HOW TO DO PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING OFFLINE AND ONLINE

see video as well

When you hear PBL, you probably think of project-based learning. This acronym, however, is also used for a pedagogy called problem-based learning, which emerged in the late 1960s at McMaster University Medical School in Hamilton, Canada. Both PBLs are learning-centred, student directed, inquiry based, experiential, and collaborative. Both involve small groups of students working to address a problem. But the goal and outcome of project-based learning is the creation of a product or artefact. Although one might also be produced in a problem-based activity, as all or part of a resolution to that problem, it is not a requirement. Instead, problem-based learning is more often conceptual and theoretical in nature. It is also less concerned with finding correct solutions to problems and more focused on what can be learned and understood while tackling them.

There are several widely available resources that present rationale for using problem-based learning. I will not repeat their claims. Instead, my intention with this article is to outline how problem-based learning activities are enacted, offline and online. School closures during the pandemic have caused the migration of teaching and learning to online platforms. It seems likely that even when schools reopen fully a blended approach to schooling will persist. And pedagogies that are suitable for both offline and online environments will be invaluable. Problem-based learning is one such pedagogy.

Although the process I outline below is fairly generic and can be easily modified to suit different learning contexts, it was developed for higher education. Modifications for younger students, particularly in regard to supervision, scheduling and expectations, will be required.

Setting up Groups

In my experience, the optimal group size for a PBL activity in higher education is 6-8 students. Fewer than 6 risks placing too much workload burden on each student. More than 8 risks having some students without a defined role or much to contribute. Smaller groups might be better with younger students for whom expectations would be less. Because students are encouraged to bring prior knowledge and experiences to bear in addressing the problem, groups comprised of students with varying backgrounds make collaboration more comprehensive, interesting and engaging.

Crafting Problems

The PBL process is driven by the problems. Problems are the curriculum organizers and how curricular themes are introduced, investigated and learned. Therefore, they are carefully crafted with specific qualities.

Firstly, problems are complex enough to warrant a group effort. Every group member should be engaged in meaningful exploration of relevant themes.

Secondly, problems are ill-structured, flawed, open-ended, and intentionally vague. This is counterintuitive for many educators, who might be more familiar with case studies that are well-drawn, comprehensive, detailed, contextualized, and anecdotal. While case studies are typically meant to be directly instructive, problems become instructive as they are researched and resolved. But do not be fooled into thinking that problems are easier to construct. There is a tricky balance to strike. On the one hand, if they are too vague students might pursue themes that are tangential to the curriculum. On the other hand, if problems are too specific they may elicit an immediate response or promote an obvious, singular solution. This will become clearer when we review the steps below.

Finally, the problems should be authentic, relevant, consequential, meaningful, plausible, and credible, and they should resonate with students’ experiences and interests as much as possible. Student buy-in and engagement are essential for motivating their best efforts, both as a group and as individuals contributing to their group.

Working with Problems

There are 5 steps to addressing the problems:

In the traditional approach, these steps are enacted face-to-face. With video conferencing and document sharing technology, however, they can be done online.

Step 1: Unpack the Problem & Plan

This is where the fun begins. The group reads the problem together and starts to unpack its components, in an open and inclusive brainstorming process that is guided by the following questions:

• What information are we given? What do we know?
• What information is missing? What don’t we know?
• What is the problem we need to address and/or resolve?
• What do we need to find out, in order to fully understand the problem and move forward?
• Who are we in this scenario? What stakeholder role(s) might we play? 
• Do any of us have relevant experience or knowledge?

You will notice that none of these questions ask for recommendations or resolutions. They are not of concern at this point. And if the problem has been well-crafted, recommendations and resolutions will not be forthcoming. Instead, a range of perspectives and ideas should be expressed and recorded. From these, objectives are determined, prioritized and divided among group members. Everyone is given a task to complete, which usually involves research. Timelines are also determined for when the group will reconvene. My course outline provides only the date for a final class presentation (step 4), usually 2-3 weeks later. The group determines its own schedule for steps 2-3. A schedule can be provided for younger students.

For the first problem, step 1 may take more than 1 hour. By the third problem, the group can often complete it in 30 minutes.

Step 2:  Investigate

This is generally an independent activity, although younger students may work in pairs. Each student is responsible to the group for investigating a topic area, as determined in step 1. Depending on the problem and the age of students, this can involve, for example, studying online or hardcopy resources, surveying or interviewing stakeholders, seeking information from experts, and/or observing a particular phenomenon. An informal but comprehensive report is prepared from this investigation, which is shared and discussed with the group in step 3. These reports are graded (see grading below).

This step can usually be completed within 1 week.

Step 3: Share & Resolve

The group reconvenes at their designated time. Students share their investigation report with the group, essentially teaching their peers what they have learned. They may also choose to circulate their written report. The group then discusses how this new knowledge informs the problem or fails to, as is sometimes the case despite best efforts. It is not unusual to have misdirects or to generate more questions than answers.

Once all reports have been discussed, the group revisits the questions in step 1, but with more knowledge and insight. The problem might now be ready to address, or the group may need to identify new objectives and assign new tasks for another round of investigation and sharing (steps 2 and 3). Timelines become tight when further investigation is required. But this is an important part of the process and should be accommodated. 

Because step 3 is collaborative, analytical and the heart of the learning process, it can take up to 2 hours and should not be rushed.

Step 4: Report

Eventually, the group will have exhausted its inquiry or time. A final report is prepared by the group that fully addresses the problem, makes recommendations and/or outlines solutions, and provides supporting and properly cited evidence from their research. These reports are presented to the entire class, followed by an opportunity for questions from classmates. I assign a group grade for the report and presentation (see grading below).

Step 5:  Debrief

In this final step, the group collectively reflects on the efficacy of their process, how they each did with their individual tasks, and what they might change for the next problem. This is also an opportunity to celebrate the completion of the problem. Some groups choose to meet at a coffee shop or a pub. After the debriefing session and based on the discussion, students evaluate themselves and their peers (see grading below).

The Instructor’s Role

You might be wondering what I am doing this whole time, as the course instructor. After crafting the problems, and if I have done a good job at that, I play a supportive role as facilitator, coach, mentor, resource, and guide. I join each group for step 1 of the first 2 problems, to ensure they are off to a good start. I join each group for step 3 of every problem, to observe individual students and the group dynamic. I am particularly on the look-out for students who are struggling with or underperforming in this format, so I can provide individual support. I may also participate, by prompting and guiding the discussion, if required. I attend step 5 by invitation only or if I have concerns regarding the group dynamic. My presence otherwise would undermine the independence of the group and their ability and motivation to resolve problems. Teachers of younger students will likely need to assume a more active and directive role.

And, of course, I am responsible for grading. To be consistent with what and how students are learning, my assessments are built into 3 steps of the PBL process, as identified above. Each problem is graded out of 60 marks:

• 25 marks for the individual report (step 2): My focus is on the comprehensiveness of the investigation and the clarity with which the information is portrayed, given its purpose to inform the problem. I also consider additions, deletions and modifications that are made to these reports, as the group cycles between steps 2 and 3. Although these may result from a lack of thoroughness and effort, initially, they more likely demonstrate continued engagement in the collaborative process.
• 25 marks for the group report (step 4): My focus is on cohesion between the problem, the solutions or recommendations, and the supporting evidence; on the comprehensiveness of the report and presentation; and on evidence of collaboration and inclusiveness among group members.
• 10 marks for peer and self-evaluation (step 5): This mark is focused on effort, engagement and contribution. It reinforces to students that they are accountable to their group for the work they do and that the success of the group depends on each of them. It is also another means of identifying students who are struggling with this format. Following the debriefing session, each student sends me a number between 5 and 10 for each group member, as well as for themselves, with a single statement of justification (e.g. 6 "was late for session 3 with no explanation"; 9 "took the lead and moved us along"; 7 "missed a key point in research"). I average the numbers for each student to generate a mark out of 10.

Concluding Comments

In the spirit of full disclosure, and at the risk of undermining my position, I would like to note 4 challenges with PBL that have kept me up at night:

• Some students struggle with groupwork, particularly those on either extreme of both academic ability and social-emotional maturity.
• Grading involves a high level of subjectivity. Fairness is a constant consideration.
• PBL is time consuming, with a single problem taking 2-3 weeks.
• There is no direct teaching. One must have faith that students are learning the curricular content.

These challenges, particularly if well-managed, are far outweighed by the following benefits:

• PBL helps students build life skills in researching, collaborating, critical thinking, communicating (verbal, written and social), problem solving, organizing, reasoning, and perspective-taking.
• PBL promotes character values of responsibility, cooperation, dependability, trust, trustworthiness, accountability, respect, and fairness.
• PBL works very well online.
• And PBL is fun for students and instructors.

Please share your experiences with problem-based learning, so we might continue to develop this pedagogy as we reimagine schooling, post-pandemic.