What I learned was a lot more than how to be a base group supervisor, by Shadi Jafari

When I began my occupation at Linköping University, I frequently encountered discussions about problem-based learning (PBL). Despite the abundance of information surrounding PBL, I lacked both a comprehensive understanding and practical experience with it. Even my colleagues’ explanations, though insightful in outlining the purpose of PBL, did not equip me adequately for the role of a PBL group tutor. However, being assigned to be a PBL tutor provided the necessary motivation to enroll in a PBL course, a decision that I am now exceedingly content with.

I consider myself fortunate to have started my tutoring journey with a PBL group while simultaneously undertaking the course. This arrangement afforded me the unique opportunity to put the knowledge I acquired into immediate practice. I also came up with numerous ideas on how to effectively manage the group for optimal outcomes. Furthermore, my experience has inspired me to apply the insights gained from the course to enhance my lectures and laboratory sessions, ensuring that my students derive maximum benefit from my classes.

PBL stands apart from conventional teaching methods by placing a significant portion of the learning responsibility squarely on the student’s shoulders. To support students in this endeavor, base group meetings play a pivotal role. Each base group comprises a few students and serves as a forum where students collaboratively tackle problems through various scenarios. Subsequently, they embark on individual journeys to seek the knowledge needed to address these problems, drawing from resources outside their base groups. In the subsequent base group session, participants engage in discussions and reflective exercises centered around their newfound knowledge. Based on my observations, this arrangement results in a unique sense of accomplishment and satisfaction in students, very similar to the feeling one has after solving a complicated math problem.

The role of the supervisor within the core group is diverse. Their primary goal is to foster learning, as opposed to conventional teaching methods (Nielsen & Danielsen, 2010). What I’ve learned from this course is that as an educator, my role extends beyond mere facilitation. Students may select their subjects for various reasons, not all of which stem from a pure love of learning and improvement in that particular field. This is when my role as a teacher becomes even more crucial. I must utilize every available method to instill a sense of curiosity and motivation in my students, inspiring them to explore and actively pursue knowledge. It’s at this point that I can consider myself successful as an educator or supervisor.

Another tutor’s role within the core groups is to provide support in the learning process, as outlined by Barrows in 1988. The tutor’s responsibility is to maintain the group’s focus on their tasks, thus assisting them in achieving their learning objectives. Moreover, the supervisor should engage the students on a metacognitive level, encouraging them to reflect on their own learning experiences and fostering a critical approach to knowledge acquisition, allowing them to build their own understanding.

Barrows emphasizes the significance of creating an open and positive learning environment within the core group. It is essential for students to feel comfortable admitting when they don’t understand something and be capable of providing constructive feedback to one another. Barrows describes three phases in the tutorial process. In the initial phase, known as modeling, the supervisor often prompts metacognitive thinking in students to encourage reflection on their learning and problem-solving methods.

As the students become more self-sufficient but still require some guidance to ensure the process runs smoothly, they transition into the coaching phase, which is the second phase. During this phase, the supervisor may need to step in and challenge students to promote progress, ultimately leading to the third phase known as fading. In the fading phase, the group can autonomously navigate the processes, and the supervisor takes on a less active role.

It is crucial for a supervisor to recognize that each core group is unique. What was effective in one core group may not necessarily apply to the next. Additionally, supervisors should regularly assess the phase their core group is currently in and tailor their approach accordingly.

It is imperative that the supervisor provides support to students to ignite their motivation for learning. This can be achieved, for instance, by offering positive feedback when students excel in their tasks. By instilling motivation in students, you can contribute to enhancing their critical thinking skills and fostering a more profound learning experience. It’s crucial to perceive the group as a cohesive unit rather than as individual students. Through the supervisor’s approach, the group can also view the base group as a mutually beneficial arrangement; it’s essential for both giving and receiving within the group. The group should evolve collectively, and it’s essential to remember that the supervisor’s role is not that of a lecturer.

Azer (2005) appears to emphasize the importance of establishing a harmonious group dynamic within base groups. Individuals within the group come from diverse backgrounds and have varying life situations. However, the learning process should be conducted professionally. Therefore, it’s crucial to establish a shared consensus on various ground rules so that everyone understands the expectations. This forms a solid foundation for an effective group. Azer believes that it is important as a supervisor to instill trust, give feedback, support discussions, asks open-ended questions when the students do not progress and encourages the group to have a secretary who writes down what the group arrives at when working on the problem.

Furthermore, being able to analyze the group’s dynamics is essential, recognizing that it comprises diverse individuals who share a common goal—learning. As a supervisor, fostering an open and inclusive atmosphere within the group is crucial to motivating and facilitating deep learning in students. High motivation often leads to deeper learning, and it’s the supervisor’s responsibility to inspire students. Motivation, according to Biggs and Tang (2011), can be categorized into four main types: extrinsic, performance, intrinsic, and social. Understanding these motivation types is crucial because students with different motivations may be present in each base group.

Given the presence of diverse individuals with varying levels of motivation within each base group, the role of the supervisor can be challenging. How should one consider the individual while prioritizing the group’s learning objectives? As a prospective supervisor, addressing varying levels of motivation among base group members is a key concern. The PBL tutoring course has equipped me with pedagogical tools to navigate these complex scenarios. Through role-playing, I’ve gained insights into the responsibilities of a PBL tutor. I know that I won’t start as the perfect supervisor, as excellence takes time and effort. What I can commit to is having the motivation to continually improve as a supervisor for my base group and, occasionally, I may need to gently guide my group, recognizing that strength lies in unity.  I think as long as the base group maintains its motivation and achieves effective learning, I will consider my role a success.

 

References:

 

Nielsen, Jørgen & Danielsen, Oluf. (2010). Problem-oriented project studies : the role of the teacher as supervising / facilitating the study group in its learning processes. 10.1007/978-1-4614-0496-5_15.

Barrows, HS (1988). The tutorial process. Springfield: Southern Illinois University, School of Medicine.

Azer Samy A. (2005). Challenges facing PBL tutors: 12 tips for successful group facilitation, Medical Teacher, vol 27, No 8.

Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for Quality Learning at University, Fourth Edition. Maidenhead, United Kingdom: Open University Press.Jones, B. D. (2009). Motivating Students to Engage in Learning: The MUSIC Model of Academic Motivation. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 272-285.

 

Problem based Learning: Theoretical foundation and evaluation of PBL as a pedagogical method – Shumaila Sayyab

Problem-Based Learning (PBL) is a dynamic and innovative pedagogical approach that has gained popularity and is implemented in several disciplines worldwide, particularly in the fields of medicine and healthcare. PBL represents a shift from traditional lecture-based instruction to a student-centered, problem-driven model. This approach is grounded in several theoretical foundations that emphasize active learning, constructivism, and self-directed exploration.

Theoretical Foundations of PBL

Central to the PBL philosophy is the constructivist theory of learning, in which the learners actively build knowledge through their experiences and interactions with the environment. In PBL, knowledge is not simply transmitted from teacher to student but constructed by the learners themselves.1 PBL addresses cognitive load theory, which suggests that learning is most effective when the cognitive load imposed by instructional materials matches the cognitive capacity of the learner. PBL’s focus on solving complex, real-world problems aligns with this principle by providing learners with authentic, context-rich tasks that engage their cognitive abilities. PBL incorporates social and psychological constructivist principles, emphasizing social interaction and collaboration among students. Learning in small groups fosters discussion, debate, and the co-construction of knowledge. This collaborative aspect is informed by socio-constructivist theories of learning.2

The PBL architecture

The PBL architecture typically involves shifts in three levels of curriculum.3

  1. Content coverage to problem engagement
  2. From lecturers to coaches in tutor role
  • From passive learner to problem solvers in student’s role

PBL begins with the presentation of a complex, open-ended problem or scenario or vignette. This problem serves as the focal point of the learning experience, motivating students to explore and understand the underlying concepts and principles required to solve it. The problem is carefully designed to be thought-provoking and relevant to real-world situations.

Instead of traditional lecturers, PBL tutors act as facilitators or coaches. They provide support, pose probing questions, and help students navigate their learning journey. The tutors ensure that discussions stay focused on the problem and guide students towards relevant resources.

In PBL, the students take on an active role in their education. They are responsible for identifying the key questions related to the problem, determining the knowledge and resources needed to address these questions, and independently acquiring this knowledge. This self-directed approach enhances students’ autonomy and problem-solving skills.3 This allows the students to take the role of active problem solvers rather than passive learners waiting to be spoon-fed.

Often, PBL is conducted in small groups, encouraging collaboration, communication, and peer learning. Within these groups, students share their perspectives, insights, and research findings, fostering a rich exchange of ideas and diverse viewpoints.

This educational approach challenges the learners to build on their prior knowledge and connect it with the existing concepts in solving the problem. The students’ progress is continuously assessed through their reflections on the scenario/vignette, which allow the tutor to identify the gaps in their understanding and refine their problem-solving strategies. PBL encourages experiential learning, where students actively engage with problems, reflect on their experiences, and refine their understanding through iterative cycles of problem-solving.4

PBL methodology evaluation

When thinking about implementing PBL methodology in our teaching context, Marincovich beautifully explains and reminds us that the PBL image of classroom is different where PBL is student centered, with the tutor role as guiding rather than directive and it is process oriented which is different from the traditional classroom with the students sitting in rows, in front of a teacher lecturing them.5 Research on the effectiveness of PBL methodology has yielded mixed findings, with studies showcasing both its strengths and limitations. PBL offers several advantages as a pedagogical method:

  1. Enhanced Critical Thinking: PBL compels students to think critically and analytically as they tackle real-world problems. This fosters a deeper understanding of the subject matter and promotes higher-order thinking skills.
  2. Motivation and Engagement: The problem-solving nature of PBL often leads to increased motivation and engagement among students. Learners are more invested in their education when they can see the direct relevance of what they are learning.
  • Long-Term Knowledge Retention: PBL emphasizes understanding over rote memorization, leading to better long-term knowledge retention. Concepts learned in the context of solving a problem tend to stick with students.
  1. Collaboration and Communication Skills: Working in small groups fosters collaboration and communication skills, which are essential in professional and real-world settings.

On the other hand, despite its merits, PBL is not without challenges and criticisms. Kirschner et al. argued that PBL may overload working memory, hindering the transfer of knowledge to long-term memory.6 In another study, authors have raised concerns about the inconsistency in PBL implementation and the need for faculty development.7 Some of the challenges of PBL include:

  1. Resource Intensiveness: It can be resource-intensive, requiring well-designed problems, trained tutors, and adequate time for group discussions. This may limit its scalability in resource-constrained environments.
  2. Variable Implementation: The implementation of PBL can vary widely, making it challenging to standardize and assess its effectiveness. Variations in facilitation styles, problem quality, and student readiness can impact outcomes.
  • Assessment Challenges: Assessing student performance in PBL can be complex. Traditional assessment methods may not align well with the process-oriented, problem-solving nature of PBL.

In conclusion, PBL is a pedagogical method that holds promise in fostering critical thinking, motivation, and collaborative skills among students. This innovative approach equips students with not only subject-specific knowledge but also valuable problem-solving skills and the ability to apply their learning in real-world contexts. However, it is not a one-size-fits-all approach, and its effectiveness depends on various factors, including the quality of problem design, tutors’ expertise, and institutional support.

 

REFERENCES

  1. Sandra Kemp, Constructivism and problem-based learning, Learning Academy
  2. Phillips, D. C. (1997). How, why, what, when and where: perspectives on constructivism in psychology and education. Issues in Education, 3(2), 151-194.
  3. Tan, O. S. (2000). Reflecting on innovating the academic architecture for the 21st century. Educational Developments, 1 (3). UK: SEDA
  4. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Prentice-Hall.
  5. Marincovich, M. (2000). Problems and Promises in Problem-Based Learning. in O.S. Tan, P. Little, S.Y. Hee, and J. Conway, (Eds). Problem-Based Learning: Educational Innovation Across Disciplines. Singapore: Temasek Centre for Problem-based Learning.
  6. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
  7. Vernon, D. T., & Blake, R. L. (1993). Does problem-based learning work? A meta-analysis of evaluative research. Academic Medicine, 68(7), 550-563.