Advertisement

Learning Theories and Problem-Based Learning

  • Cindy E. Hmelo-Silver
  • Catherine Eberbach
Chapter
Part of the Innovation and Change in Professional Education book series (ICPE, volume 8)

Abstract

In this chapter, we describe different theoretical perspectives – information processing, social constructivism, and sociocultural perspectives – that underlie and provide a useful lens for exploring learning in problem-based contexts. First, an examination of information processing focuses on the role and structure of prior knowledge, with a special emphasis on how expert knowledge activates certain productive problem-solving strategies that can be adapted for learning general problem-solving strategies. Second, an exploration of social constructivism focuses on the development of knowledge as people engage in institutional, interpersonal, and discursive processes in which learners construct their own knowledge through social interactions. Finally, we explore the relationship between sociocultural theory and problem-based learning to understand how cultural tools are used and transformed in specific contexts to facilitate co-construction of knowledge for future independent problem solving.

Keywords

Knowledge Construction Cognitive Apprenticeship Sociocultural Theory Information Processing Theory Psychological Tool 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Adams, L., Kasserman, J., Yearwood, A., Perfetto, G., Bransford, J., & Franks, J. (1988). The effect of fact versus problem oriented acquisition. Memory & Cognition, 16, 167–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, J. R. (1982). The acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89, 369–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barron, B. J. S. (2003). When smart groups fail. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 307–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrows, H. S. (2000). Problem-based learning applied to medical education. Springfield, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Barrows, H. S., & Kelson, A. C. (1995). Problem-based learning in secondary education and the problem-based learning institute (Monograph No. 1). Springfield, IL: Problem-Based Learning Institute.Google Scholar
  6. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1989). Intentional learning as a goal of instruction. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 361–392). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. Blumenfeld, P. C., Kempler, T. M., & Krajcik, J. S. (2006). Motivation and cognitive engagement in learning environments. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 475–488). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Soloway, E., & Krajcik, J. S. (1996). Learning with peers: From small group cooperation to collaborative communities. Educational Researcher, 25(8), 37–40.Google Scholar
  9. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. (2000). How people learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  10. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 141–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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 (pp. 188–228). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1997). The Jasper project: Lessons in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  15. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1–35.Google Scholar
  16. Collins, A. (2006). Cognitive apprenticeship. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 47–60). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. 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.Google Scholar
  18. Davis, E. A., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scaffolding students’ knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 819–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Derry, S. J., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Nagarajan, A., Chernobilsky, E., & Beitzel, B. (2006). Cognitive transfer revisited: Can we exploit new media to solve old problems on a large scale? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35, 145–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL (pp. 61–91). Heerlen, Netherlands: Open Universitat Nederland.Google Scholar
  21. Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grade K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  22. Engeström, Y. (1993). A developmental study of work as a test bench of activity theory: The case of primary care medical practice. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 64–103). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1996). The expert learner: Strategic, self-regulated, and reflective. Instructional Science, 26, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gallagher, S. A., Stepien, W. J., & Rosenthal, H. (1992). The effects of problem-based learning on problem-solving. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 195–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Golan, R., Kyza, E. A., Reiser, B. J., & Edelson, D. C. (2002, April). Scaffolding the task of analyzing animal behavior with the Animal Landlord software. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  26. Greeno, J. G. (2006). Learning in activity. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 79–96). New York: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  27. Greeno, J. G., Collins, A., & Resnick, L. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15–46). New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  28. Herrenkohl, L. R., & Guerra, M. R. (1998). Participant structures, scientific discourse, and student engagement in fourth grade. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 431–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hmelo, C. E. (1998). Problem-based learning: Effects on the early acquisition of cognitive skill in medicine. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 173–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hmelo, C. E., Holton, D., & Kolodner, J. L. (2000). Designing to learn about complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 247–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hmelo, C. E., & Lin, X. (2000). Becoming self-directed learners: Strategy development in problem-based learning. In D. Evensen & C. E. Hmelo (Eds.), Problem-based learning: A research perspective on learning interactions (pp. 227–250). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  32. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2000). Knowledge recycling: Crisscrossing the landscape of educational psychology in a problem-based learning course for preservice teachers. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 11, 41–56.Google Scholar
  33. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16, 235–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2006). Design principles for scaffolding technology-based inquiry. In A. M. O’Donnell, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, & G. Erkens (Eds.), Collaborative reasoning, learning and technology (pp. 147–170). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  35. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Barrows, H. S. (2006). Goals and strategies of a problem-based learning facilitator. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1, 21–39.Google Scholar
  36. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Barrows, H. S. (2008). Facilitating collaborative knowledge building. Cognition and Instruction, 26, 48–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Chernobilsky, E., & DaCosta, M. C. (2004). Psychological tools in problem-based learning. In O. Tan (Ed.), Enhancing thinking through problem-based learning approaches: International perspectives (pp. 17–37). Singapore: Thomson Learning.Google Scholar
  38. Kapur, M., & Kinzer, C. K. (2007). Examining the effect of problem type in a synchronous computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55, 439–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. King, A. (1999). Discourse patterns for mediating peer learning. In A. M. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 87–117). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  40. Kolodner, J. L. (1993). Case-based reasoning. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  41. Kolodner, J. L., Hmelo, C. E., & Narayanan, N. H. (1996). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning. In D. C. Edelson & E. A. Domeshek (Eds.), Proceedings of ICLS 96 (pp. 188–195). Charlottesville, VA: AACE.Google Scholar
  42. Koschmann, T. D., Myers, A. C., Feltovich, P. J., & Barrows, H. S. (1994). Using technology to assist in realizing effective learning and instruction: A principled approach to the use of computers in collaborative learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 225–262.Google Scholar
  43. Kozulin, A. (1998). Psychological tools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Lajoie, S. P., Lavigne, N. C., Guerrera, C., & Munsie, S. D. (2001). Constructing knowledge in the context of Bio World. Instructional Science, 29, 155–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lampert, M. (2001). Teaching problems and the problems of teaching. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Boston: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  47. Lu, J., Lajoie, S. P., & Wiseman, J. (2010). Scaffolding problem-based learning with CSCL tools. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 5, 283–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Novick, L. R. (1988). Analogical transfer, problem similarity, and expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 510–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Novick, L. R., & Holyoak, K. J. (1991). Mathematical problem solving by analogy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 17, 398–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. O’Donnell, A. M. (1999). Structuring dyadic interaction through scripted cooperation. In A. M. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 179–196). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  51. Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 345–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Palincsar, A. S., & Herrenkohl, L. R. (1999). Designing collaborative contexts: Lessons from three research programs. In A. M. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 151–178). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  53. Pea, R. D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon & D. Perkins (Eds.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 47–87). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Perfetto, G. A., Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. J. (1983). Constraints on access in a problem-solving context. Memory & Cognition, 11, 24–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Puntambekar, S., & Hubscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Puntambekar, S., & Kolodner, J. (1998). Distributed scaffolding: Helping students learn in a learning by design environment. Paper presented at the proceedings of the third International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS '98), Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
  57. Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., et al. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 337–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking. New York: Oxford.Google Scholar
  59. Roth, W. M. (1998). Inscriptions: Toward a theory of representing as social practice. Review of Educational Research, 68, 35–60.Google Scholar
  60. Salomon, G. (1993). No distribution without individual cognition: A dynamic interactional view. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions (pp. 111–138). New York: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  61. Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1989). Rocky roads to transfer: Rethinking mechanisms of a neglected phenomenon. Educational Psychologist, 24, 113–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schmidt, H. G. (1993). Foundations of problem-based learning: Some explanatory notes. Medical Education, 27, 422–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Schmidt, H. G., DeGrave, W. S., DeVolder, M. L., Moust, J. H. C., & Patel, V. L. (1989). Explanatory models in the processing of science text: The role of prior knowledge activation through small group discussion. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 610–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Orlando, FL: Academic.Google Scholar
  65. Suthers, D., & Hundhausen, C. (2001). Learning by constructing collaborative representations: An empirical comparison of three alternatives. In P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings, & K. Hakkarainen (Eds.), Proceedings of the first European conference on computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 577–584). Netherlands. Universiteit Maastricht.Google Scholar
  66. Torp, L., & Sage, S. (2002). Problems as possibilities. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.Google Scholar
  67. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Vye, N. J., Goldman, S. R., Voss, J. F., Hmelo, C., & Williams, S. (1997). Complex math problem-solving by individuals and dyads: When and why are two heads better than one? Cognition and Instruction, 15, 435–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Walker, A. E., & Leary, H. (2009). A problem based learning meta analysis: Differences across problem types, implementation types, disciplines, and assessment levels. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 3, 12–43.Google Scholar
  71. Ward, J. P. T., Gordon, J., Field, M. J., & Lehmann, H. P. (2001). Communication and information technology in medical education. Lancet, 357, 792–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system. Systems Thinker.Google Scholar
  73. Yew, E. H. J., & Schmidt, H. G. (2009). Evidence for constructive, self-regulatory and collaborative processes in problem-based learning. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 14, 251–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Zimmerman, B. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41, 64–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cindy E. Hmelo-Silver
    • 1
  • Catherine Eberbach
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Educational PsychologyRutgers UniversityNew BrunswickUSA
  2. 2.Rutgers UniversityNew BrunswickUSA

Personalised recommendations