, 2002). In fact, Frank and Barzilai (2004) assert that traditional assessment strategies will not be appropriate for gauging the goals of project- or problem-based learning. In their place, they propose the use of portfolios to document students’ reflections for different periods, their progress, and their goals. Other proponents of portfolios have argued that these tools facilitate the demonstration of critical thinking when learners engage in reflective writing about their construction, selection, and revision of artifacts (see, e.g., Lynch & Purnawarman, 2004). In particular, Ahn (2004) contends that e-portfolios not only offer students the chance to reflect upon their learning but also give teachers the opportunity to provide detailed feedback on students’ work. In addition, Garthwait and Verrill (2003) claim that e-portfolios are able to “keep students focused on learning rather than on individual projects or products—e-portfolios are part of the learning process, not the result of it” (p. 23), while Hewett (2005) emphasizes that “as a model for learner-centered classrooms, e-portfolios give students ownership and responsibility for their own learning” (p. 27). Despite the overwhelming support for portfolios, much more research is warranted. To-date, most of the studies on the use of portfolios, especially e-portfolios, have focused primarily on demonstrating students’ achievement of standards (e.g., in teaching or nursing) or their technological competence (e.g., Barrett, 2002; Chambers & Wickersham, 2007; Ledoux & McHenry, 2006; Wickersham & Chambers, 2006). Very few have employed portfolios to scaffold and document students’ learning in project- or problem-based learning. One of the closest attempts was a study that looked at integrating PBL with a practice portfolio, in which students saw their practice portfolio as a useful reference source for future practice (Oberski et al., 2004). In particular, as a student commented, the portfolio “helps you find out more information on an issue and explore your own objectives in depth” (p. 214). Students


209

also contended that the portfolio provided a structure for learning and encouraged reflection, and they felt positive about working with other group members and sharing ideas through the portfolio. Nonetheless, the students lamented that the PBL approach was time-consuming and they needed more clarity and guidance about objectives and requirements. Taken together, the investigators concluded that the combination of PBL and portfolios proved too demanding for the students, most of whom had no prior experience of either. Likewise, Spendlove and Hopper (2006) found that the e-portfolio helped teacher trainees develop an understanding of the complexity of the processes involved in design and technology activities. Moreover, the e-portfolio helped change “trainee practice and increased the effectiveness of the teaching and learning of design-focused work” in initial teacher training (p. 188). In another study, Gulbahar and Tinmaz (2006) examined the use of the e-portfolio as an assessment tool in a project-based learning context. In this case, preservice teachers were required to work individually to develop educational software for another undergraduate course. Each student had to select one topic for research, which would be the anchor for the whole semester. Following topic selection, needs, content, and media analyses were conducted before the actual development, piloting, and evaluation of the software. Finally, students submitted their e-portfolios for assessment, which included written reports, multimedia presentations (e.g., flowcharts and storyboards), statistical analyses, and two versions of the software. Overall, the students’ response was favorable. They felt that the weekly feedback on their work and the opportunity to redesign their assignments before final submission offered a great chance for self-improvement, and they gained more knowledge about the software development process and learned more from their class when they engaged in the creation of their own e-portfolios. In addition, they were better able to link their existing knowledge with real-life contexts, which enhanced their discipline-related skills and abilities. Clearly, these findings underline the potential of e-portfolios to provide a structure for learning, encourage reflection, and facilitate collaboration. Nonetheless, limited research means that very little is known about how an e-portfolio should be designed for the project- or

210


problem-based learning context. This study seeks to fill the gap by developing and piloting an e-portfolio for a PBL-based educational psychology module for preservice teachers in Singapore.

The PBL Module At the National Institute of Education, Singapore, the core educational psychology module, Educational Psychology I: Theories and Applications for Learning and Teaching, provides the foundation for student teachers to understand learners, their development, and the psychology of learning. Specifically, in the module student teachers explore how students learn or fail to learn, and apply psychological principles and learning theories to explain how and why, using the PBL approach. The decision to adopt PBL as the pedagogical approach was made a couple of years ago mainly because of its potential to foster the development of skills essential for today’s workplace, as discussed earlier in this chapter.

Problem Scenarios Before each semester, PBL case scenarios were developed by tutors specifically for the module. The tutors strived to design problems that needed to be considered from multiple perspectives in order to stimulate critical and creative thinking, as well as problem scenarios that were illstructured with no single correct answer. The following is an excerpt of a case scenario designed to illustrate Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s learning theories: “I really dislike Science,” Beng Kwee complained. “It’s so utterly boring. Our teacher, Mr. Lim, just drones on and on and I find it so hard to concentrate. The other day he ticked me off for not paying attention. How does he expect us to sit still and listen to all that boring stuff?” “Oh, I enjoy Science!” said James. “I always look forward to it. It’s so fun. The other day, Ms. Chong showed us a video on the human circulatory system. Now I finally know what red blood cells look like. We had such an interesting lesson ‘tracking’ the movement of red blood cells through the circulatory system.”


211

“No such luck in our class,” said Beng Kwee. “We had to listen to boring lessons. Occasionally Mr. Lim would ask us some questions at the end of his lesson to help us recall, but I can’t answer his questions most of the time—just can’t remember what he said in the first place. Anyway, who cares what are elements, mixtures, and compounds?”

The PBL Framework In class, students were given a choice of three scenarios, all based on real-life challenges in the classroom. They worked in small groups of four to five to develop possible solutions for the given problems. The conceptual framework for the PBL process, based on Tan (2003), is shown in Figure 13.1. The whole process included five weekly face-to-

Tutorial 1 Meeting the problem Self-directed learning Tutorial 2 Problem analysis and learning issues Self-directed learning Tutorial 3 Discovery and reporting Self-directed learning Tutorial 4 Solution presentation and reflection Self-directed learning Tutorial 5 Overview, integration, and evaluation

FIGURE 13.1

The problem-based learning framework

212


face tutorial sessions lasting two hours each, corresponding to the five stages in the PBL process. The tutorials were facilitated by tutors. In between tutorials, students engaged in self-directed learning to research into the problems.

Structure of the E-Portfolio Since little is known about the design of e-portfolios that would suit the PBL classroom, a decision was made to develop the e-portfolio specifically for our student teachers based on our course objectives and our PBL framework. The choice of an e-portfolio rather than a paper one is consistent with the observation of Strudler and Wetzel (2005) that a major reason for the diffusion of e-portfolios in teacher education programs is the difficulty of sharing and moving large paper portfolios around. Before we could proceed to design the e-portfolio, the tools for creating and publishing students’ e-portfolios had to be selected. A number of tools are available; utilizing common software applications (e.g., templates, authoring tools, and Microsoft Office applications such as PowerPoint) to construct hyperlinked portfolios and making use of Web-accessible databases to collect the evidence and provide an online structure for the portfolio are the two most common approaches (Barrett, 2002). Bearing in mind that the combination of PBL and portfolios could prove too demanding for students (Oberski et al., 2004), we decided to construct hyperlinked portfolios using PowerPoint, in which all student teachers are well-versed. This would allow our students to focus their attention on the content of their e-portfolios instead of spending long hours trying to learn and experiment with unfamiliar tools. The e-portfolios would then be uploaded onto Blackboard for other team members and the rest of the class to share. Once the decision was made, a team of three tutors got together to develop the template for the PBL e-portfolio. The e-portfolio was designed specifically to scaffold knowledge construction, document learning, and facilitate idea sharing, as well as to guide students through the PBL process by informing them of the learning objectives at each stage, their tasks, and the expected deliverables. We were also mindful that


213

the e-portfolio should facilitate the PBL process by making students record their plans and actions, as well as offering scope for reflection and evaluation. After hours of brainstorming and discussion, the structure of the e-portfolio for the pilot study was established. In essence, it comprised five main stages that corresponded to the PBL framework. The objectives, instructions, and deliverables of each of the stages are outlined below.

Stage 1. Problem Encounter At this stage, the aim was for students to gain a clear understanding of the scenario and to reach a group consensus on the problem statement. Students were instructed to read through the scenario on their own, underline key words, and highlight main points, after which they were to discuss in their own groups to establish the same understanding of the scenario. Team members were asked to each describe the scenario in their own words and link it to their own experiences and prior knowledge. To guide group discussion, the following questions were provided in the e-portfolio:

• • • •

What are your thoughts on this scenario? What comes to mind? What do we know? What are the statements of facts that we can identify?

The discussion was documented in the e-portfolio with the use of notes, mind maps, or a journal of problem inquiry. After obtaining a clear understanding of the scenario, each group had to reach a consensus on the nature of the problem and make a commitment to finding plausible solutions. Questions were posed to help students summarize the problem:

• • •

What is the nature of the problem? Can you restate what the group discussed? Does the group have the same mental picture of . . . ?

The problem statement formulated was included in the e-portfolio to guide the group through the rest of the PBL process.

214


Stage 2. Problem Analysis During this stage, the groups had to brainstorm and generate possible explanations or hypotheses about the problem that they had chosen to study, as well as formulate learning objectives. Students individually came up with possible explanations or hypotheses before combining all team members’ inputs into a comprehensive list. This process ensured that every team member played an active role. Questions were provided to help students generate ideas:

• • • • •

What additional information might we need? What do we need to know? Could you think of anything else? What does that link you to? Have you considered all the possibilities?

The second part of this stage was possibly the most pivotal of the PBL process—the identification of learning issues and formulation of learning objectives. To guide students, the following questions were asked:

• • • •

What is important for you to solve the problem? Have you listed all the key questions? What makes you include . . . ? What kinds of resources might be helpful?

Once the learning objectives were determined, the groups were instructed to assign tasks for self-directed learning to each member. These tasks would be to identify sources of information and conduct research with a view to finding an informed explanation for the problem and teaching peers on the topics related to the problem. Deliverables that were deemed useful at this stage were lists of explanations, ideas and/or hypotheses, statements of learning issues, and KND charts. A KND chart defines what the group already knows, what else it needs to know, and what it has to do to fill the knowledge gap. To ensure accountability, each group member was required to compile a set of pointers and notes from his or her self-directed learning to share with and to teach others at the next stage.


215

Stage 3. Discovery and Reporting Following self-directed learning, group members shared what they had discovered in their research. They needed to integrate and consolidate information as a group and help each other ensure the accuracy, reliability, and validity of the information obtained. To help them, students were encouraged to focus on the following questions:

• • • • •

Describe what you have learned about . . . Explain what you understand by . . . How do you know? Could you elaborate on . . . ? How would you connect what you learned to . . . ?

The deliverables at this stage included statements on the sources of learning, information, and research.

Stage 4. Solution Presentation The purpose of this stage was for the groups to present plausible solutions to the problem and clarify doubts through a question-and-answer session. Each group had to synthesize their findings for a final presentation. Questions were posted in the e-portfolio to help students develop plausible solutions:

• • • • •

What solution might you propose? Why? Explain the strategy/solution. What is at stake if we include/exclude . . . ? What are the pros and cons? What are the consequences?

The deliverables included each group’s hyperlinked PowerPoint presentation, a script, and other materials needed for the presentation, such as a report and video clips or photographs of any model or artifacts. Among others, the final presentation had to cover the problem that the group had focused on, the theory or theories related to the problem, and the proposed answers to the questions posed during problem analysis.

216


Stage 5. Review and Evaluation The final stage required the tutor to round up the PBL process in a verbal review and evaluation session with the students. Thereafter, students were asked to reflect on their own research and learning process. To aid individual reflection, the following questions were raised:

• • • •

What are the three key things that you have learned? What did you learn about yourself and your peers? What did you learn about your problem-solving approaches? How do you apply what you have learned to another situation?

The reflections were then added to the e-portfolio for the class and the tutor to share. It has to be noted that the PBL e-portfolio was designed to be a scaffold, so students were given the autonomy to modify and adapt it for their own learning journey. Ideally, the groups should regularly upload their e-portfolios, or part of them, onto the Web-based course management system for the tutorial group to share. In the pilot study, however, time constraints meant that most groups only managed to upload their e-portfolios once or twice over the five weeks of the module for their tutors to give comments and suggestions.

Piloting the E-Portfolio Research Objective The purpose of the pilot study was to conduct a preliminary evaluation of student teachers’ experiences with the e-portfolio. Lam and McNaught (2004) recommend that students’ perceptions of the e-learning environment should form an important part of any evaluation. Hence, the following research questions were posed for investigation in this pilot study: 1. Was the e-portfolio easy to use? In other words, were the instructions provided clear enough and the content organized in a logical manner?


217

2. Did the e-portfolio enable student teachers to develop generic learning skills that were called for in the PBL process, such as problem solving, team collaboration, communication, and presentation? 3. Did the e-portfolio scaffold student teachers’ learning process with regard to knowledge construction? 4. Was the e-portfolio effective in helping student teachers document their learning in the PBL process?

Participants The participants in the study were 442 student teachers from 17 tutorial groups for the core educational module, Educational Psychology I, in the Diploma in Education program. Women made up 72.2 percent of the participants, and men 25.5 percent, while the remaining 2.3 percent did not report their gender.

Measures Four subscales were employed to assess student teachers’ perceptions of the e-portfolio. Two of the subscales were modified from Lam and McNaught’s (2004) evaluation instruments. Lam and McNaught have developed a variety of instruments to evaluate Internet learning systems in their e3Learning project. In particular, we modified and shortened the lists of items in their Usability subscale and Generic Learning Skills subscale. In our study, the Usability subscale comprised four statements assessing the user-friendliness of the e-portfolio, while the Generic Learning Skills subscale consisted of six statements gauging the perceptions of learning skills that were fostered by using the e-portfolio. Two more subscales were developed by the authors for this study. They were Scaffolding, with five statements evaluating the ability of the e-portfolio to guide knowledge construction, and Documentation, with three statements assessing the perceptions of how well the e-portfolio helped to document learning during the PBL process. The participants rated the statements on a five-point Likert scale, where 1 = not true at all, 3 = somewhat true, and 5 = very true. The

218


reliability of all four subscales was high, at .84, .92, .92, and .86 respectively. Besides the quantitative survey, the student teachers were also asked two open-ended questions regarding the e-portfolio, to which they were to respond in writing: “What are the strengths of the e-portfolio?” and “How can we improve on the e-portfolio?” The qualitative data were used only to substantiate the quantitative findings; they were not analyzed in depth in this study.

Results The results of student teachers’ perceptions of the e-portfolio are presented in Table 13.1 with the mean and standard deviation for each

TABLE 13.1 Student teachers’ perceptions of the e-portfolio, expressed in mean and standard deviation (SD), and percentage of participants in agreement with each statement Item no.

Mean (SD)

% agreeing

3.53 ( .82) 3.40 (1.06)

77.8

Clear instructions were provided in the e-portfolio so that we knew how to proceed and navigate.

3.72 ( .99)

86.1

11.

The content of the e-portfolio was arranged in a clear and logical manner.

3.75 ( .93)

87.7

16.

The e-portfolio was visually attractive.

3.24 ( .99)

76.6

Subscale: Generic Learning Skills 2. The e-portfolio helped us improve our problemsolving skills.

3.65 ( .80) 3.57 ( .95)

85.0

Statement

Subscale: Usability 1. The e-portfolio was easy to use. 8.

4.

The e-portfolio helped us learn how to solve problems in a systematic and effective way.

3.73 ( .92)

87.7

6.

The e-portfolio helped us build up teamcollaborative skills.

3.83 ( .94)

87.5

9.

The e-portfolio enabled us to better express our thoughts in writing.

3.68 ( .91)

87.5


219

TABLE 13.1 (Continued) Item no.

Statement

Mean (SD)

% agreeing

13.

The e-portfolio improved our presentation skills.

3.58 (1.04)

82.6

17.

The e-portfolio helped us build up communicative skills.

3.52 ( .95)

83.3

3.79 ( .77) 3.77 ( .87)

89.4

Subscale: Scaffolding 3. The e-portfolio scaffolded the PBL process for us. The e-portfolio helped us structure our learning.

3.86 ( .89)

90.0

12.

The e-portfolio helped us navigate the PBL process systematically.

3.79 ( .92)

87.5

15.

The questions in the e-portfolio were useful in guiding our discussions at each stage of the PBL process.

3.80 ( .85)

91.0

18.

The aims of each stage in the PBL process were clearly spelled out in the e-portfolio.

3.73 ( .88)

88.7

3.84 ( .76) 3.90 ( .80)

92.4

7.

Subscale: Documentation 5. The deliverables that we included in our e-portfolio documented what we did at each stage. 10.

The e-portfolio helped us to document what we read individually for the self-directed learning.

3.83 ( .87)

91.0

14.

The e-portfolio was a useful tool for “recording” our group discussions.

3.80 ( .90)

93.2

statement and for each subscale, as well as the percentage of respondents who agreed with each of the statements. Participants were considered to agree with a statement if they rated it 3 (somewhat true) or above.

Usability The quantitative results show that the majority of the participants agreed that the e-portfolio was easy to use. Their comments concurred with these findings, for instance: “it is clear and easy to navigate through it” “clear and easily understood. Very systematically presented”

220


However, although the perceptions of usability were positive, the overall mean was the lowest among the four subscales. Possible areas of improvement for the e-portfolio were suggested by some participants: “make it more visually attractive/appealing” “the instructions can be clearer. It will help if the slides include the week that the input is expected. Example, week 1, week 2, etc.”

Generic learning skills Likewise, the results establish that the participants mostly agreed that the e-portfolio facilitated the development of generic learning skills required by the PBL process. These findings were again substantiated by participants’ comments: “provides platform to share research topics” “it helps me to solve problems systematically and effectively”

Scaffolding Most of the participants agreed that the e-portfolio acted as a scaffold for the PBL process. Their comments were consistent with the quantitative findings: “the structure of the e-portfolio served as a guideline to help my team understand how our presentation or our PBL final product should be structured. There were clear instructions given for each step” “very detailed scaffolding is provided. Thus, it made it easier to under stand what was expected from us”

Documentation This subscale on the e-portfolio’s usefulness in documenting learning during the PBL process received the highest overall score. Specifically, 91 to 93 percent of the participants agreed to the statements in this subscale. These findings were again substantiated by the comments: “help us record our data after each discussion” “helps us put down our thoughts throughout the process consistently”


221

Discussion The pilot study reveals that the e-portfolio has immense potential for scaffolding the cognitive processes that are facilitated by PBL-based pedagogy. Both the quantitative and qualitative data indicate that the e-portfolio facilitated the development of important PBL-related skills, such as problem solving, collaboration, and communication, besides providing a structure for guiding and documenting learning during the PBL process. The participants also felt that the tool was easy to use. More importantly, there was evidence that the e-portfolio promoted the ideals of PBL by facilitating a learner-centered approach that provides students with opportunities to construct their own knowledge, as the following student response shows: “collaborate individual’s strength, think through a logical sequence and weigh the pros and cons of the different available solutions, gets all in the group thinking, improves teamwork/team spirit”

Our findings are consistent with those documented by the studies described earlier. While further research is needed to corroborate the claim that e-portfolios are able to increase the effectiveness of teaching and learning (Spendlove & Hopper, 2006) or that their use makes learners better able to link existing knowledge with real-life contexts (Gulbahar & Tinmaz, 2006), preliminary evidence from our research lends support to the view that e-portfolios provide a structure for learning by scaffolding and documenting the learning process as well as facilitating the acquisition of generic learning skills. In terms of usability, despite its ease of use, our students felt that there was room for improvement, including making it visually more interesting and providing clearer instructions. To this end, future versions of the fairly text-heavy pilot e-portfolio could include illustrations. In conclusion, in changing the way we teach and learn, we need to provide scaffolds instead of knowledge, to facilitate instead of lecture, to focus on learning skills instead of learning content, and to help students document their learning process instead of teaching them how to create a learning artifact. Clearly, the challenges are many, but the potential that PBL and e-portfolios hold for guiding students on their learning journey is immense. This potential is perhaps succinctly put across by a

222


participant who remarked that the experience “creates an interesting learning journey instead of waiting to be spoon-fed by our tutor.”

References Ahn, J. (2004). Electronic portfolios: Blending technology, accountability and assessment. T.H.E. Journal, 31(9), 12–18. Albanese, M. A., & Mitchell, S. (1993). Problem-based learning: A review of literature on its outcomes and implementation issues. Academic Medicine, 68(1), 52–81. Askell-Williams, H., Murray-Harvey, R., & Lawson, M. J. (2007). Teacher education students’ reflections on how problem-based learning has changed their mental models about teaching and learning. Teacher Educator, 42(4), 237–263. Barrett, H. C. (2001). Electronic portfolios. Retrieved January 17, 2008, from http://electronicportfolios.com/portfolios.html. Barrett, H. C. (2002, March 18–23). Electronic portfolios. Paper presented at SITE 2002: 13th International Conference of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education, Nashville, TN. Barron, B. J. S., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., et al. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problems and project-based learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3/4), 271–311. Breton, G. (1999). Some empirical evidence on the superiority of the problembased learning (PBL) in a nursing theory and practice module. Nurse Education in Practice, 2, 55–62. Capon, N., & Kuhn, D. (2004). What’s good about problem-based learning? Cognition and Instruction, 22(1), 61–97. Chambers, S. M., & Wickersham, L. E. (2007). The electronic portfolio journey: A year later. Education, 127(3), 351–360. Frank, M., & Barzilai, A. (2004). Integrating alternative assessment in a projectbased learning course for pre-service science and technology teachers. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(1), 41–61. Garthwait, A., & Verrill, J. (2003). E-portfolios: Documenting student progress. Science and Children, 40(8), 22–27. Gijbels, D., Dochy, F., Van den Bossche, P., & Segers, M. (2005). Effects of problembased learning: A meta-analysis from the angle of assessment. Review of Educational Research, 75, 27–61. Gulbahar, Y., & Tinmaz, H. (2006). Implementing project-based learning and e-portfolio assessment in an undergraduate course. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 309–327.


223

Hendry, G. D., & Murphy, L. B. (1995). Constructivism and problem-based learning. In P. Little, M. Ostwald & G. Ryan (Eds.), Research and development in problem-based learning: Vol. 3. Assessment and evaluation. Newcastle: Australian Problem-based Learning Network. Hewett, S. (2005). Electronic portfolios: Improving instructional practices. TechTrends, 48(5), 26–30. Lam, P., & McNaught, C. (2004, June 21–26). Evaluating educational websites: A system for multiple websites at multiple universities. Paper presented at the 16th Annual World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, Lugano, Switzerland. Ledoux, M. W., & McHenry, N. (2006). Electronic portfolio adoption for teacher education candidates. Early Childhood Education Journal, 34(2), 103–116. Lynch, L. L., & Purnawarman, P. (2004). Electronic portfolio assessments in U.S. educational and instructional technology programs: Are they supporting teacher education? TechTrends, 48(1), 50–56. Murray-Harvey, R., Curtis, D. D., Cattley, G., & Slee, P. T. (2005). Enhancing teacher education students’ generic skills through problem-based learning. Teacher Education, 16, 257–273. Oberski, I. M., Matthews-Smith, G., Gray, M., & Carter, D. E. (2004). Assessing problem-based learning with practice portfolios: One innovation too many? Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41(2), 207–221. Spencer, J. A., & Jordon, R. K. (1999). Learner centered approaches in medical education. British Medical Journal, 318, 1280–1283. Spendlove, D., & Hopper, M. (2006). Using electronic portfolios to challenge current orthodoxies in the presentation of an initial teacher training design and technology activity. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 16(2), 177–191. Strudler, N., & Wetzel, K. (2005). The diffusion of electronic portfolios in teacher education: Issues of initiation and implementation. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(4), 411–433. Tan, O. S. (2003). Problem-based learning innovation: Using problems to power learning in the 21st century. Singapore: Thomson Learning. Wickersham, L. E., & Chambers, S. M. (2006). ePortfolios: Using technology to enhance and assess student learning. Education, 126(4), 738–746.

C H A P T E R 14

Transgenerational Problem-based Web Development Learning Experience William E. J. Doane and Joette Stefl-Mabry University at Albany, State University of New York

Abstract Planning courses is a difficult task that can be made easier by appealing to explicit models of learning and of educational planning processes. This chapter presents a model of educational planning first developed by Mauritz Johnson that distinguishes between the products and processes involved in sound educational planning. The model allows intentional educators to refine their thinking regarding the goals, the intended outcomes, and the planning of instruction. In turn, these inform teacher evaluation, student assessment, and program evaluation. Two courses at the University at Albany, State University of New York, are presented using Johnson’s model as a framework to understand the educational design processes and the resulting course designs (the products). The courses are an undergraduate Web development course and a graduate-level school library media course that involve K–12 students and inservice teachers in a collaborative Web design process that culminates in the development of Web sites tailored to the learning needs of the K–12 students. The participants engage in a problem-based learning experience that requires them to actively identify their own learning needs and to work collaboratively to meet those needs. The experience allows the participants to link the theories learned to real-life applications.

226

William E. J. Doane and Joette Stefl-Mabry

Introduction Many instructional design models call for the development of the curriculum1 and assessments to precede instructional planning, and they assume that instruction is something that can be planned well in advance of teaching and is largely determined by the curriculum. Problembased learning (PBL) poses a significant challenge for these models in that instruction in a PBL context is often dynamic, changing rapidly as circumstances and learners’ needs come into focus. That is, instruction in PBL could be seen as a function not only of previously identified learning outcomes but also of evolving problem contexts and emerging learners’ needs. Such a learning environment demands an instructional design process that responds to the unique constraints of PBL. Curricula designed for this environment must reflect those learning outcomes that are at the heart of the learning experience. PBL designers are challenged to identify those learning outcomes that are likely to emerge from any method of instruction that might be used. We may think of these as emergent learning goals. Similarly, assessments must be designed so as to focus both the teachers’ and the learners’ attention on the central knowledge, skills, and dispositions that are emerging through the PBL experience. Curriculum and assessment take on greater design importance, then, as driving forces within a dynamically evolving instructional context. This chapter describes the processes and products that have evolved from a transgenerational problem-based Web development learning experience over the past five years at the University at Albany, State University of New York.2 These are considered in the light of Mauritz Johnson’s model of intentional education, which delineates and defines the elements of a comprehensive educational endeavor.

1 Here, we assume Johnson’s definition of curriculum, namely, a structured set of intended learning outcomes or, more succinctly, learning goals. 2 In addition to the authors, other faculty members have also collaborated with SteflMabry in this partnership, including Barbara Lynch (in 2004), Jennifer Powers (2004– 2005), Carol Doll (2005), Michael Radlick (2006), and Pamela Theroux (2006).

Transgenerational Problem-based Web Development Learning Experience

227

The Johnson Model Mauritz Johnson, in his seminal work Intentionality in Education (1977), distinguishes carefully between the processes and products of the educational endeavor. An instructional plan is a product, for example, while instruction is a process. Each key aspect of education has products and processes associated with it:

• • • • • •

Macro goals and goal setting Curriculum and curriculum planning Instructional plan and instruction Learning goals and learning Assessment plan and assessment Evaluation plan and evaluation

By making explicit the distinction between the products and the processes, Johnson allows us to consider the quality and the desired properties of each element taken separately. A flawed process does not necessarily result in a flawed product. Each exists on its own and can be improved and evaluated independently. Further, by focusing our attention on the role of evaluation (in comparing plans and their implementation), Johnson offers a rational basis for considering the effectiveness and efficiency of education. Figure 14.1 presents a streamlined

Evaluation Goals::Results

Assessment Curriculum::Learning outcomes

Review Instructional plan::Instruction

Macro goals

FIGURE 14.1

Curriculum

Instructional plan

Instruction

Overview of educational evaluation

SOURCE: Adapted from Johnson (1977).

Learning outcomes

Results

228


interpretation of the Johnson evaluation model. Each pre-instructional construct (macro goals, curriculum, and instructional plan) is paired with an outcome (results, learning outcomes, and instruction respectively) for purposes of evaluation (see Table 14.1 for the definitions of these elements). The evaluation of the curriculum and the learning outcomes attained is traditionally referred to as assessment, whether formative or summative. The evaluation of macro goals and results is often referred to as program evaluation, while that of instructional plans and instruction as teacher review, both of which are beyond the scope of this chapter. Johnson’s model provides a framework for considering instructional design choices and for evaluating the effects of those choices. What are the macro goals? What are the specific learning goals and how will they be fostered? To what degree are the intended outcomes being attained? To what degree is instruction associated with success in goal attainment? A comprehensive instructional design process will incorporate all of these considerations and align the planning and implementation processes and products to reflect the intent of educators, learners, and society at large.

TABLE 14.1

The elements of educational evaluation

Construct

Definition

Macro goals

Determined by society and interested experts, the set of broad capabilities valued by society that are intended to result from the learning experience

Curriculum

A specific structured set of intended learning outcomes (learning goals)

Instructional plan

An outline of the activities and their sequencing designed to realize the curriculum

Instruction

Activities that teachers and students engage in, planned or otherwise, that are intended to lead to the attainment of learning goals

Learning outcomes

The actual outcomes of instruction, both intended and unintended

Results

The benefits realized by the individual and society as a result of the attainment of learning outcomes


229

The remainder of this chapter considers our PBL experience with a Web development and a school library media course. We present the background on the evolution thus far and examine how Johnson’s model informs our practice.

The University Experience Each semester, graduate and undergraduate students are brought together with in-service educators from local K–12 school districts to explore issues of pedagogy, theory, curriculum, information literacy, technology, multimedia, and assessment to foster the development of “more powerful learning environments” (borrowing the phrase from Segers & Dochy, 2001). K–12 students, their teachers, preservice graduate students training to be school library media specialists (SLMS), undergraduate Web development students, and university faculty work together to design, implement, deploy, and assess Web sites developed for use in the participating K–12 schools. Two university courses—IST 361: Web Development and IST 673: Technology and School Library Media—are run at the same time in adjoining classrooms. Students in the courses are grouped into project teams that each include a K–12 teacher and a library media specialist. Each team is responsible for developing one Web site intended for use in that K–12 teacher’s classroom. By scheduling the two courses at the same time, both groups of students can meet during class time to design and test their Web sites. These “transgenerational” project teams allow individuals at various stages of professional development to interact and support one another in their common effort to produce meaningful and useful educational Web sites.

Macro Goals Vygotsky (1978) suggests that students perform at higher intellectual levels when asked to work in collaborative situations than when asked to work individually. Bruner (1985) contends that cooperative learning methods improve problem-solving strategies because students are

230


confronted with different interpretations of the given situation, which in turn encourages the sharing of diverse knowledge and experience. In our transgenerational PBL model, learners’ divergent skills and expertise are collectively shared as project teams actively work to identify K–12 learners’ needs; design a project informed by learning, information literacy, and design theory to address those needs; develop formative assessments for use during project deployment; implement the project in the K–12 setting; and, finally, assess attainment of the project’s intended outcomes (summative assessment) from the perspectives of all stakeholders. This model is most successful when each stakeholder acts as both contributor and recipient of expertise and resources within a learning network of collective social capital (Nogeura, 1999). The courses are designed to provide real-world experiences for both Web developers and preservice educators. These university students are expected to develop an understanding of the needs of the end users (i.e., K–12 students) as well as the potential of technology to enhance learning. They further benefit by being better prepared to participate in a collaborative group workspace and learning to coordinate and address complex goals. K–12 students, on the other hand, benefit from exposure to the learning materials developed for them and through their engagement with university students—an experience that we hope will make them ponder their own future in higher education and beyond.

Curricula Each of the student populations (undergraduate, graduate, and K–12) has distinct learning goals appropriate to their area of study. Students bring a mix of backgrounds and personal goals to the classes but share a common goal: to become better information producers and consumers. Undergraduate students in the Web development course are expected to develop skills in Web development, project management, and collaboration. Students enter the course with a basic understanding of Web technologies such as HTML and client/server, but they are expected to move beyond the boundaries of Web pages to larger management and development issues related to Web-site development. Working closely with others of varying degrees of technical sophistication to develop a


231

full Web site, students get to explore their disposition toward teamwork and collaboration. They are also challenged to learn Web development best practices and apply them to a real-world development project. For graduate students attending the school library media course, they are expected to develop skills related to learning, instructional planning, assessment and evaluation, information literacy, learning in a technological context, reflection, and collaboration. These students typically enroll in this course during the last year of their graduate studies, before they seek employment as SLMS. In this course, they are challenged to enhance the existing K–12 curriculum by applying theories learned from their SLMS course to the real-world practice of a K–12 environment. At the same time, they explore their disposition toward teaching, learning, educational technology, teamwork, collaboration, and critical reflection as they create a standards-based instructional software tool. The learning goals set for K–12 students vary according to the instructional and pedagogical goals of individual teachers, the diverse learning needs of the students, and the academic and instructional priorities of their school administrators. Past projects have included a wide range of topics such as American history, weather, states of matter, oceanography, graphing concepts in mathematics, and journalism.

Instructional Planning In PBL, students engage in ill-structured learning experiences and discover for themselves what needs to be learned in order to address the presented problem successfully. This is a challenge to models of instructional design in which assessment planning precedes instructional planning, since in the PBL context instruction itself is largely dependent upon the learning path selected by students. We contend, however, that the nature of PBL requires the educator to consider what learning goals are essential to a course of study and to plan assessments without the benefit of knowing a priori what instruction will take place. This focuses the educator’s attention on articulating, setting, and measuring important learning outcomes while leaving instructional planning fluid and contingent upon the real-time, authentic learning experiences that unfold for students and educators during the course.

232


Planning courses should involve both formative and summative assessments that are integrated into all facets of the coursework and iteratively reviewed and revised, since learning is not a thing. Learning is a process that occurs in an interpersonal and group context, and it is always composed of an interaction of factors to which we append labels such as motivation, cognition, emotion or affect, and attitude. Neither singly nor in their interactions is the strength of these factors ever zero. (Sarason, 2004, p. vii)

Embedded formative and summative assessment and evaluation strategies are developed to encourage learners at all levels (kindergarten to university) to reflectively gauge personal, group, and project progress and to allow teachers to improve teaching and learning as it occurs, rather than waiting until the project ends, when, as is usual in most educational environments, a test is administered. “Test scores have their uses but knowing scores tells you absolutely nothing directly illuminating of the content and contexts of learning . . . [and] to understand, grasp, or intuit what’s ‘going on’ in the mind of a learner is no easy task” (ibid., p. 37). Typical end-of-course (or end-of-unit) assessments come too late for their results to improve instruction for that particular cohort of learners; and even if assessments are modified for future classes, the learning needs of those later cohorts might be very much different. If we wish to discriminate between productive and unproductive testing practices, we need to think and rethink how we assess students (see Sarason, 2004; Zachos, 2004). Assessment is a critical piece that is factored into the design of all parts of our curricula because thinking about assessment forces us to articulate what it is that we value, how we know that learners have mastered it, and what evidence we accept that learning has indeed occurred. These are difficult but absolutely critical questions, and they need to be at the forefront of all instructional planning efforts if we are to understand how teachers teach and how learners learn.

Assessment as Process Not Product A comprehensive assessment plan includes both formative and summative assessment. Whether an assessment is performed at a time that


233

informs instruction or not determines whether it is formative or summative.

Formative assessment Formative assessments are typically performed at the beginning and throughout the duration of our courses. These assessment instruments provide us with the opportunity to understand what students know at the outset of the course and what they need to know in order to achieve specified learning outcomes (as well as what we, as faculty, need to know in order to achieve our instructional goals). The results from the formative assessments that we administer during the semester help us to provide “just-in-time” learning experiences for the students currently enrolled in our classes. The following were the assessments incorporated into the courses during the spring 2007 semester for the Web development students: 1. Weekly Wiki reflections. Students were asked to reflect on readings, class progress, and course topics each week and to post the reflections onto a Wiki space established for them. In their reflections, they were required to draw connections between the new material being introduced and past experience working with groups, Web technologies, and so on. 2. Weekly self-assessment. Each week, students completed an online self-assessment that required them to consider such issues as progress of project planning and development, interpersonal dynamics, and significant events in the project development process.3 3. Weekly group assessment. One member of each project team also completed a group evaluation each week. This task was rotated among team members to instill the spirit of division of labor and sharing of responsibilities. Self- and peer assessments provide university faculty with a better understanding of the

3

For samples of this and other referenced materials, contact the authors.

234


collaborative dynamics of the groups and an opportunity to intervene or mediate before anxiety and tension escalate (SteflMabry et al., 2008). This aligns with the call for more investment in self- and peer assessment in peer-teaching environments (Parr et al., 2004). 4. Midterm self-assessment. Following the midterm break, students were asked to complete a holistic assessment of their progress with respect to the stated course goals and expectations, and to reflect on their effort and contributions toward making the class a successful learning experience for themselves and for other class members. For the SLMS graduate students, the assessments were as follows: 1. Philosophy of teaching and learning statement. Students were asked to complete a philosophy of teaching and learning statement at the beginning and end of the semester. The purpose was to determine whether students’ philosophical views of teaching and learning changed after participating in a transgenerational PBL experience. 2. Transgenerational research paper. Students were required to complete different sections of a research paper (introduction, literature review, methodology, etc.) throughout the semester. The idea of breaking the paper up into more manageable portions is to reduce anxiety.4 Additionally, it allows the instructor to determine whether students are having difficulty with the PBL project as they progress (e.g., with the design, implementation, assessment, analysis, and interpretive components of the project) and offers the faculty opportunities to redesign and realign instruction to meet learners’ needs as they emerge. 3. Weekly individual and group evaluations. Students completed the same online self- and group assessments as for the Web development group.

For a description of and the requirements for each section of the paper, see http://www. albany.edu/faculty/jstefl/673sprg07/transgenpaper.htm. 4


235

4. Weekly Wiki research contributions. Understanding the contributions of learning, technology, and information theorists was an important aspect of students’ coursework. Students were required to conduct a comprehensive literature review of relevant theorists’ work. Instead of writing standalone research papers, students shared their research findings on a Wiki site. A format for presenting Wiki contributions and a scoring rubric were provided to help students understand the expectations for these postings. 5. Mid-semester self-assessment. The midterm self-assessment provided students with an opportunity to evaluate their performance in the course with regard to the expectations outlined in the course syllabus and schedule. Students were advised to be honest and not to inflate or deflate their performance or contributions since, we stressed, assessment is not the same as grading.

Other formative assessments Classroom assessment is the most common formative assessment technique that we employ. The purpose of this assessment is to improve the quality of student learning; it is never intended to be evaluative or as a means to grade students. Ongoing classroom assessment helps us to improve our instructional design and to select appropriate instructional strategies. As we teach, we ask ourselves what is working, what is not and for whom, and what we can do to improve (and positively impact) student learning. We keep a teaching/impact log and meet each week prior to each class to share our reflections (even if we are only observing). We ask ourselves questions to guide our discussion: Do the students enjoy what they are doing? What types of instructional activities do they seem to dislike? What areas of technical or interpersonal difficulty can we identify? What are the best practices employed by teams that are succeeding? What can we do to involve more of the learning partners in more aspects of the experience? This type of formative assessment data can contribute to a comprehensive assessment plan by enabling us to identify particular points during the semester to assess learning (e.g., at the beginning of a lesson,

236


after introducing a particular section of study, or after adopting specific instructional practices). We strive to avoid blaming students for not wanting to learn, instead asking ourselves what we can do as teachers to engage, to motivate, to encourage, and even to challenge students to want to learn.

Summative assessment Summative assessment is comprehensive in nature, provides for accountability, and is often used to check the level of learning achieved at the end of a program. Program goals and objectives often reflect the cumulative nature of the learning that takes place in a program. Just as a variety of assessment strategies should be used to collect formative assessment data, so summative assessment should involve a variety of methods and measures in order to provide a comprehensive understanding of student performance (Central Michigan University, 2006) and teacher performance (in their instruction). We employ two methods of summative assessment. First, we engage students in a whole-class discussion about the semester, their experience, and what has worked well for them as learners and what has not. This discussion allows students to review the experience while giving instructors insight into potential areas for program improvement. Students often marvel at how much they have accomplished in the course when they are called upon to recount the full experience in one discussion. Second, we host an end-of-term Web learning symposium that is open to the public where teams give short presentations describing the work they have done and offer explanations of the underlying theories and processes involved. The Web sites that they develop are made available for attendees, who include K–12 educators, community leaders, and other interested parties, to try out and provide feedback directly to the project teams. The symposium offers the transgenerational partners (K–12 and university students and teachers) an opportunity to share, discuss, and reflect upon their projects with the greater learning community (the university and the local community). The event highlights how PBL partnerships permit K–12 schools to benefit from research-based best


237

practices while at the same time offering opportunities for university students to engage in real-world professional activities.

Instruction Each of the student groups receives instruction separately from the other groups; for example, the undergraduates meet for the majority of their class time separately from the graduates and the K–12 students. Additionally, each week the undergraduate and graduate students meet together for a portion of their class time to facilitate project planning and development activities. The Web development students receive instruction on Web development issues and tools as well as project management techniques, including Web-site management, image manipulation, sound editing, and other Web-related software applications. Additionally, they learn about interface design best practices, prototyping methods, and development cycles. Much of the class time is spent addressing common development pitfalls and answering student queries about the use of particular tools. The SLMS graduate students receive instruction related to teaching, learning, information literacy, educational technology, reflection, and collaboration. Much of the class time is spent clarifying educational objectives and understanding theories and models and what they mean within the context of practice in the real-world educational setting of each transgenerational group. Students learn to select traditional information resources (books, magazines, newspapers, etc.) as well as nontraditional sources (electronic, DVD, video, pod cast, etc.) for learning based upon the developmental and instructional needs of K–12 students and not just because the technology is available. K–12 students receive instruction from the SLMS graduate students as well as their own teacher and school library media specialist related to the instructional software tool that has been specifically designed with their instructional needs and curriculum in mind. The teachers often instruct alongside the graduate students; at other times, the graduate students alone teach the K–12 students as a class, in small groups, or even one-on-one.

238


Learning Outcomes Each student population has distinct learning goals that can be either intended or unintended outcomes of the program. Unintended does not, however, imply undesirable. When students share what they have learned, often we find that they have discovered some valued outcomes that we had failed to identify explicitly. Those outcomes then become part of the learning goals for future classes. For example, during spring 2007, as part of their journalism Web-site project, high-school juniors came to the university campus to interview undergraduates about their college experience. While we expected the high-school students to be excited about the visit, we had not anticipated how pleased the undergraduates would be to share their impressions of college. We learned that we, as faculty, need to involve learners at all levels more fully in more aspects of the learning experience. With regard to learning outcomes, students taking the undergraduate Web development course demonstrate their understanding of core concepts in Web development: the client–server architecture, the integration of multiple media types, and the interplay of HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. Through the products that they create and demonstrate, students reveal what they have learned about design and Web technologies. Additionally, despite their frustration with not knowing the “right” answer to design questions during the course, students often express an overwhelming sense of pride and ownership in the Web sites that they have created. Having seen their creations being used by K–12 students, they realize the impact of their work and express an interest in the academic future of the K–12 students with whom they work. Many of these undergraduates ask to continue working on their projects over the summer or in later semesters as independent study. In any given semester, 3–6 undergraduates who have previously taken the course continue to refine their past projects and contribute to the current students’ development efforts. Several of the undergraduates have entered the school library graduate program as a result of their collaborative experience with other student groups. The SLMS graduate students demonstrate their understanding of theory, pedagogical practice, instructional design, information literacy,


239

and assessment through the products they create during the semester. For many students, even those with prior educational experience, this is the first time they are asked to think deeply about how their philosophical beliefs about teaching and learning impact their practice. During the semester, they come to understand that what they create is a reflection of their philosophical beliefs about pedagogical practice informed by their level of theoretical knowledge. Many students in this course struggle early in the semester, flustered by not knowing what the end product will look like. For some, this uncertainty provokes anxiety; for others, it is an opportunity to be creative and think outside the box. By the time the projects are deployed in the K–12 learning environment, most of the students understand that the power to teach and assess is within them if they are willing to ask themselves what the learning goals are. They learn that frequent conversation with in-service educators helps them articulate and identify learning goals. Sometimes, even in-service educators profess difficulty in articulating learning goals. These conversations help the SLMS graduates understand that learning is indeed a process and not a product. Even though the SLMS graduates often voice discomfort in not having a precise blueprint to follow when first asked to think about developing instructional software tools, most realize that the PBL experience mirrors their real-life professional responsibilities as SLMS, when they will be called upon to be a collaborator, change agent, and leader and to develop, promote, and implement a program that will help prepare students (and teachers) to be effective users of ideas and information. Finally, K–12 students, in engaging with the project teams, enjoy interacting with the instructional software tools because their instructional needs, and sometimes preferences, have been at the forefront of all content and design decisions. Younger students (K–3) are usually surprised to see images on the Web site that are related to their class and what they have been studying. Older students are usually excited to see their recommendations incorporated into the design and content of the site and are eager to offer more suggestions and share their learning experiences with the project teams. Formative and summative assessment instruments are embedded within both Web-site and class activities to

240


allow SLMS graduate students (and in-service educators) the opportunity to reflect upon student and class progress and to improve teaching and learning as it occurs.

Results of Learning Inert knowledge does little to prepare university students for their professional careers. As Berg (2003) points out, “Students often lack an understanding of connections among concepts and therefore have difficulty in applying knowledge” (p. 88). Instead of teaching theoretical content and technology skills in isolation from the professional arenas in which they will be used, our PBL model provides authentic learning opportunities and promotes the idea of learners as social problem solvers actively engaged in the manipulation of their environment (Dewey, 1929). Our model aligns with Dewey’s (1938) proposal that school should serve as an apprenticeship for civic life and his recommendation that schools develop ordinary life experiences into learning possibilities for learners: “education in order to accomplish its ends both for the individual learner and for society must be based upon experience—which is always the actual life-experience of some individual” (p. 89). Immersing university coursework in the real-world context affords us the opportunity to promote learning in context, the complex professional context that is K–12. “Education through occupations consequently combines within itself more of the factors conducive to learning than any other method” (Dewey, 1916, p. 309), but understanding that learning itself is critical. Taking our cue from Sarason (2004), we seek to continually ask ourselves before, during, and after each class what we mean by learning. Our design methods are consistent with the intentionality in education called for by Johnson. By considering carefully the core learning goals and aligning assessment strategies to identify the attainment of those goals, we have created an iterative instructional design framework that encourages us to be thoughtful practitioners and makes our teaching efforts incrementally more effective. Incorporating improvements into the course design based not only on our own observations


241

but also on feedback from participants at all levels of the partnership, we consistently revisit and focus the curriculum and maintain a student-centered approach to teaching, learning, and instructional design. Our students benefit from the authenticity of the experience, often referencing their creations in their résumés and future work. They gain practical knowledge from developing Web sites for real users and experience the thrill of seeing their work make a difference to the lives of children. Finally, our K–12 partners benefit by engaging with the university environment, exposing students and teachers alike to the possibilities that exist for them within higher education. The K–12 students, although living just miles from the university campus, rarely have the opportunity to visit the campus or experience a college learning environment. Through this experience, they begin to envision themselves as part of a larger learning community and draw connections between their present studies and what they might do in the future.

In Conclusion Our work over the past five years underscores the importance of understanding that PBL is “an approach to education that opposes the dominant culture of teaching and learning in our universities . . . [as] cultural norms are turned upside down and those who choose to do so need a good deal of courage” (Harland, 2003, p. 264). In our PBL environment, the traditional role of the teacher is transformed and “teaching becomes more like research supervision or mentoring” (ibid.). In fact, one project team presented findings from their transgenerational work at the 2007 Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education annual meeting (see Laczack et al., 2007). Another team presented a paper at the ED-MEDIA 2006 conference describing aspects of the PBL experience itself (see Doane et al., 2006). At the time of writing, several groups from the spring 2007 semester were readying their papers for journal submission.

242


There is little doubt that “this change enriched students’ learning and the freedom we gave students to work within this environment sustained new levels of energy, excitement, and commitment” (Harland, 2003, p. 268). It is apt to close this chapter by sharing some of the comments our students offered when asked how the course affected their awareness of and their ability to use good teaching and learning practices: “Before this course I knew nothing at all about learning theories or information seeking theories or educational technology theories . . . watching our collaborating teacher with her class has helped me become aware of good teaching and learning practices . . . I am now able to think about the theories when I am teaching, whereas before I didn’t even know that all of these theories existed.” “This course has made me realize that it isn’t as simple as it looks to teach students. The amount of theory that is involved never really crossed my mind.” “Theory and practice are important subjects in two of my courses right now. It has made me realize that whether teachers know it or not, they are putting theory into practice.” “This course has inspired me to be proud of the strong role a school librarian can play in a school setting. It has also highlighted the needs of certain students and the benefits they can achieve through good teaching practices that allow for interactions and active learning.” “I have gotten to know the students in the elementary class on a personal level to best develop the project in ways that are meaningful and relevant to their everyday lives.” “The course forces you to think about every angle of teaching; and helped me to become more open to all ideas and to accept that you do not have to agree with everything, that it is all a learning process.” “I am much more aware of the need for educational technology to be designed appropriately. Simply having it in the classroom does not mean much if it is not tied to curriculum and designed with developmentally appropriate practices in mind.”


243

Having an explicit model of educational evaluation processes and the resultant products allows us to structure our thinking regarding instructional design decisions and to bring our best intentions to the task. By being intentional, we can engage students and challenge them to be active, productive contributors to the iterative improvement of course designs and to contribute to society, even before completing school.

References Berg, G. A. (2003). The knowledge medium: Designing effective computer-based learning environments. Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing. Bruner, J. (1985). Vygotsky: A historical and conceptual perspective. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspective (pp. 21–34). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Central Michigan University (2006, May 18). Curriculum and assessment. Culture of Learning. Retrieved July 14, 2008, from http://academicaffairs.cmich.edu/ caa.shtml. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: Macmillan. Dewey, J. (1929). The quest for certainty: A study of the relationship of knowledge and action. New York: B. Minton. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan. Doane, W. E. J., Stefl-Mabry, J., Christopher, J., Davis, J., Issacson, J., & Szablicki, H. (2006). An inter-team collaboration model for Web development projects: Observe–Communicate–Assist–Reflect (OCAR). Paper presented at EDMEDIA 2006: World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, Orlando, FL. Harland, T. (2003). Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development and problembased learning: Linking a theoretical concept with practice through action research. Teaching in Higher Education, 8(2), 263–272. Johnson, M. (1977). Intentionality in education. Albany, NY: State University of New York at Albany. Laczack, L., Johnson, A., Bohn, E., & Stefl-Mabry, J. (2007, March 26–30). What happens when you ask students what they want to learn? Putting theory into practice, a pre-service perspective. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education, San Antonio, TX.

244


Nogeura, P. A. (1999). Transforming urban schools through investment in social capital. In Motion Magazine. Retrieved May 29, 2007, from http://www. inmotionmagazine.com/pncap1.html. Parr, G., Wilson, J., Godinho, S., & Longaretti, L. (2004). Improving pre-service teacher learning through peer teaching: Process, people and product. Mentoring and Tutoring, 12(2), 187–203. Sarason, S. (2004). And what do you mean by learning? Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Segers, M., & Dochy, F. (2001). New assessment forms in problem-based learning: The value-added of the students’ perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 26, 327–344. Retrieved January 16, 2005, from http://search.epnet.com. libproxy.albany.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip,url,uid& db=aph&an=5203190. Stefl-Mabry, J., Radlick, M., Doane, W. E. J., & Theroux, P. (2008). Redefining schools as learning organizations: A model for trans-generational teaching and learning. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 19(3). Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner & E. Souberman, Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original works published 1930–1933) Zachos, P. (2004). Discovering the true nature of educational assessment. Research Bulletin of the Research Institute for Waldorf Education, 9(2), 7–12.

Problem-based Learning and Creativity

Creativity

Creativity and Beyond

Creativity

Evaluating Creativity: Making and Learning by Young People

Creativity and the Brain

Science, Order and Creativity

Complexity and Creativity in Organizations

On Creativity

Wisdom, Intelligence, and Creativity Synthesized

Wisdom, intelligence, and creativity synthesized

Models of Discovery and Creativity

The Lab: Creativity and Culture

Artificial Intelligence and Literary Creativity

Creativity in Invention and Design

Digital Creativity

Creativity, Communication and Cultural Value

Artificial Intelligence and Literary Creativity

Models of Discovery and Creativity

Community, Economic Creativity, and Organization

Creativity (Express Exec)

Make and test projects in engineering design: creativity, engagement and learning

Make and Test Projects in Engineering Design: Creativity, Engagement and Learning

Make and Test Projects in Engineering Design: Creativity, Engagement and Learning

Creativity, Psychology And The History Of Science

Locating Cultural Creativity (Anthropology, Culture and Society)

Women's Literary Creativity and the Female Body

The Concise Adair on Creativity and Innovation

New Brainstorming Principles (creativity)

Problem-based Learning and Creativity

Creativity

Creativity and Beyond

Creativity

Evaluating Creativity: Making and Learning by Young People

Creativity and the Brain

Science, Order and Creativity

Complexity and Creativity in Organizations

On Creativity

Wisdom, Intelligence, and Creativity Synthesized

Wisdom, intelligence, and creativity synthesized

Models of Discovery and Creativity

The Lab: Creativity and Culture

Artificial Intelligence and Literary Creativity

Creativity in Invention and Design

Digital Creativity

Creativity, Communication and Cultural Value

Artificial Intelligence and Literary Creativity

Models of Discovery and Creativity

Community, Economic Creativity, and Organization

Creativity (Express Exec)

Make and test projects in engineering design: creativity, engagement and learning

Make and Test Projects in Engineering Design: Creativity, Engagement and Learning

Make and Test Projects in Engineering Design: Creativity, Engagement and Learning

Creativity, Psychology And The History Of Science

Locating Cultural Creativity (Anthropology, Culture and Society)

Women's Literary Creativity and the Female Body

The Concise Adair on Creativity and Innovation

New Brainstorming Principles (creativity)

Recommend Documents