The Problem Based Learning Model in Informal Education

Categories:

A Working Relationship with Problem Statements:

How it Works in Real-World Situations

(or Problem Based Learning:

it isn’t just for the Classroom Anymore)

I’m often faced, when teaching about Problem Based Learning, with the typical facilitator dilemma of participants thinking, “Well, I understand the logic, but I can’t see using this in real life…” I contend that, as scientists and science educators, we use PBL all the time. I find that it is when I don’t use the PBL model is when I tend to make mistakes; in my planning, in the questions I ask regarding the problem, in my understanding of the problem, and/or in my understanding of the desired outcomes.

Another stumbling block for students (and scientists) is a belief that the PBL model is linear; one starts at step #1, and continues step by step, in order, through to step #8, at which point—Voila!—you will be done.

But that’s not how science works. Science is an iterative, dynamic, evolving process.

First, let’s review what the steps of the Problem Based Learning Model are:

Problem-Based Learning Model

1. Read and analyze the scenario and situation. Check your understanding of the scenario. Don't be tempted to start thinking about potential solutions or to start looking for information. You will be more effective in addressing complex scenarios by following Steps A through H.

2. List your personal understanding, ideas, or hunches. You will usually have some understanding about the cause of the problem or ideas about how to solve the problem. These need to be listed; they will be supported or refuted as your investigation proceeds. You will also list many alternative conceptions that need to be addressed.

3. List what is known. If needed, print a copy of the scenario and situation and move away from the computer. Make a list of everything you know. You do not need to conduct any research at this point. Just draw from your prior knowledge and the information that is included in the scenario.

4. List what is unknown. Prepare a list of questions that you think need to be answered to solve the problem. Several types of questions may be appropriate. Some may address concepts or principles that need to be learned in order to address the situation. Other questions may be in the form of requests for more information. These questions will guide research that may take place on the Internet/WWW, in the library, or with other sources.

5. List what needs to be done. Plan the investigation. Such actions may include questioning an expert, getting online data, or visiting a library to find answers to the questions developed in Step 4. When working with a team, divide the duties.

6. Develop a problem statement. A problem statement is a one or two sentence idea that clearly identifies what you are trying to solve, produce, respond to, test, or find out. In more complex situations, you may have to begin one step, then consider the emerging information in order to complete the previous step. Keep in mind that the problem statement may have to be revised as new information is discovered and brought to bear on the situation.

7. Gather information. You will gather, organize, analyze, and interpret information from multiple sources. Exchange ideas; think about solutions; weigh alternatives; and consider the pros and cons of potential courses of action. As more information is gathered, the problem statement may be refined or altered. Or, based upon your research data, a recommended solution or opinion may be appropriate.

8. Present findings. Prepare a report or presentation in which you make recommendations, predictions, inferences, or other appropriate resolutions of the problem. Be prepared to support the positions you take. If appropriate, consider a multimedia presentation using images, graphics, or sound.

Note: The steps in this model may have to be completed several times. Steps 3 through 7 may be conducted concurrently as new information becomes available.

Based on that, let’s look at some examples, and see how the PBL model is put into action in our lives as scientists, and science educators.

I. The Scientist in situ (The Lab)

As scientists, we usually start with Step 6, a Problem Statement (PS). This is often the product of something that goes awry or strange in an experiment, or something you read from someone else’s work that rings a bell somewhere in your brain, and the voice inside your head says, “Wow, look at that! That’s unusual; I wonder how that happened?” Presumably, if this was the result of research you conduct in your lab, or from a professional journal article, etc., you would have some inherent knowledge as to the antecedents of the situation – this is the Scenario. You then sit and think about your hunches and ideas about the PS and Scenario (Steps 2 & 3); you wrangle your colleagues and lab fellows to brainstorm on the PS (Step 5); all the while thinking about how you know what you know, and think about what other questions you have, and information you need to gather (Steps 2, 3, 4 & 5).

From there you move to #6 on the PBL model, and come up with a testable hypothesis (Problem Statement #2) which is the basis of the experiment. You then plan the experiment (Steps #5 ) and then perform the experiment (gather information, #7). Then you report the findings (Step 8), realize it presents a whole new batch of problem statements, and you start all over again. But first you have to write the grant and get it funded…

II. The PBL Model for a Review Panel

Here’s where the PBL model came in very handy in a professional environment that, if you stay in informal education long enough, you may very well be involved in (if you haven’t been already). Certainly this applies to looking at existing programming or exhibits, planning for grants, programming, exhibits, events, etc.

I was recently on an NSF funded panel that was tasked with reviewing the education outreach products and performance of a large informal venue. and making recommendations for their upcoming NSF grant submission.

*That was the first Problem Statement*

The intended outcome of this panel was to create a second Problem Statement that would guide and inform the writing of their NSF grant.

For the Scenario, the panel members were given a suite of collateral including hard copies of, and virtual access to, outreach products, the website for the organization, a Director’s report, their mission statement and vision for the future, as well as a copy of a recent outside evaluation. We then started on Step 1 of the PBL model,

1. Read and analyze the scenario and situation.

We went through the material (Scenario), and, keeping in mind that all this was to inform an upcoming NSF grant (PS), we started brainstorming what we knew the organization would need based our prior knowledge of what NSF Broader Impacts criterion required, questioned whether our current knowledge was correct, discussed what we needed to find out, and the questions we had (Steps 2 & 3). We then did some research, had a conference with the NSF program officer, and occasionally came back to the scenario and PS for guidance and to keep us on track for our goal (Steps 4 &5).

With the new information we had, we came up with a list of tasks and divided the work amongst the group (Step 5). We gave ourselves 2 weeks to research, write and report back to the group with our initial findings and recommendations. At the end of those two weeks, we each submitted what was, essentially, our own piece of a prototype Problem Statement for the organization (Step 7 & 8) – but it wasn’t finished yet. As each of our parts was revealed to the panel, more questions arose and the need for more information was apparent. We continued to brainstorm about the scenario (back to Steps 2 & 3), asked for outside assistance from an expert on the societal aspects of informal education particular to that organization (Step 5). We gave the expert one week to review the document we had organized to that point, as well as the initial problem statement and scenario. He then returned his input (Step 8), and we again reviewed, brainstormed, and discussed all the final recommendations, i.e., the final problem statement (Steps 3 & 4). The panel reviewed the prototype document for another two weeks, and then submitted any final edits and corrections.

This final document was a problem statement that, over 10 pages, went something like, “X Organization has done much successful outreach to the public; they’ve done this and this and this, and has an excellent history of this and that. However, if funding is to be successfully obtained from NSF’s ‘X’ program, the Review Panel recommends that the following considerations be addressed….”

The document we submitted becomes the Problem Statement for the Organization, thus initiating the Problem Based Learning Model for them.

By starting with a problem, logically reviewing our prior knowledge and sources, thinking about what we need to find out, doing some research, asking more questions, etc. we find ourselves moving back and forth around the PBL model – and that’s a good thing! This is the iterative process of science. Most experiments only lead to more experiments, thankfully. And we often spend hours/days/weeks/months going back and forth from Steps 2, 3, and 4, to Steps 6, 7 & 8, only to go back to Steps 3 & 4 &5, and so on.

It’s the questioning of our knowledge and the resources of how we know what we know that is most important in informing the questions we ask, the information we gather, and the problem statement we design.

CSBuckler, 2009