Abstract
This chapter examines the relationship between problems and learning in a problem-based learning (PBL) environment using the context of a case study of a polytechnic in Singapore. The authors detail how curriculum is problematised (into different types of problems) around a set of desired educational outcomes and explicate how problems are used for the purpose of triggering interest and engagement, as well as promoting deep understanding, guiding classroom facilitation and informing student assessment in the learning process. Empirical evidence of the effectiveness of problems in learning in three disciplines is shared, with suggestions of how the use of problems in learning can be supported by academic policies and professional development for academic staff. An overarching theme of the chapter focuses on how PBL is a method for learning that facilitates deep learning and develops life skills such as collaboration, sense-making and problem-solving capabilities for the work place.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Allen, D. E., Duch, B. J., & Groh, S. E. (2001). Faculty development workshops: A ‘challenge’ of problem-based learning? In P. Schwartz, S. Mennin, & G. Webb (Eds.), Problem-based learning: Case studies, experience and practice (pp. 104–110). London: Kogan Page.
Alwis, W. A. M., & O’Grady, G. (2002). One day, one problem: PBL at the Republic Polytechnic. Paper presented at the 4th Asia-Pacific conference on PBL, Thailand.
Barrows, H. S. (1992). The tutorial process. Springfield: Southern Illinois University School of Medicine.
Barrows, H. S., & Tamblyn, R. M. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to medical education. New York: Springer Pub. Co.
Billett, S. (2002). Towards a workplace pedagogy: Guidance, participation and engagement’. Adult Education Quarterly, 53(1), 27–44.
Bligh, D. A. (2002). What’s the point in discussion? Exeter/Portland: Intellect.
Blue, A. (2001). Into the lion’s den. In P. Schwartz, S. Mennin, & G. Webb (Eds.), Problem-based learning: Case studies, experience and practice (pp. 27–33). London: Kogan Page.
Boud, D. (1985). Problem-based learning in education for the professions. Paper presented at the HERSDA, Sydney.
Brockbank, A., & McGill, I. (1998). Facilitating reflective learning in higher education. Buckingham/Philadelphia: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Chan, L. M. (2008). Polytechnic education. In S.-K. Lee, C. B. Goh, B. Fredrikson, & J. P. Tan (Eds.), Toward a better future: Education and training for economic development in Singapore since 1965 (pp. 135–148). Washington, DC/Singapore: World Bank; National Institute of Education.
de Graaff, E., & Kolmos, A. (Eds.). (2007). Management of change: Implementation of problem-based and project-based learning in engineering. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Dolmans, D. H. J. M., & Snellen-Balendong, H. (2000). Problem construction: problem-based medical education: Maastricht University, Department of Educational Development and Research.
Dolmans, D. H. J. M., Snellen-Balendong, H., Wolfhagen, I. H. A. P., & Van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (1997). Seven principles of effective case design for a problem-based curriculum. Medical Teacher, 19, 185–189.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston: Row.
Field, J. (2006). Lifelong learning and the new educational order (2nd rev. ed.). Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham.
Goh, K. (2011). From industry practitioner to educator: factors supporting the professionalisation of polytechnic educators. Unpublished master’s thesis, Institute of Education, University of London, London.
Harvey, M., & Norman, L. (2007). Beyond competencies: What higher education assessment could offer the workplace and the practitioner-researcher. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 12(3), 331–342.
Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.
Hoyle, E., & Wallace, M. (2005). Educational leadership: Ambiguity, professionals and managerialism. London: Sage.
Joint-Polytechnic GES Committee. (2011). Press release for ‘Graduate Employment Survey’ 2011. Retrieved 07/01/2013, from http://www.polyges.sg/pastresults.html
Khoo, H. E. (2003). Implementation of problem-based learning in Asian medical schools and students’ perceptions of their experience. Medical Education, 37(5), 401–409.
Kolmos, A. (2002). Facilitating change to a problem-based model. The International Journal for Academic Development, 7(1), 63–74.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Le Vasan, M., Venkatachary, R., & Freebody, P. (2006). Can collaboration and self direction be learned? A procedural framework for problem-based learning. Planning & Changing, 37(1/2), 24–36.
Lee, M. G. C., & Tan, O. S. (2004). Collaboration, dialogue, and critical openness through PBL. In O. S. Tan (Ed.), Enhancing thinking through problem-based learning approaches: International perspectives. Singapore: Thomson Learning.
Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Little, S. (1991). Preparing tertiary teachers for problem based learning. In D. Boud & G. Feletti (Eds.), The challenge of problem based learning (p. 118). New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Low, L., Heng, T. M., & Wong, S. T. (1991). Economics of education and manpower development: Issues and politics in Singapore. Singapore/London: McGraw-Hill.
Miflin, B., & Price, D. (2001). Why does the department have professors if they don’t teach? In P. Schwartz, S. Mennin, & G. Webb (Eds.), Problem-based learning: Case studies, experience and practice (pp. 98–103). London: Kogan Page.
Moust, J., Bouhujis, P., & Schmidt, H. G. (2007). Problem-based learning: A student guide. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.
O’Grady, G., Yew, E., Goh, K., & Schmidt, H. (Eds.). (2012). One-day, one-problem: An approach to problem-based learning. Singapore: Springer.
Prideaux, D., Gannon, B., Farmer, E., Runciman, S., & Rolfe, I. (2001). Come and see the real thing. In P. Schwartz, S. Mennin, & G. Webb (Eds.), Problem-based learning: Case studies, experience and practice (pp. 13–19). London: Kogan Page.
Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education (2nd ed.). London/New York: Routledge.
Rotgans, J. I., & Schmidt, H.G. (2011a). The role of teachers in facilitating situational interest in an active-learning classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 27(1), 37–42.
Rotgans, J. I., & Schmidt, H. G. (2011b). Situational interest and academic achievement in the active-learning classroom. Learning and Instruction, 21(1), 58–67.
Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1998). Problem-based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. In R. Fogarty (Ed.), Problem-based learning: A collection of articles. Arlington Heights: Sky Light Training and Pub.
Savin-Baden, M. (2000). Problem-based learning in higher education: Untold stories. Buckingham/Keynes: Society for Research into Higher Education/Open University Press.
Savin-Baden, M. (2003). Facilitating problem-based learning: Illuminating perspectives. Maidenhead: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Savin-Baden, M., & Major, C. H. (2004). Foundations of problem-based learning. Maidenhead: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Schmidt, H. G. (1983). Problem-based learning: Rationale and description. Medical Education, 17, 11–16.
Schmidt, H. G. (1993). Foundations of problem-based learning: Some explanatory notes. Medical Education, 27(5), 422–432.
Schmidt, H. G., & Moust, J. (2000a). Factors affecting small-group tutorial learning: A review of the research. In D. H. Evensen & C. E. Hmelo-Silver (Eds.), Problem-based learning: A research perspective on learning interactions (pp. 19–52). Mahwah: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Schmidt, H. G., & Moust, J. (2000b). Towards a taxonomy of problems used in problem-based learning curricula. Journal of Excellence in College Teaching, 11(1), 57–72.
Schor, N. F. (2001). No money where your mouth is. In P. Schwartz, S. Mennin, & G. Webb (Eds.), Problem-based learning: Case studies, experience and practice (pp. 20–26). London: Kogan Page.
Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2001). Situational interest: A review of the literature and directions for future research. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 23–52.
Schwartz, P., Mennin, S., & Webb, G. (2001). Problem-based learning: Case studies, experience and practice. London: Kogan Page.
Sockalingam, N., & Schmidt, H. G. (2010). Characteristics of problems for problem-based learning: The students’ perspective. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 5(1), 6–33.
Taylor, D. (2001). The students did that? In P. Schwartz, S. Mennin, & G. Webb (Eds.), Problem-based learning: Case studies, experience and practice (pp. 111–116). London: Kogan Page.
TODAYonline. (2010). Polytechnic education increasingly relevant. TODAY online Retrieved November 30, 2010, from http://imcms2.mediacorp.sg/CMSFileserver/documents/006/PDF/20101009/0910HPW008.pdf
Toh, K. (2012, May 16). Govt to keep investing in polytechnics. The Straits Times, B4.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1996). Introduction: Aspects of constructivism. In C. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice (pp. 3–7). New York: Teachers College Press.
Woods, D. R. (1994). Problem-based learning: Helping your students gain the most from PBL. Waterdown: D.R. Woods.
Yew, E., & Schmidt, H. G. (2012). What students learn in problem-based learning: A process analysis. Instructional Science, 40(2), 371–395.
Yip, S. K. J., Eng, S. P., & Yap, Y. C. J. (1997). 25 years of educational reform. In E. T. J. Tan, S. Gopinathan, & W. K. Ho (Eds.), Education in Singapore: A book of readings (pp. 3–32). Singapore/London: Prentice Hall.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to the following certified specialist problem crafters for their contributions of the three problem samples featured in this chapter: Genevieve Lin (School of Applied Science), Soh Lai Seng (School of Engineering) and Tan Kok Cheng (School of Infocomm).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendices
Appendix A: PBL Framework for Students
This table outlines the baseline PBL framework for students at Republic Polytechnic. There are slight variations to the structure depending on the nature of the module or discipline – for instance, lessons may be conducted in laboratories or studios, and skills development may be infused at various stages of the day – however, the key learning principles of student-centred learning and holistic assessment are adhered to.
Learning Phase | Learning outcomes and actions |
|---|---|
Phase 1 (guided by PBL facilitator) | Exploration of problem: Students are presented with the problem trigger for the module. They activate their prior knowledge and raise learning issues to organise and scope the problem |
Study period (independent work) | Research and discussion: Students carry out further research and examine resources and other forms of scaffolding to address learning issues and generate possible hypotheses |
Phase 2 (guided by PBL facilitator) | Strategy-formulation and meta-cognitive processing: Students share their initial findings, ideas and learning obstacles and devise strategies to help them work more effectively on the problem |
Study period (independent work) | Consolidation of ideas/argument: Students agree on a problem approach in their groups and consolidate their findings, arguments and rationale into a suitable presentation format |
Phase 3 (guided by PBL facilitator) | Presentation of solutions/defence and critique of argument: Students present their group responses and have the opportunity to respond to questions and comments from their facilitator and peers. The facilitator presents a closing review |
Assessment (formative and summative) | Reflection journal, self and peer evaluation: Students complete their individual and peer assessment and review their understanding of the day’s content through a quiz. The facilitator makes a judgment about each student’s quality of learning, provides individual and group feedback and assigns an individual grade based on three dimensions of learning observed throughout the day: attainment of knowledge and skills, engagement with knowledge and skills and engagement in collaborative learning |
Appendix B: Student Feedback Survey – Module Section
-
Part 1 . The module rating section of the student feedback survey is designed along a 5-point scale, anchored at 1, strongly disagree, and 5, strongly agree. It provides an indicator of students’ overall perception of the module in terms of its value to their learning as well as the quality of the problem and learning tasks and learning resources. It is obtained from the average score of the following survey items:
Constructs
Items in survey
Perceived value of learning
1. The module’s objectives were clear to me
2. The topics of this module seemed useful for my future professional practice
3. The topics we addressed in this module were interesting
4. In general, I enjoyed the module
5. I have learnt many useful things in this module
Perceived quality of curriculum: problem quality
6. The problem triggers/learning tasks given to us were clear to me
7. The problems/learning tasks sufficiently triggered thinking and/or discussion
8. We were generally able to figure out what we could do next from the problem triggers/learning tasks presented to us
9. The problems/learning tasks stimulated me to find out more on my own
10. I had difficulties relating the problems/learning tasks to what I already know
Perceived quality of curriculum: quality of learning resources
11. The learning resources helped me to tackle the problems/learning tasks
12. The learning resources (e.g. reading materials, software, equipment, apparatus) that I required for the problem/learning tasks were available adequately
13. The learning resources were too difficult to understand, apply or operate
14. The student presentations/demonstrations and 6th P for the day/learning block helped me better understand the relevant concepts/skills
-
Part 2. Open-ended questions
-
What did you enjoy most about the module?
-
In what ways can the module be improved?
-
-
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Goh, K., Chan, V., Lee, M., O’Grady, G. (2015). Using Problems to Learn in a Polytechnic Context. In: Cho, Y., Caleon, I., Kapur, M. (eds) Authentic Problem Solving and Learning in the 21st Century. Education Innovation Series. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-521-1_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-521-1_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-287-520-4
Online ISBN: 978-981-287-521-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)